Kerry Bartlett (Macquarie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like most members, I receive periodic correspondence on issues relating to the environment, greenhouse gases, global warming and so on. I share these concerns because, like everyone here, I am worried about the future of our children and our grandchildren. However, while most of the letters I receive are genuine and well meaning, I have to say that some reflect a community misunderstanding of the government’s position on this and reflect a myth that is deliberately perpetrated by the other side, aided and abetted by the media.

There are three myths that I want to address. The first myth is that somehow the government is a late starter, only half-hearted in its approach, on greenhouse gas emissions. That could not be further from the truth. I remind the House that in 1998 the government established the Australian Greenhouse Office to investigate initiatives and implement policies that would reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This was in 1998, when the opposition was not even talking about climate change or greenhouse issues. Since then we have committed or spent some $3.4 billion in a range of policies to reduce emissions. These policies include $500 million in the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, substantially leveraged by investment from the private sector to implement very productive, innovative approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have also provided $100 million in the Renewable Energy Development Initiative; $75 million for the solar plant in Mildura, which will probably be the biggest solar energy generating plant in the world; importantly, $200 million for the Australia-China Joint Coordination Group on Clean Coal Technology, recognising that we need to get on board with massive users of energy such as China and India to develop clean technologies to reduce their emissions; and $200 million for the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate, recognising that deforestation around the world is one of the biggest contributors to global warming and that we need to do our part to help those countries that are involved in rampant vandalism by deforestation.

There are a whole range of recent initiatives, including, in this year’s budget, a doubling of the residential solar panel rebates to up to $8,000 and, just in the last few weeks, the $1,000 solar hot water system rebate. There are many more that I could mention. The first myth is that somehow we have not been doing anything. We have been doing far more than the opposition has even thought of doing.

The second myth is that somehow Kyoto is the magic answer. It is not the magic answer. In fact, sadly, in many cases, Kyoto is a feelgood excuse for countries to do nothing. If you look at the record, that is clearly the case. Many countries signed Kyoto, patted themselves on the back and said: ‘Aren’t we great? We’ve done our bit,’ then put in place very few practical policies to do any good. A range of countries have exceeded their targets: Japan is 20 per cent over its target; Spain is 22 per cent over its target; Canada is 30 per cent over its target; and Denmark is 34 per cent over its target. On the other hand, Australia, which is criticised by those opposite, is one of only four OECD countries to be on track to meet its Kyoto target. Kyoto is not the silver bullet or the magic answer, and unless those other big emitters like China and India are included it will achieve nothing. It is not what you say; it is what you do that matters.

The third myth that we hear so often is that somehow the Labor Party’s approach is better. This fanciful notion that it will achieve a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 sounds good but is totally unsubstantiated. It is like the example of: pick a number out of the air, double it, take away the number you first thought of and—hey presto!—there is the magic target. This is what Labor is doing, with no idea how to achieve it, no technical analysis of how it would be done, no idea of the technology involved and, just as badly, absolutely no idea of the cost, what loss it would mean in incomes and living standards, and how many hundreds of thousands of Australian jobs would be lost.

This government is committed to doing its part. We have already demonstrated this. We will keep doing it. However, we will do it in a way that does not cost Australian jobs but delivers on our responsibility. We will continue to work with other countries that are the big emitters but in a way that protects Australian jobs and living standards. We will do it in a sensible and balanced way. It is a case of substance, not the spin that we hear from the other side—a case of practical policies, not pie-in-the-sky promises that are unachievable and undeliverable.