Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

asked the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, in writing, on 8 February 2011:

(1) Can he confirm that at the Kyoto climate change conference on 11 December 1997, and with the full support of the Federal Cabinet and Coalition parties, the (then) Prime Minister and Minister for the Environment negotiated and formed ‘The Australian Clause’ of the Kyoto Protocol (Article 3.7), allowing Annex I parties to include greenhouse gas emissions from land use change in 1990-base year calculations.

(2) Can he confirm the accuracy of Mr Clive Hamilton’s statement in his speech The Political Economy of Climate Change (The Milthorpe Lecture, Macquarie University, Sydney, 8 June 2006): ‘The Government knew that land clearing had declined sharply since the accepted base year of 1990, so even before the ink was dry, Australia’s emissions had fallen by 5 to 10 percent…’.

(3) Is it a fact that after the Kyoto climate change conference the (then) Government paid the Queensland and NSW governments in excess of $100 million to introduce more restrictive native vegetation laws which limited property rights on approximately 100 million hectares of privately owned farming land; if so, is it a fact that to date no monetary compensation has been made to these land owners; if so, what responsibility does the Government take for the diminished income of affected landholders.

(4) Is it a fact that since the Kyoto climate change conference, Article 3.7 has resulted in a reduction of carbon dioxide emissions equivalent to 87.5 million tonnes between 1990 and 2003; if so, does Government data support that this has enabled Australia to make significant gains towards meeting its Kyoto Protocol target of limiting greenhouse gas emissions to 108 per cent of 1990 emissions.

(5) Can he confirm that the United Nations Association of Australia commented on Australia’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol in 2007 by saying: ‘the real challenge of reducing GHG emissions is from electricity generation and transport which have yet to be addressed.’; if so, is it an accurate statement.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

(1) Former Government Ministers are on public record as having supported inclusion in Article 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol a provision allowing reductions in land use change emissions to count towards achieving Kyoto emissions targets.

Cabinet documents are confidential to the government that created them and it is a long standing convention, accepted by successive governments, that Ministers do not seek access to documents recording the deliberations of Ministers in previous governments. Therefore I cannot comment on whether there was Cabinet support for Article 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol and clearly I am not able to comment on whether there was Coalition party support for the clause.

(2) At the time of the Kyoto Conference in 1997, Australia possessed only rudimentary capability to produce national estimates of land use change emissions and their trends over time. Since then, Australia has invested in a new National Carbon Accounting System which is world-leading in its technical capabilities and which has the ability to construct historic trends in emissions. Our data and reporting is reviewed and verified by the United Nations and independent experts.

(3) The Commonwealth has not made payments to the states and territories for restrictions on native vegetation management. Under the Australian Constitution, state and territory governments are responsible for land management, including the introduction and implementation of legislation and regulations and any compensation arrangements associated with implementation.

(4) Article 3.7 refers to those parties for whom land-use change and forestry constitutes a net source of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990. It requires that they shall include in their 1990 emissions base year or period, the aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by sources minus removals by sinks in 1990 from land-use change.

According to the most up-to-date published data in the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory, land-use change emissions amounted to 130.8 million tonnes in 1990 and 49.7 million tonnes in 2008. Abatement of emissions from reduced deforestation, combined with emissions abatement measures in other sectors like energy, industry, waste and forestry, make a significant contribution to Australia being on track to meet its 108 per cent Kyoto target.

(5) I cannot confirm whether the United Nations Association of Australia made the particular statement attributed to them.

It is correct that electricity generation and transport are two of the major sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia.

The Government believes putting a price on carbon is the most effective way of tackling climate change and beginning to drive the transformation of our economy to a low pollution future. It has recently established a Multi-Party Climate Change Committee to investigate options for implementing a carbon price and to help build consensus on how Australia will tackle climate change.

In the case of both electricity generation and transport the Government recognises that other measures that complement a price on carbon are also necessary and it has put in place, or committed to, a number of such measures. For electricity generation these include the Renewable Energy Target, the Clean Energy Initiative (which supports the research, development and demonstration of low-emission energy technologies, including industrial scale carbon capture and storage and solar energy), and emissions standards for electricity generators. In the transport sector the Government has committed to introduce emission standards for light vehicles.