Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, I did. I move:

That the Senate take note of the minister’s failure to provide either an answer or an explanation.

We have seen over the last few weeks a very intense debate generated by the Prime Minister about nuclear energy, but my questions go to the minister’s actions with regard to greenhouse emissions. I would have thought that this was a very topical issue at this point in time. To be precise, I asked the minister the following:

(1)           What environmental taxes on cars, petrol, wood and other products have recently been imposed by China.

(2)           Were these environmental taxes negotiated as part of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate; if not, how do they relate to the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

(3)           To what extent is China using market-based mechanisms to address greenhouse abatement and/or avoidance.

(4)           To what extent is each of the other parties to the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, including Australia, using market-based mechanisms to address greenhouse abatement and/or avoidance.

(5)           To what extent is China using the expansion of nuclear power to address greenhouse abatement and/or avoidance by 2020.

(6)           Does, or will, nuclear power expansion form part of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate; if so, can details be provided.

(7)           Is it still the case that Australia’s greenhouse emissions are expected to increase by more than 20 per cent above 1990 levels by 2020; if not, what is the anticipated increase.

(8)           How does Australia’s increase above 1990 levels by 2020 compare with each of the other countries in the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

There were several other questions along those lines but, of course, we have not heard very much about the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate in recent weeks. The debate has been totally overtaken by questions about whether Australia will move to a nuclear power future and whether we will enrich uranium in this country, ignoring totally what measures would be adopted in order for Australia to reach that massive reduction of 60 per cent on our 1990 greenhouse emission levels.

I also asked the minister a related question, following his answer to another question, which stated:

The Vision Statement for the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate explicitly includes wind power as one of the areas for collaboration by partner countries. However, no decisions have yet been made on specific implementation measures or arrangements. These issues will be discussed at the initial ministerial meeting of partner countries, which will be held in Australia in November 2005.

My questions were about that meeting. I asked:

What were the results of that meeting of partner countries with regard to renewable energy.

What we do know is that the minister has stopped two wind farms. He said today that he has given the okay to one, but two have been stopped—one in his home state, at Denmark, which I happen to know was three small turbines which were set up by a community group there. He stopped that development on the spurious grounds that it did not have community support. It was put up by the community itself as part of remote area renewable power generation, which was negotiated some time ago with the Democrats. I also wanted to know:

Have the industry development mechanisms to accelerate the generation of wind power, as proposed by the Global Wind Energy Council, been agreed to; if not, why.

We have heard nothing about that. The minister tells us all about water labelling, which again is a Democrat initiative, but we hear very little when it comes to the formal procedures which should lock Australia into heading towards these massive reductions in greenhouse energy. I asked:

Have Australia’s commitments to renewables been affected by the decision to invoke the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) on the Bald Hills Wind Farm: if so, how.

We have heard nothing more about that, after an initial flurry in the papers. I also asked:

Can details be provided on progress with the states and territories through the Ministerial Council on Energy to reduce regulatory and technical impediments to renewable energy uptake, with a particular focus on wind energy.

The minister is so keen on wind, why have we not had answers to those questions? Why do we not have any discussion along these lines? I asked:

(a) What share of the renewable energy market does the Government consider will be captured by Australia’s renewable energy industry in: (i) 2010, (ii) 2015, and (iii) 2020; (b) what would this mean in terms of investment and export income and jobs in Australia; and (c) if no projection has been made, why not.

It is my understanding that no projection has been made. Maybe I should not have even bothered asking that question because it is very unlikely that the minister is at all interested in the wind power sector. He is much more interested, apparently, in taking Australia down the nuclear path. I asked:

What is the current estimate of greenhouse emission abatement and/or avoidance for each of the following Federal Government programs and by when will this be achieved:

(a)           $14 million Wind Energy Forecasting Capability;

(b)           $20 million Advanced Electricity Storage Technologies Program; and

(c)           $100 million Renewable Energy Development Initiative.

These are all reasonable questions. We get the usual diatribe from this minister but we never get any details on how the government programs are going that are supposed to be taking Australia in the right direction with regard to greenhouse and renewable energy. No, we do not hear anything of that sort, which is why we have to put questions like this on notice. The fact that it has taken eight weeks and still there is no sign of an answer to any of those questions suggests to me that this minister has no interest in the subject. The fact that he was not even here, knowing that I was going to ask this question, that he did not even bother to turn up, suggests there is an arrogant disregard for the parliament and its right to know when government money is being expended, what it is being expended on and how successful that is.

I think the government’s performance on this issue is really disappointing. Taking Australia down a path of a debate about nuclear energy is a diversion from all of those questions that I have asked and more that I have not read out. It is avoiding those critical debates about how Australia reaches a situation where it can reduce its greenhouse emissions by 60 per cent. The minister says this is necessary, the Prime Minister says it is necessary and even the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources now says that it is necessary. That is a really good step in the right direction. But, so far, all this government has done with that information, with that acknowledgment, is say, ‘Let us have a debate about nuclear.’

Let us go back to those questions of how we achieve this aim. It is not just a question of coal or nuclear; there is a range of other issues that need to be taken into account and a lot of other sources of energy supply that should be considered. My questions go to the core of this issue. I urge the minister not only to get those answers back to my office as soon as he can but also to answer them with some honesty, which we have not seen much of in this place, and as if they are serious questions—because they are; they are about the future of this country. I ask that they be treated with some seriousness because this minister is supposed to be about looking after the environment and heritage, and the environment is very much tied up with the amount of greenhouse emissions this country emits.