Senate debates

Tuesday, 6 February 2007

Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers

Climate Change

3:28 pm

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Allison today relating to carbon emissions.

This week we finally saw the Prime Minister being pushed into thinking about an emissions trading system. There was an extraordinary admission on his part that his thinking so far, which has relied solely on nuclear and so-called clean coal provisions to bring down our emissions sometime well into the future, has failed. Finally, the Stern report, Al Gore’s film and the IPCC’s report a couple of days ago have meant that the government has been exposed for its pathetic achievements on greenhouse reduction. In answer to my question today the minister said that Australia was more on track than other countries. We are not on track. I would say that you are either on track or not on track, and we are certainly not in that category. We certainly have a more generous target than other countries and we have failed.

This government talks about the need for school reports to be based on an A to F approach, to give a very clear indication of the achievements of the child in question. This government would only attract an F, at best, for its performance on greenhouse so far. Before asking this question, I referred to the Australian Greenhouse Office, the authority within government on this matter. It put out a report, in December last year, tracking the Kyoto target. The report said that, with current policies, greenhouse emissions are set to reach more than 127 per cent of 1990 levels by the year 2020. Despite that, members of the government—Senator Abetz, the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources—have said, even in the last few days, that Australia is on target. Clearly, it is not; it is a long way from being on target, and I have said this in this place before.

The figures show that from 1990 to 2004 we had a massive increase in emissions, particularly in energy—a 34.7 per cent increase in emissions in the energy sector. We had a 43 per cent increase in stationary energy and power generation, a 23.4 per cent increase in transport, a further 18 per cent in industrial processes and 2.2 per cent in agriculture—a massive increase of greenhouse emissions across the board. That tells us this government’s policies are just not working. But Senator Abetz said this government believes in practical solutions. Well, precisely! ‘Practical solutions’ means a level playing field and a price signal, and that can only mean at some stage working with emissions trading and some sort of carbon levy.

We would like to see immediate action because, over the next three years, Australia is going to have to cut 18 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in order to meet that target. We cannot say we are on track unless we have a plan for that massive reduction—and we do not have a plan. The Prime Minister was talking yesterday or today about this carbon trading system being voluntary. Why would it be voluntary? Why would any business that is generating emissions give up on those emissions voluntarily—free of cost, if you like—and give the advantage to their competitors? It is just a basic business principle that you need a level playing field. Rules—mandatory arrangements—need to be in place so that business can have certainty in the future and we can create that level playing field. I would not have thought it necessary for me to remind this government about that.

We constantly hear about the need for a level playing field, but not, it seems, when it comes to greenhouse emissions. There is no point in saying that, in 10 or 15 years time, we might have nuclear reactors—we might not, too. Anyway, 10 or 15 years is far too long; the problem will be well and truly upon us before that time. The task is immediate. Sure, we need practical action—we need it now—but not the kind of practical action we hear about from this government. Voluntary arrangements have not worked. The figures are there for all to see. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Comments

No comments