Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I join this debate to bring some realism to the issues and comments that are before us. The motion refers to ‘the continued scepticism of the Prime Minister over the link between human activity and climate change’. That is simply not correct. The Prime Minister has quite clearly stated that he believes there is a connection between climate change and emissions. He is, quite clearly, a climate change realist.

The motion goes on to suggest that ‘the Howard government has dragged the chain on climate change for more than 10 years’. All of the speakers from the other side, particularly the Democrats and the Greens, conveniently overlook that it was former senator Robert Hill, when he was environment minister, who initiated the first greenhouse office anywhere in the world. That happened not long after this government took office. The previous government had no interest whatsoever in climate change issues, but our government, in one of its first initiatives, set up the Greenhouse Office within the department of the environment. We have been conscious of the issue and we have been working for the environment and against greenhouse gas emissions and climate change ever since that time.

It is easy for the Greens and the Democrats in particular to criticise the government and take a very anti-Australian view on all of these things. They conveniently forget these initiatives that were world class and world first. So rather than having dragged the chain on climate change, our government has been at the forefront of activity to prevent climate change for more than 10 years.

The motion goes on to note ‘the environmental and economic cost of past inaction and any future delays in tackling this challenge’. I guess we all understand the environmental and economic costs of climate change. But to suggest that that is caused by past inaction or will be the result of any future delays is simply not a fact. The motion goes on to call upon the government to recognise the link between human activity and climate change and to join in the efforts of the international community by ratifying the Kyoto protocol. As I have said many a time—and as any serious commentator would understand—signing a bit of paper, no matter whether it is called the Kyoto protocol or anything else, will not make one iota of difference to the rate of climate change or to greenhouse gas emissions. Observing the decisions that were taken in Kyoto as to the greenhouse gas emissions will make a difference.

Australia is one of the very few nations to have met the targets set in Kyoto at that time. I well remember that former senator Robert Hill, who attended that meeting in Kyoto, argued long and hard about what should be done. He also argued long and hard to protect Australia’s interests in allowing Australia to have a target of 108 per cent of 1990 levels, and that was agreed to by the world community. We have almost achieved that. In fact, we were achieving it until recently. Now it has blown out a little, and I will come back to that later. But we are one of the very few nations that has achieved those targets set in Kyoto. Other nations have not. But do you hear Senator Allison, Senator Milne, Senator McLucas or Senator Wong criticising those other nations? Do you hear any praise or congratulations for the great work that our country has done to be one of the few in the world that has actually achieved the targets set at Kyoto?

I wonder where these people are coming from. They get up here and continually bag and criticise Australia when Australia has done more towards meeting Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions targets than almost any other country in the world. And we have done that in a careful and economically sensible way. Did you, Mr Acting Deputy President Forshaw, and your colleagues in the Labor Party hear Senator Milne, and I thought I heard some on the Labor Party side, saying, ‘Hear, hear!’—saying, ‘What’s a few coalminers; what do we care about them?’ Goodness gracious me! Senator Allison should leave the leafy suburbs of Melbourne and get up into North Queensland and just see what a contribution coalminers do make to Australia’s economy. Those coalminers allow Senator Allison to live the lifestyle that she and all other Melburnians live because of the wealth that they bring to this country.

I am appalled at the Labor Party and their mates in the CFMEU for their muted response to actions that are urged by Mr Rudd, and certainly by the Greens and the Democrats, that would destroy the jobs of all those miners in the area where I come from. I have to say quite frankly that we have never been able to politically get the view across to all of those miners in Collinsville, Moranbah and the Bowen Basin and out in Mount Isa about just what an impact it would have on their jobs if the Labor Party proposals were to proceed. Regrettably, they all earn more than we in this parliament earn—not that that is a great benchmark by which to set any standard. But they earn considerably more than we do, and they deserve it.

If the proposals put forward by the Labor Party’s mates, the Greens and the Democrats were to go ahead, those miners would be looking for other jobs. All of their investments and all of their mortgages would be challenged and in real danger, yet you have senators in this chamber like Senator Allison saying, ‘What’s a few coalminers up in the north?’ I would hope that the CFMEU might take a bit more interest in the welfare of their miners. Sure, we have to address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and this government is doing it. But we are doing it in a way that protects the jobs of those miners and that protects the lifestyle and the economy of all Australians.

Speakers in this debate have continually criticised Australia—and never mind about the Australian government; we expect that in a political sense—when Australia is one of the best countries in the world when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. Do you hear any recognition of that from Senator Milne, any conception that Australia has almost done it? Nobody else has, but Australia has. One of the speakers—I think it was Senator Milne—had the hide to talk about the UK and the European Union. As I recall, she said that the European Union was about to take action against Australia because of our carbon emissions. What an absolute joke! The European Union and the United Kingdom get a very substantial part of their power from nuclear power, which does not emit carbon in the way that fossil fuels do.

So you can have these holier than thou European Union countries saying, ‘We don’t have great emission increases’—although their increases are greater than Australia’s, I might add—and doing that on the back of a very substantial nuclear power industry. But if you ask Senator Milne, Senator Allison or most of the Labor Party—and I emphasise ‘most of’ because there are a few sensible people in the Labor Party—‘What about nuclear power; wouldn’t that help to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions?’ for some, I would suggest, ideological reason that does not meet with favour. I was interested to hear Senator Milne lauding wind power. As I recall, it was not all that long ago that Senator Bob Brown used to come into this chamber and rail against wind power, rail against the big windmills on the horizon as being visual pollution or some other such rubbish. There has been so much hypocrisy about this particular situation.

I am pleased that Senator McLucas acknowledged that, with regard to the cyclones we have in North Queensland, she did not particularly relate them to climate change. But let me say to Senator McLucas that cyclones, roofs lifting off houses, flooding, inundation and severe damage from cyclones have been a part of the North Queensland landscape ever since I have been on this earth and I am sure for a long time before that. We will continue to get cyclones. To suggest that cyclones are a result of climate change avoids the fact that they have been with us ever since I can remember and, as I said, I am sure for a great deal of time before that.

I do say in passing—and I try to hide my glee in saying this; I do not want to insult all of my colleagues in the south—that we have had magnificent rainfall in the last few weeks. In fact, I have been cut off, in my home town of Ayr, from my office in Townsville. The road has been broken in five places. That is because we have returned to what we used to call normal monsoon seasons. Someone was telling me that it has really been 18 years since we have had these monsoon seasons.

I am delighted to see this sort of weather back in North Queensland. Sure, there is a bit of inconvenience. There will be a lot of damage to the roads. There will be some other economic disadvantages. But the benefit of these monsoons in the north is a return to the old days. I cannot work out whether climate change is part of it. It seems to me that if that is climate change—going back to what we used to get 18 years ago—that is fine by me. I do not pretend to make a scientific observation about that; I simply say that we have had good rains in the north this month and last month, like we used to in times gone by. As a result of that, of course, the North Queensland farmers—the graziers out west and the prawn farmers—are going to have some of the best years they have seen in recent times.

It seems to me that Senator Milne and Senator Allison totally oppose nuclear power and will not even look at it—and most of the Labor Party are in the same position—yet they then laud the European Union and the United Kingdom for their approach to climate change, without acknowledging that most of their power comes from nuclear power plants. I would like to ask Senator Allison or Senator Milne—actually, I think it was Senator Allison—just where the United Kingdom does get its power from. She said to me that only 17 per cent was nuclear. I think it is a bit higher than that. If she is right, where does the rest come from? I have not seen too many wind farms around the United Kingdom. I have not seen a lot of solar energy places. Is it oil or coal? Where does the rest of the power for the United Kingdom come from, if it does not emit greenhouse gases to the extent that causes the problems that have been mentioned?

We have always scoffed at the idea that, by signing a bit of paper called the Kyoto protocol, you can advance the cause of resisting climate change. But what we do say and acknowledge is that the world has to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. That is why Australia has taken a leading role in getting the big emitters—the United States, China, India and other countries that are not currently constrained by any targets—to come on board and do something serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Australia I think deserves credit for this. Did I hear any of that from any of the speakers opposite? It is just this continual nitpicking against Australia.

The figures are around and if I can put my hand on them I will quote them, but, as I recall them, under the Kyoto protocol, greenhouse gas emissions are still expected to increase by 40 per cent on 1990 levels by 2012 compared with an increase of 41 per cent if the Kyoto protocol had not been signed. What a great initiative that has been for the world! Here we have senators opposite telling us that we have to sign the Kyoto protocol as if it is the saviour of all mankind. The actual facts of the matter are that, under the Kyoto protocol, greenhouse gas emissions are still expected to increase by 40 per cent on 1990 levels by 2012 compared with an increase of 41 per cent if the Kyoto protocol had not been signed.

Only about one-third of the global emissions of greenhouse gas are covered by countries that have taken on commitments under the Kyoto protocol. I repeat: Australia has not signed or ratified the Kyoto protocol, but we are one of the few countries that has abided by and met the targets set by Kyoto. This almost fanatical honouring of the Kyoto protocol by the mover of this motion and the Greens and Democrats senators is nothing short of humbug and hypocrisy. These people who promote the Kyoto protocol should get real, see what the real problems are and do what Australia is doing—get the big emitters such as the United States, China and India involved in some sort of arrangement where we can stop the emissions of greenhouse gas.

We are not opposed to a carbon trading regime, providing it is a regime that everyone in the world is involved in—which means that all of those who then become involved in it are treated fairly. That is what we have always said; that is what we believe is the case. That way, we will protect the jobs of coalminers because they will be working on an even playing field—on the same level as every other coalminer everywhere else in the world—and our manufacturing and export industries will be competing on a level playing field. But if you sign a document like Kyoto, when a lot of our major competitors in so many ways are not signing it, all you are doing is selling Australia down the drain. You are having very little impact on the total emissions of greenhouse gases and you are causing disruption to Australia and its workers.

Senator McLucas spoke, appropriately, on the Great Barrier Reef and said that this is one of Australia’s finest assets. There is no doubt about that; that is why the Howard government has contributed so much to its safety—most recently, by the closure of more than one-third of the reef to commercial fishing. That is just one example of the many initiatives taken by the Howard government to protect the Great Barrier Reef. We have set up the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. We have contributed enormous amounts of money to science; we have contributed enormous amounts of money to various agencies whose duty it is to look after the Great Barrier Reef—and rightly so. Senator McLucas also mentioned the wet tropics areas. Again, the Howard government has recognised these as natural assets of this country and has contributed money to ensuring their safety and ongoing longevity.

This whole motion is another exercise, as I mentioned before, in hypocrisy and humbug. It is a motion that does not deserve support. If people seriously looked at the issues they would not get involved in this sort of senseless and meaningless political pinpricking and finger-pointing. It would be useful if members getting involved in this debate were to recognise what Australia has done, what it continues to do and what it leads the world in doing, and worked with the community to try to address the real problem that is global climate change. If we could do that, we would make some contribution to this whole issue rather than wasting our time on these sorts of silly motions. (Time expired)