Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Likewise, having found the same shortage of information, I ask the minister: who did the assessment on the Tasmanian forests? Are forward assessments not thought sensible in view of the fact that something like 20,000 hectares of native forest will be cut down and large parts of those burnt in the coming 12 months? What is the minister’s knowledge on the tonnage of greenhouse gases coming out of the destruction of native forests in Tasmania for the current 12 months—or the current financial year, if he does not know the answer for the calendar year? I do not think he will have either of those figures, and he should have. The question is: which independent assessor is providing the information upon which the minister relies?

Secondly, the minister mentioned families and their security—and that terminology is the Howard government’s mantra. I mentioned that, by not bringing in a polluter-pays principle, $1.6 billion per annum was being put on the sideboard for Australia’s children to pay. The government are not even assessing it. The minister does not know the cost of exudates from these power stations. He does not have any idea of the economic ramifications of it. But he is very happy to leave that to our children to pay. I agree with Senator Milne that something is lacking in ethics and morality here. It is easy to talk about the security of families and children, but they have a right to inherit from us a proper assessment of the damage done by the actions of this government and, in that particular case, the coal industry.

Finally, the minister has talked about the number of assessments the government is doing. We know that the first thing the Prime Minister wanted was an assessment of the nuclear option—because his imagination did not go to the more obvious and readily available options. Could the minister advise the committee whether he has put a request to the Prime Minister, through cabinet, to do an assessment of the energy efficiency potential in Australia—the jobs that would be created and the cost benefit to the domestic retail, industrial and agricultural sectors? That would free up huge amounts of electrical energy that could be used by new customers. It is the cheapest way of doing it—looked at one way, it is neutral; if you look at it another way, it is positive—and it is a great creator of jobs. What is the assessment on that—and who is doing it? Has the minister asked for that assessment to be done by an independent authority? We should not just take the information that is available in the marketplace—like the Prime Minister did for nuclear energy—but look for an independent and authoritative assessment of energy efficiency.

Then, of course, there is alternative energy. Senator Milne has been pointing to the tragic loss of fantastic solar and other technologies to overseas—because the Howard government has failed to get behind it. I wonder if the minister has put a recommendation to cabinet for an independent assessment of the alternative renewable energy sector. What jobs would be created? What is the potential export income? What are the environmental advantages over coal, including less-clean coal—or so-called clean coal, which is a misnomer? What are the advantages even if, in decades down the line, there turned out to be potential for sequestration—not for current power stations but for some of the newly ordered power stations? That would be way after Sir Nicholas Stern’s time line for action. This action needs to be taken now, not in some future halcyon age when there will be answers which would allow this government and its allies to continue to burn coal at the expanded rate that is currently projected.