Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol Ratification) Bill 2007 has previously been presented in the House—most recently, almost a year ago to the day, by the member for Grayndler. It comes on a day when a statement released by university economists on climate change, signed by some 75 professors and 271 university economists, says:

The Kyoto Protocol represents the first step towards a major international effort to deal with climate change in the long term. The refusal by Australia and the United States to ratify the Kyoto Protocol is undermining global efforts to tackle climate change.

The government has in the past not allowed this bill to be debated, notwithstanding that the Kyoto protocol represents the single most significant international instrument concerning dangerous climate change and that, to date, some 173 countries have ratified the protocol. I urge the government to consider this bill. Let us hear the arguments against ratification. Let the Australian public know exactly why the government refuses to contemplate Kyoto.

Since this private member’s bill was introduced last time, the arguments for ratification have grown stronger not only because more nations have ratified or because the discussions about the next phase of Kyoto have intensified and Australia cannot be a party to the important discussions but also because the trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and in Australia continues to rise. The impacts of climate change are better understood, and for Australia the prospects are dire: drier and hotter summers in the southern and south-western parts of Australia; sea level rises affecting south-east Queensland and Tasmania; salt water incursion into Kakadu; and a range of hazardous and damaging climate change induced impacts across our tourism, agricultural and regional economies.

The prospects of up to a quarter of a million climate change refugees worldwide, with wide-ranging effects from the Amazon to the Arctic, make clear the need for concerted international action and cooperation on climate change, of which Kyoto in this phase and post-2012 in the next phase is absolutely central. If passed, this bill requires the Australian government, first, to ratify the protocol within 60 days of commencement of the act and, second, to ensure that Australia meets its greenhouse gas emission targets set out in the protocol. Third, the minister for environment and heritage is required to develop a national climate change action plan setting out a national strategy for meeting our greenhouse emissions targets. Fourth, the minister must establish an annual greenhouse gas inventory and publish the results. Fifth, the minister must additionally develop a framework for participation in the international trading of carbon. This would include emissions trading but also clean development mechanism projects in developing countries. It would ensure that Australia and Australian companies are eligible to directly participate in joint implementation projects under the protocol.

Given that the government assures us that Australia is on track to meet our emissions targets, there is no plausible reason for Australia not to ratify the Kyoto protocol today. Participation in other discussions and regional agreements is not inconsistent with ratification of Kyoto but, by remaining outside the protocol, Australia does not have a direct place at the negotiating table for the future of the protocol and neither do Australian companies have direct access to the trading schemes that are part of Kyoto. This is an extraordinary situation, all because of the ideological blinkers of the Howard government. I urge the government to take them off. There has never been any convincing argument offered by this government that Australia will suffer from ratification and the claim that Australia of itself can initiate a new Kyoto is fanciful. That task is being undertaken by nations like Japan and Germany, who are parties to the protocol, as are China, India and members of AP6 other than the US.

It is possible to play a constructive role in a number of discussions and agreements in relation to climate change but, by signalling an intention to sign Kyoto, getting a good deal and then subsequently taking a constructive stance on the protocol, Australia’s reputation and businesses have been damaged. Companies like Global Renewables have taken their business offshore. Ratification of Kyoto would signal to the world that Australia is serious about addressing climate change. It is not the whole answer to addressing this critical issue but it is central to global deliberations on future action to address dangerous climate change. As long as this government maintains an illogical prejudice against the Kyoto protocol, we are lessening our efforts on climate change and reducing our capacity to influence others to that end.

I note that Sir Nicolas Stern has said that Australia is ‘seriously damaging’ international efforts to fight global warming. He said: ‘Look at Australia. It won’t sign the Australia protocol.’ I commend this bill to House. (Time expired)

Bill read a first time.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.