Senate debates

Thursday, 22 March 2007

Climate Change Action Bill 2006

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 30 November 2006, on motion by Senator Milne:

That this bill be now read a second time.

3:36 pm

Photo of Christine MilneChristine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

It is very important that we acknowledge that the Climate Change Action Bill 2006 is the first bill of its kind in the Australian parliament. It is a bill to seriously tackle climate change. The last time Australia dealt with a target for greenhouse gas emissions was upon ratification of the Kyoto protocol, when Australia demeaned itself in the eyes of the world by negotiating into the early hours of the morning to secure 108 per cent of 1990 levels as the target that Australia would meet in the first Kyoto commitment period, 2008-12. We now know that Australia is struggling to meet what is the world’s most generous target. We will only meet it—in spite of a struggle if we do—because we have had a windfall gain as a result of changes to land use, forestry and land clearance regulations.

At the rate we are going, we are on track to secure 127 per cent of our target of 1990 levels. We have to act now. It is clear that history judges political leaders on whether they respond to the great issues of their time. In my view, history will judge Australia’s political leaders very harshly. Not only have they failed to respond appropriately to the great issues of our time; they have failed knowingly and deliberately. This is not about ignorance, it is not about a situation where some years have gone past where people did not know what the situation was. The situation has been made very clear to us on many occasions. Since I introduced this legislation last year we have had the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change delivering its report. On 2 February this year, the debate effectively ended about whether global warming has been impacted by human activities, when the world’s leading scientists made it very clear that there is more than a 90 per cent probability that human-induced climate change is responsible for the levels of global warming we are currently seeing.

In their predictions the scientists also said that we can expect sea level rise as a result of thermal expansion of the oceans and the melting of icecaps and glaciers. They warned what might happen if the West Antarctic or the Arctic icesheets melt. We have already seen from the science a slowing down of the great ocean conveyor. If that were to stop, as it did in previous ages, then Europe would be plunged into an ice age. Until now, we have had from Australian political leaders and business leaders a complete unwillingness to act and the honesty, at least in their responses, is that they do not act because ‘Australia’s competitive advantage is in coal, it is a fossil fuel, it is something we export and we have no intention of changing business as usual or taking leadership’, when other parts of the world have been quite prepared to demonstrate political leadership. The Europeans take this matter extremely seriously, unlike in Australian politics. And I note that the government benches are empty bar two people. History will also record that—that the government does not take the setting of greenhouse gas emission limits seriously.

We will see later in the contributions to the debate that the government is likely to send in its climate sceptics to dispute the evidence, to come up with all sorts of extraneous arguments as to why Australia should not act. But we know from the IPCC report that we face a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations that could occur as early as 2035, according to Stern, under a business as usual scenario, and that that would lead to global temperature increases of between two degrees and 4.5 degrees. However, the Prime Minister only recently said that a global average temperature rise between four and six degrees would make life ‘less comfortable for some,’ demonstrating his complete and utter ignorance of this matter.

At the same time, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, talks about the possibility of a sea level rise up to one metre on the east coast of Australia—again, demonstrating no knowledge whatsoever of what the impact would be in terms of long-shore coastal erosion, estuaries, wetlands, Kakadu et cetera. The ignorance we hear from government ministers and the Prime Minister, who are charged with acting in Australia’s best interests, is extraordinary.

The next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will come out in April this year. The last one was on the science, warning us about increased carbon dioxide concentrations and about increased sea level rises and telling us of the links between climate change and drought, more extreme weather events, floods, fires—and we had those in Australia this summer. But the Prime Minister and his ministers continue to disassociate extreme drought with climate change, because they do not want to be judged by history. It is too late for them. History will judge 11 years of inaction on climate change, because it is 11 years that we could not afford to waste.

In fact, the choice of whether to act will be made by our generation, but it will affect life on earth for all generations to come. We have a decade to stabilise and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the point where we can contain global temperature rise to below two degrees, if we are lucky. We already know the impacts of less than one degree of global temperature rise. Imagine that on a much larger scale. Imagine our river systems, imagine what will happen to our coastal areas—the extremes that we are already suffering, with another degree of temperature rise and then another degree on top of that.

So this is a moral and an ethical question. A leaked report of what we can expect—and, once again, we will have ‘Shock, horror’ from politicians who already know the answers to these questions—says that in April they will bring out another report and it will say: ‘Tens of millions of others will be flooded out of their homes each year as the earth reels from rising temperatures and sea levels. Things are happening and happening faster than we expected.’ And so on. Tens of millions will be flooded out of their homes each year. We are talking about our Pacific neighbours here. We are talking about Bangladesh. We are talking about global insecurity on a scale that we can hardly imagine. Already we have had Kiribati telling us that at least 40 of their islands are being marked for evacuation—30,000 people with nowhere to go—and Australia still refuses to accept a definition of environmental refugee in the UN convention on refugees.

To get to the specifics of the bill before the House today: it would require the government to ratify the Kyoto protocol as a first step. I do not have to go into that; everybody understands. We have a moral obligation to uphold our responsibilities under international law. If we do not want to abide by international law then we endorse a lawless world. They are our only choices. The Greens certainly believe in Australia’s obligations under international law. We are also committed to a post-2012 global treaty of binding targets.

The second thing the bill does is set national greenhouse gas emission targets for 2020 at 20 per cent below 1990 levels and 80 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050. I welcome the fact that in the media this week the shadow minister for the environment congratulated the Europeans for setting a target of 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. I hope the Labor Party today will stand up and support this bill, because that is the nature of the deep cuts we need to make. Eighty per cent by 2050 will probably be seen as extremely conservative in the not too far distant future.

We are also introducing a greenhouse gas trigger into the EPBC Act to ensure that information about the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from major developments is adequately considered during the approval process. That trigger will be any action likely to result in greenhouse gas emissions of more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent in any 12-month period. If we are serious about greenhouse gases, we have to make sure that major projects that are large greenhouse gas emitters are forced into the assessment process at a national level.

This bill also introduces a national energy savings target, an energy efficiency target, to halt the growth in energy consumption by 2008. In effect, the trigger is equivalent to business-as-usual growth in energy consumption. So we are saying that that is the target we need to set to make sure that increases in energy are offset by the energy efficiency target. We want to require large energy users to implement the findings of their energy efficiency audits. We had that debate in here yesterday, and I seek yet another debate on that because we are talking about 250 companies in Australia using 40 per cent of Australia’s energy. If they were required to implement the findings of their energy efficiency audits, we could meet significant targets in terms of energy efficiency.

We also want to increase the mandatory renewable energy targets so that renewable energy contributes at least 15 per cent to national demand by 2012 and 25 per cent by 2020. There is huge excitement around renewable energy. Every day you see in the papers reports from Europe and from the US, where targets have been set at state and national levels, showing enormous expansion and competitive advantage in those new industries. For example, in Spain, wind power generation has now risen to contribute 27 per cent of the country’s total daily power demand. It is the second highest in the world, and we are going to see them increase installed wind capacity to 20,000 megawatts by 2010. That is extraordinary, and Spain is now aspiring to source 30 per cent of its electricity from renewables by 2010—30 per cent by 2010, and Australia’s mandatory renewable energy target is two per cent. At the same time, from California, we have had news about the expansion in concentrated solar thermal, talking about the huge investment going on there.

In Europe, we have had a new directive with regard to fuel efficiency, such that European vehicles and Chinese vehicles will be the most popular vehicles this century because they will be the most fuel efficient. They will be the small vehicles. Australia most certainly ought not continue its perverse incentives for building large vehicles that the public do not want, and the government should immediately change its purchasing policies to abandon support for six-cylinder vehicles and to move across to buying fuel-efficient vehicles and hybrids for the government car fleets.

The Greens bill today also requires the establishment of a system of renewable energy feed-in tariffs to provide a minimum price per unit of produced renewable electricity for a set period to provide investors security on income. This is a fantastic idea. This is what has driven the solar revolution in Germany, whereby energy utilities are required to buy renewable energy at a fixed price for a fixed period of time. That means that, as a consumer, you can go and borrow the capital that you need to install the renewable energy because you know you can sell it. You have a guaranteed market at a guaranteed price for a guaranteed period of time. As a result, farmers, huge shopping complexes and local government have been rolling out renewable energy all over Germany because, once they have paid it off, they will have an additional income, plus they are making considerable impacts in generating renewable energy. Wouldn’t it be fantastic to have a feed-in tariff in Australia? This is part of this bill, and I hope it will get the support of both the government and the opposition today.

The final aspect of this bill is to immediately end the harvesting of old growth forests, to maintain existing significant carbon stores. We had the embarrassing spectacle yesterday of the minister for forests making a fool of himself yet again in relation to his understanding of climate change and forests. He needs to go down to the Australian National University, where he will get some instruction from the academics about the fact that the soil carbon in an old growth forest, plus the carbon in the trees, is a huge amount of carbon—way beyond anything that the minister talks about with his plantation establishment.

Sir Nicholas Stern has said that deforestation around the world—and we know that it is a major driver of climate change—is putting into the atmosphere more carbon dioxide than the whole transport effort from around the world. We could make a significant difference tomorrow by ending the logging of old growth forests, by protecting those carbon sinks and by stimulating the jobs that would come from the raft of measures that I am putting forward here today.

We have a challenge on our hands. We congratulate the unions, who have come out today saying that there should be some movement here and putting pressure on the Labor Party, which has a mandatory renewable energy target of only five per cent. Greg Combet was today advocating at least a 10 per cent target. His leadership of the union movement with regard to putting forward a framework for dealing with climate change is extremely welcome.

What is obvious to me is that the community is way ahead of its parliament in wanting to address climate change in Australia. Progressive businesses are crying out for government to take leadership. They cannot make investment decisions into the future unless they have some certainty about a price on carbon and some certainty in relation to developing an emissions trading scheme in this country or the imposition of a carbon tax or the combination of both. What we have is politicians on both sides committing vast amounts of money to unproven technologies which, we have already seen from the science, are years off—if ever they will be achieved—whereas, around the world, other countries are actually implementing the technology that can reduce greenhouse gases now.

I return to where I began, and that is that history judges political leaders by whether or not they respond to the great issues of their time. History is going to judge this parliament. I say ‘this parliament’ because, given the time frames, it is senators sitting on that side of the chamber, in this term and the next term, who will make the decisions for the rest of time for life on earth—for generations to come. It is all of us in this parliament now who are going to determine the impacts on threatened species.

We have heard the World Conservation Union telling us that at least 30 per cent of species will be extinct by 2050 because of climate change. One only has to see the photos of polar bears on melting ice floes to see the impacts. Those impacts are affecting our very own alpine species; they are affecting the cider gum, in Tasmania, as we speak. We are seeing invasive species coming down the east coast of Tasmania as ocean currents change. All across the country we are seeing species going to extinction already because of climate change.

I urge both the government and the Labor opposition to support this bill because the measures in it would create such excitement across Australia. Contrary to the view that it would shut down the economy, it would be the greatest boost to re-energising Australia that this parliament could deliver to the current generation of Australians and to future generations of Australians. I urge you to think beyond where you are now. Think outside the square and support this bill.

3:56 pm

Photo of Kate LundyKate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | | Hansard source

I am speaking on this general business issue of climate change because we all know that climate change is one of the greatest threats to our community, to our nation and of course globally. The Climate Change Action Bill 2006 recognises that the government has the responsibility to take this issue seriously and make plans to tackle the causes of climate change.

Labor will be having a climate summit in the near future to resolve these issues from our point of view. We have a commitment to have a summit that will allow us to listen to scientists, to business and to the community in general about their views on climate change. That will specifically inform Labor’s position on these issues and on what needs to happen next. Labor is extremely conscious that after 11 years of neglect we have one chance to get this right. Our summit, as it has been announced by our leader, Mr Kevin Rudd, will provide the perfect opportunity for us to determine our position on many of these issues and will help us to develop our plans further. I will be referring to the plans that Labor already have in the public arena. I want to acknowledge also that climate change is not just a question of the environment; the obvious follow-on from that is that it affects all people. It affects the economy and it affects jobs. This is something that I will also refer back to.

I would like to put out a few statements of fact. I know that these statements of fact have been widely acknowledged by most in this place, although not all. Climate change is recognised by many scientists, academics, businesses and the public. Many leaders around the world have already acknowledged, firstly, that changes in the earth’s climate and its adverse circumstances are a common concern of all humankind and, secondly, that human activities have been substantially increasing the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, leading to additional warming of the earth’s surface.

That is a statement of fact. It is a fact that the government’s climate change deniers, sceptics and feigned converts are having trouble coming to terms with. I, like others in the chamber I am sure, will be waiting with interest to see whether the government contribution today recognises the existence and causes of dangerous climate change or whether they are to take the sceptic’s view. I guess it depends on who speaks on their behalf.

Despite the warnings and the mounting scientific evidence validating climate change, the Howard government has failed to act—as they have failed to act for 11 years. Under the Howard government’s watch, Australia has become the world’s 10th largest greenhouse gas emitter and, according to the Climate Change Institute, over the past decade government policy has led to a national emissions increase of 10 per cent. While the rest of the world is working to cut climate change emissions, Australia’s emissions are going up. While 27 European Union countries have agreed to work together to cut greenhouse emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, Australia’s emissions are estimated to increase by 27 per cent by 2020. This is a disgraceful record and an indictment of the Howard government.

While this is a frightening and frustrating prediction, it is unfortunately what we have come to expect from a government of sceptics. Only a week after claiming to be a climate change convert—and I will remind the Senate—Mr Howard backflipped and told the House of Representatives during question time that:

... the jury is still out on the degree of connection—

between greenhouse emissions and climate change. So for 11 years the Howard government have wilfully ignored Labor’s and others’ concerns about climate change. Refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocol has become a symbol of the government not seriously investing in renewable energy and failing to establish a comprehensive policy on tackling climate change.

What has now become obvious from the recent debate regarding climate change is that only a Labor government will take the practical steps needed to combat it and work to protect Australia’s environment and economy and create more jobs. Unlike the government, Labor understands that climate change requires a comprehensive approach. There is no quick fix. That is why Labor is committed to a series of initiatives, including ratifying the Kyoto protocol; cutting Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050; setting up a national emissions trading scheme; setting up the $500 million national clean coal fund; establishing a $2 billion green car partnership; substantially increasing the mandatory renewable energy targets; and convening, as I mentioned at the start, a national climate change summit.

A recent Newspoll poll found that 86 per cent of people surveyed believe the government should be doing more to address climate change, and almost 80 per cent want the government to sign the Kyoto protocol. So the government cannot even hide behind the excuse that this is not something that would be electorally popular; it is both electorally popular and the responsible course of action. In stark contrast to both international and public opinion, one day after the Kyoto protocol came into effect, Mr Howard dismissed it is as next to useless—I think those were the words he used. The Howard government’s very strong rejection of ratifying Kyoto not only is proving devastating for our environment but also constitutes a failure of this government to protect and prepare the Australian economy for the future, not to mention the jobs associated with it.

This blanket refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol means that Australian businesses are locked out of the current international emissions trading schemes. Labor supports a framework that will allow Australia to take advantage of international carbon trading schemes. With carbon markets set to become one of the world’s biggest commodity markets, Australian businesses and our economy are destined to be the big losers if the government remains so arrogant and stubborn in not ratifying Kyoto.

While the Prime Minister and his new right-hand man, Mr Turnbull, dither over the immediate costs of investing in renewable energies and cutting greenhouse emissions, Australian businesses are missing out on long-term economic gains. Australian businesses are not happy about this. We are starting to see their views being expressed publicly more and more—and I am sure privately for some time now—about what action needs to be taken. They want to be engaged in this new carbon trading system. They want to be able to participate in the global economies of the future.

According to the World Bank, in 2005 the global carbon market was worth $A13.3 billion. The market grew to $A28 billion in the first three-quarters of 2006, more than doubling in value over the previous year. Despite the mounting evidence and growing carbon market, the minister for finance, Senator Minchin, told the Age on 15 March this year that he was still in the sceptical camp. This scepticism in a key portfolio like finance shows how deep-seated is this government’s arrogant refusal to address and plan for the economic impact of climate change. It was quite an extraordinary statement and for it to remain on the record and not be refuted by the government says so much about their backward attitude to climate change.

Labor believes it is essential to establish practical measures to protect Australian jobs in the face of climate change. The government has not grasped the fact that climate change has the potential to threaten Australian jobs or that tackling it can create new jobs for Australians—for example, researching and developing renewable energy technology. This ought to be a no-brainer, but we have watched the underspend in some government programs and we have watched this government dance around the issue in the most pathetic way for so many years.

The tourism industry is just one example of an Australian industry where jobs are directly threatened by climate change. I have spoken before in this place about the Great Barrier Reef and its annual contribution of an estimated $6 billion to the Australian economy, supporting thousands of jobs and local small businesses. Whole towns are built on the economy provided by the Great Barrier Reef. But now we know: scientists have made it clear that the Great Barrier Reef is at risk of being bleached and eventually destroyed by increasing sea temperatures as a result of global warming. Not only would this be a massive environmental loss to Australia and the world, the earth, but the jobs and the human impact would be very real when you take into account the tourism industry and economy in that region that would also vanish along with the reef.

Tourism is a specific industry that needs to be addressed. I note that this government is very proud to stand up and boast about the latest tourism results. Even though they were not that good, it did not stop them from boasting about what was out there, particularly with some aspects of international and domestic tourism. It is those kinds of statistics that will change and that will diminish if climate change continues at current rates. This government cannot have it both ways. They cannot stand up and promote what they claim is their good work in the tourism industry and then turn around and ignore climate change, because the two are now forever inextricably linked.

Mr Howard wants us to believe that the best way to protect Australian jobs is to do nothing. I will move on from tourism and use another example. He has cited the coal industry in particular as an industry that will lose jobs if action is taken to combat climate change. He is saying that, if we do anything about climate change, coal industry jobs will go. He has put that out there as a definite statement. That again shows the government’s complete lack of understanding about the issue and its total lack of initiative in dealing with the many and varied effects of climate change.

In contrast, Labor has a clear plan. A Labor government will work to reduce greenhouse emissions while protecting Australia’s $23 billion coal export industry and the jobs of the people whose livelihoods depend on that industry. Earlier this month Mr Rudd; Senator Chris Evans, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Mr Peter Garrett, our shadow minister for the environment, released a discussion paper entitled ‘New directions for Australia’s coal industry: the National Clean Coal Initiative’. The paper outlines Labor’s plan, including: firstly, the setting up of a clean coal fund worth $500 million to generate at least $1.5 billion in new investment by working with the private sector; secondly, setting up a national objective for clean coal generated electricity to enter the national electricity grid by 2020; and, thirdly, increasing funding for the CSIRO by $25 million over four years to assist it in researching and developing clean coal technologies.

Another initiative that Labor has announced to tackle climate change and invest in Australian jobs is the green car partnership. It is certainly a clean, green policy. A Labor government will establish a $500 million green car innovation fund, designed to generate no less than $2 billion in investment in the automotive industry. The green car innovation fund will boost industry research into developing low emission vehicles—such as hybrid, flexible fuel and low emission diesel vehicles. This will ensure that Australia can play a leading role in the global development of green car technology. What a laterally thinking initiative. This is the kind of lateral initiative that Senator Milne was referring to before.

We know that manufacturing is of critical importance to the Australian economy, and we have a proud history of car manufacturing in Australia in this country; but we also know that we face a challenge. Those people who bothered to watch Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth will know that, right at the end of that movie, there are a whole series of initiatives identified that governments and individuals can take. A substantive one of those was to do with what we can do about the cars we drive. Well, this is part of the answer to the problem. It is true: we are not all immediately going to change the way we live our lives or drive or cars. But, by putting in place a far-sighted green car partnership of this nature, Labor is signalling where we need to go for the future. It gives people who find themselves employed in car manufacturing hope that someone is taking care of the long-term future of their particular industry. I know that announcement was warmly welcomed by that sector.

I would also like to welcome specifically the contribution by the Australian Council of Trade Unions. I note that this was reported in today’s papers. Labor welcome this significant contribution by the unions and we will be pleased to ensure that they will be represented at Labor’s climate change summit. Just recently, on 12 March, Greg Combet, the Secretary of the ACTU—accompanied by Mr Garrett, the Labor Party’s shadow environment minister—visited the Austar mine in the Hunter to talk about how the unions and Labor can work together on the challenge of climate change.

Australians know that there is no quick fix and that it is only the Labor Party that can deliver the sorts of far-sighted partnerships and strategies to work together needed to achieve change, not just in the immediate future but in the medium to long-term future as well. Unless we get elected so that we can start putting those policies in place now, it is just not going to happen under the coalition government. We will be no better off. It is like we are in a time warp with the Howard government.

I will conclude today by referring to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories’ recent briefing from the Australian Government Antarctic Division. On the issue of climate change we know that what is going on in the polar regions of the earth is of major significance and can provide a very deep and concise insight into the impact of and predictions for climate change. I was very interested to hear about the Antarctic Division’s research, particularly into ice cores, to assist, studies. Indeed I note that the research being conducted by the Antarctic Division is not only comprehensive in terms of addressing climate change and related issues but also could be a great deal more comprehensive if they were provided with adequate research funding. I think this would enhance their capability in that regard.

For the record, the Australian Antarctic Territory does cover a vast proportion of the Antarctic continent. With that responsibility comes an extraordinary opportunity for Australia to play a much greater role than it is currently playing in guiding that scientific data, research and information going into political considerations about the impact of climate change. Senator Milne has already referred to things like changes in the ocean currents. When you take into account the significance of the Antarctic continent, you start to understand why research in this area of the world is so critical to the movement of our oceans, and to the movement and nature of our atmosphere and how it all ties together.

I will conclude by saying that Labor will have a national climate change summit. We will be addressing the specific types of issues and propositions contained in the bill before us today; it will guide us. Our main priority through that summit will be to listen to scientists, businesses and the community. We need to be informed in making long-term decisions about climate change and in developing perhaps one of the most important areas of public policy for generations to come. Labor must get this right, and we will put ourselves in an optimum position to get these policies right through our national summit on climate change.

4:15 pm

Photo of Alan EgglestonAlan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

We seem to have this debate, initiated by the Greens, quite frequently in the chamber. There is no doubt that the climate of the world is changing. We all agree on that. The evidence of climate change is all around us. I am told that, during the last winter in Europe, there was very little snow on the Austrian and German alps. We know that there have been icebergs floating off the coast of New Zealand, suggesting that the Antarctic icecap is melting. It is quite apparent that there is a change in the climate.

We know that, over the last 30 or 40 years, there has been a lot less rainfall in the south-west of Western Australia. We come to this part of Australia and find that an enormous drought has been affecting the south-east and that towns like Goulburn, which is not too far from here, are on very strict water restrictions. Also, we hear that Melbourne is in danger of running out of water in the not too distant future. So climate change is real, and the government and everybody else, I am sure, in positions of responsibility accept that.

It is said by some that climate change is due to greenhouse gas emissions, and it well may be. There are other people who point to the fact that, over the centuries, the world’s temperature has risen and fallen and that, at the moment, we are cycling out of an ice age. It has also been suggested that these changes are due to variations in the orbit of the earth around the sun. It does not really matter too much, I suppose, what the exact cause of it is, but, obviously, we have to accept the reality that climate change is occurring.

I had a look through Senator Milne’s second reading speech on the Climate Change Action Bill 2006, which she incorporated when she first introduced the bill into the Senate, and noted that she was quite critical of the Howard government. She said that, over the years, the Australian government had refused to take action to address global warming. That is something which Senator Wong has often said in this chamber and which is, of course, complete and utter nonsense. In fact, the Howard government has had a very strong policy on dealing with climate change and with issues related to the need to get sources of energy other than hydrocarbon fuels.

The Howard government is very proud of the fact that it established the world’s first greenhouse office. No other country in the world had a greenhouse office in its government, but the Howard government established one very early during its period in office. So it is nonsensical for people on the other side of the chamber to argue that the government has not been concerned about climate change, because it has been concerned from day one of its term of office. Another Howard government initiative, which it is equally proud of, was to establish the world’s first policies on water. It shows, as I said, that the government has been concerned about climate change from day one.

Since the Howard government came to office, part of Australia’s comprehensive climate change strategy has been the investment of some $2 billion in environmental and other issues. This has leveraged $6.5 billion in private sector investment in climate related issues. Some of the key elements of the Howard government’s climate strategy have included supporting world-class scientific research to build understanding of climate change and its impacts. After all, we do have to know what is causing it and what its impacts will be.

We have undertaken broad measures to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and to meet our Kyoto targets, even though we have not ratified the Kyoto treaty. We have had very wise reasons for not doing that—which I might come back to, but, briefly, they relate to the Kyoto treaty being very flawed. It does not cover the world’s great emitters. It would make very little difference to the world’s levels of greenhouse gases if Australia were to sign the treaty, but signing it would have dire consequences for the Australian economy. It would mean, among other things, that we could not use our cheap coal resources, and that would in turn cost jobs in the coalmines of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia. This would then impact on other industries because the cost of power would go up. Whether or not the Labor Party and the Greens are prepared to concede that point, the fact remains that signing Kyoto would cost Australian jobs. That is not something the Australian government are prepared to do, especially when we are meeting our Kyoto targets, in spite of the fact that we have not signed the treaty.

In addition, we have been supporting the development and commercialisation of low-emission technologies, which are essential for future deeper cuts. These include renewables, clean coal and carbon sequestration programs. We have evidence of one of those being proposed for Barrow Island, off the north-west Australian coast. When the gas comes in from the Gorgon deposits, the carbon dioxide will be sequestrated well below ground and it will not contribute at all to greenhouse gas emissions.

The Howard government have been identifying regions and industries which are vulnerable to potential impacts of climate change and we have been working with them to adapt to changes. We have also been pushing for an effective global response involving all major emitters of the world, including China, India, the United States and Canada, so that there really will be an international treaty which reduces greenhouse gas emissions. But it certainly is something for the future and certainly not something that the Kyoto treaty is achieving.

The Australian government have committed over $2 billion to responding to climate change. Our climate change strategy recognises our reliance on fossil fuels and renewable sources. The government’s strategy provides a pathway for moving Australia’s energy sector to a low emissions future. It includes the $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, the $100 million Renewable Energy Development Initiative, the $75 million Solar Cities trial, the $20 million advanced electricity storage technology initiative and the $14 million wind energy forecasting program.

In Senator Milne’s second reading speech, she talked about increasing mandatory renewable energy targets. Of course, mandatory renewable energy targets were an initiative introduced by the Howard government. The Howard government have recently increased the renewable energy targets so that we now have a target of 20,000 gigawatt hours by 2020. We are supporting programs such as wind, solar and hydroelectricity to ensure that Australia is making the most of renewable energy. That is another example of how responsible the Howard government have been in addressing climate change issues.

There are other areas of the environment in which we are working. We have invested billions to improve the resilience of the land, with a $10 billion national plan for water security and a $2 billion national water initiative. As Senator Lundy and Senator Milne may recall, when this government first came in, one of the first things that was done was to establish the National Heritage Trust, which was first funded with $1 billion from the sale of Telstra. More recently, we have established a $1.4 billion National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality. The Australian government is aware that Australia and the world must be open to every viable option. The anti-nuclear, anti-geosequestration, anti-technology and anti-growth brigade would condemn the world to a latter-day Dark Ages. That is why Australia has helped to establish the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which brings together some of the major emitters in the world—which together are responsible for around 50 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions—to develop clean energy technology. It just makes sense that, if we are going to have a treaty which really does something to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, that is a treaty that Australia should be willing to sign quite happily.

The simple reality is that the Kyoto treaty, which the Greens and the ALP keep saying Australia should sign, is not going to achieve its objectives and it would cost Australians very heavily in terms of jobs. It would have a negative economic impact and it is something that we should not sign. The fact is that a mammoth 75 per cent of global emissions are not covered by the Kyoto protocol, and that severely limits its efficacy. It is estimated that Kyoto will probably reduce greenhouse gas emissions by a mere one per cent by the end of the first commitment period of 2012. This compares to a need, based on the best science currently available, to reduce global greenhouse emissions by some 60 per cent, based on 1990 levels.

Kyoto is a flawed treaty and it is certainly not something which the Australian government has any intention of signing. Although I am sure that the ALP speakers who rise in the Senate to promote the signing of the Kyoto treaty are fully aware of its disadvantages, they persist in holding it up as something which we should adopt, while knowing full well that Kyoto is no more than a symbol of the need to do something about climate change if we can. While it is a symbol, it should be recognised as perhaps a worthy endeavour, but in fact there are many other ways of dealing with climate change which are more practical than signing the Kyoto treaty.

We know from an analysis conducted by ABARE, the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics, that, if we were to close down completely, turning off every school, hospital, car and truck—as Labor and Green policies would have us do—a rapidly expanding Chinese economy would negate the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in Australia in just 11 months. We know that, if we were to cut our emissions as the Greens and the ALP suggest we do, with a unilateral cut of 20 per cent by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050, that would have quite significant effects on the Australian economy. For example, we know that petrol prices would probably increase by around 100 per cent, our gross domestic product growth would be reduced by 10.7 per cent, real wages would be about 20.8 per cent lower than they would have been under a business as usual scenario at 2050, oil and gas production would fall by 60 per cent, coal production would be down by 32 per cent and electricity output would fall by 23 per cent. The agricultural industry is also projected to decline by some 44 per cent if these proposed reductions of 80 per cent are imposed by 2050.

The Australian government is very interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions but also interested in finding practical solutions to support renewable energy and finding other ways of dealing with the great environmental problems that we face today, such as salinity and water shortages. One of the solutions to water shortages in the south of Australia that has been taken up by the Howard government is the idea of using some of the great water resources of the well-watered lands in the north of Australia for the agricultural lands which are suffering drought in the south of Australia. I think that is a great concept, and I certainly hope that it is a possibility that can be brought to fruition, because the north of Australia certainly has great potential.

As I said, the ALP keep perpetuating this rather tired old line that the Howard government has done nothing about climate change, when in fact we have done a great deal. We are very proud of our record on environmental policy. No other government in the history of this country has done as much for the environment or has introduced as many programs and policies to improve the environment of this country as the Howard government. That is a very proud record of the Howard government. In their 13 years in power, the ALP did nothing in environmental policy.

The Greens, sitting on their little pile of high moral virtue over there, can say, ‘You should be doing something,’ and, ‘You should’ve changed things.’ Of course, it is easy to say that, but it is very difficult to do. This government has shown great concern about environmental issues and has put in a lot of programs to ensure that the major environmental problems that this country faces are addressed and that very innovative and clever initiatives are put in place to address them.

That very largely concludes what I would like to say about this. I just repeat: it is a very tired, repetitive mantra of the ALP and the Greens to say we must sign Kyoto. They know full well that the Kyoto treaty would not produce any benefit for Australia or the world and they persistently refuse to recognise the fact that the Howard government has an outstanding record in introducing environmental policies and initiatives.

4:35 pm

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

I did not catch most of your speech, Senator Eggleston, but your concluding remarks were challenging, to say the least.

Photo of Ross LightfootRoss Lightfoot (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I think you should start off your contribution, Senator Allison, by addressing your remarks through the chair, if you would not mind.

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

Indeed. Thank you for reminding me. Senator Eggleston said it was easy to say and difficult to do. The Climate Change Action Bill 2006, like so much else that has been done in this chamber, shows that it is actually easy to do. You have to have some courage. You have to stand up to certain sectors within the community. But, at the end of the day, it is not only easy to do; it is necessary to do.

Regarding the ‘tired mantra’ of signing Kyoto, this government would have us believe that Kyoto did not go anywhere, when in fact it has been crucial in containing emissions in countries that have signed on to it. In fact, if you listen to the government’s arguments, it was crucial for us as well. How often have we heard the Prime Minister and various other ministers assuring us that we are going to reach the target of Kyoto and telling the Australian people that we are on track? Why would we bother being on track with an agreement which has no value? I think Senator Eggleston said it has no benefit for Australia or the world and we should just forget about it. This is a ludicrous concept. As everybody knew, Kyoto was the first step in a very long process, and Australia was part of it. We agreed with it, went along with it, got a great deal from it and were very much part of the process—but we were not once the hardheads in this government took over. However, I digress.

The Democrats strongly support this bill. There is a growing acknowledgement that governments individually and collectively should act with great urgency to mitigate greenhouse emissions. But the challenge is so great that only a nationally and globally coordinated approach is going to deliver. In our view, governments will, in the not too distant future, be held accountable for greenhouse abatement by the international community as well as by their constituents domestically. The UK government recently introduced a climate change bill in which the greenhouse emissions targets are enshrined in law. That is what this bill does. It is regrettable that what we are debating here today is not a government bill. I would like to think that this will be put to the vote today and passed into law, but we all know as we sit here in this debate that the chances are very slim.

Now that climate change has, at least for the last few weeks, dropped off the front pages of the press, the likelihood is that this government will continue its politics of denial: denial that coal must be eventually phased out, denial that the 10-year drought has anything to do with COconcentrations in the atmosphere, denial that a carbon constrained future will have economic benefits and denial that Australia has a case to answer. It has rejected the truly low- and zero-emissions technology in favour of nuclear and so-called clean coal. It frankly has its collective head firmly in the sand.

Australia is the 10th largest emitter of greenhouse emissions in the world, just behind the UK, which has three times the population of Australia. Australia is the largest per capita emitter and one of the most vulnerable to climate change. Our greenhouse gas emissions are dominated by the stationary energy sector. Electricity represents 50.7 per cent of total emissions, and that is due to grow by 55 per cent between 1990 and 2010. The agricultural and transport sectors are the next largest sectors at 15.8 per cent and 14.4 per cent of total emissions respectively. But the big growth areas are in stationary energy, transport and industrial processes. The only factor that saved our bacon internationally is the one-off deal at Kyoto for a huge credit from not clearing land—not cutting down our trees—mostly in Queensland. Had it not been for the generosity of the negotiators, our emissions would have exceeded 108 per cent of 1990 levels by a huge margin.

The federal government’s failure to set a course for greenhouse emissions reductions has generated enormous uncertainty in the business sector. You would think this would be of interest to this government. The business sector knows that a tradable emissions permit system and carbon levies are inevitable. Technology is going to have to be transformed. New standards are going to have to be complied with and emissions targets will have to be met. Business needs certainty so investment decisions can be made and stranded assets avoided. The French company AXA estimated in 2004 that about 20 per cent of global GDP is now affected by climatic events and that climate risk in numerous branches of industry is more important than the risk of interest rates or foreign exchange risk.

The Democrats support the creation of an investment and regulatory environment for the innovation of low-carbon technologies and to provide certainty for industry to make that transition to a low-carbon future. We also know that it is necessary to protect our natural habitats and to prepare for adaptation to global warming. The economic restructuring necessary to do this is way behind that of almost all other OECD countries, placing our business sector at serious competitive disadvantage in new markets.

We of course support the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. I do not know how many times we have mentioned it in this place and called on the government to complete that ratification. The government says that the protocol is flawed because it does not include the growing powerhouses of China and India. That argument, of course, stymies any hope whatsoever of global cooperation. Apparently free trade agreements can be negotiated between Australia and one or two other countries, but not an agreement that deals with the greatest threat to the planet involving highly developed countries. Of course, we are out of Kyoto, as we all know, because we follow the United States. Anything Mr Bush says, we are right on board—in this case, backing his recalcitrance and protecting our markets for coal and now uranium. That is the sad fact.

Ratifying the Kyoto protocol not only is the right thing to do for the environment but also will allow Australian government and industry to access and benefit from the project based mechanisms such as joint implementation projects and clean development mechanisms. The head of the UNFCCC said that the clean development mechanism of the Kyoto protocol could generate annual turnover of $A133 billion in green investment flow to developing countries, none of which Australian companies can be part of. The carbon market in the EU emissions trading scheme was worth over $13 billion in 2005. Our farmers missed out on an annual income of $2.5 billion for land clearing avoided.

We also support a national climate change action plan. Australia does not have a nationally consistent regulatory framework to respond to climate change, and various levels of government are pursuing different and changing policies. Some states are introducing their own version of emissions trading and others have a greenhouse abatement program in place. This is not a coordinated approach; this is not a national approach. It is, in fact, a hotchpotch of state government responses. Our economy is highly dependent on energy, on the $26 billion a year in coal exports, on the $32 billion a year in tourism and on agriculture. Few companies are well positioned to manage and capitalise on the risks and opportunities of climate change.

Coordination and assessment of these cumulative impacts can only be managed through overarching principles that take climate change impacts into account. National coordination of climate change policy is crucial because the impacts, and therefore the policies, are cross portfolio: energy, water, transport, industry, primary industry and so on. We would actually go further and call for a national and coordinated climate change action plan and we would require a minister for climate change. I have no doubt that Senator Milne would agree with that as well.

An Australian Greenhouse Office report shows Australia will not meet its target of 108 per cent of 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by 2010. In fact, greenhouse emissions are projected to rise to 127 per cent higher than 1990 levels by 2020. The AGO report confirms that the Australian government’s current and committed policies are inadequate. We cannot meet our Kyoto target. The challenge is to lower CO concentrations in the atmosphere to levels that avoid dangerous climate change, and to keep them that way. This means massive and urgent cuts followed by a balance in which CO emissions match the earth’s capacity to absorb them. On average, around 45 per cent of all greenhouse emissions remain in the atmosphere and the rest are absorbed by natural systems. This has been the case for at least the last 50 years.

Greenhouse mitigation requires stabilising and then reducing emissions over the long term. In order to be sustainable, greenhouse emissions from human activity must equal the earth’s capacity to absorb them. Our objective, therefore, must be not just to deliver major cuts in emissions but also to have the planet reach what I call homeostasis—a sustainable balance where emissions are no higher than the earth’s capacity to absorb them. The government’s immediate policy objective should be to achieve the Kyoto protocol target of limiting emissions to 108 per cent in the period 2008-12. To achieve this it is going to have to find an additional six million tonnes of greenhouse gas abatement—and there is only three years to do that. That is the equivalent of a three per cent reduction in the stationary energy emissions of this country.

We also support the annual greenhouse gas inventory and national communication. We say we also need transparency in the methodologies that are behind the calculation of Australia’s emissions, particularly around land use, land use change and forestry. I note that the CRC for carbon accounting, which would have been useful in this process, no longer exists due to the government removing its funding.

We support a framework for involvement in international trading schemes. But, having said that, we think that a higher priority right here and now is for Australia to introduce domestic trading schemes so that we can be prepared for an international trading scheme down the track. We support emission reduction targets. The targets in this bill are for 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80 per cent by 2050. We have some doubts about the latter target. This certainly provides certainty for industry but we would like to see flexibility built in, in case more—or even less—action is required as more information comes to hand. Forty-seven years from now is a very long way off and we would sooner stick to the principle of achieving the balance that I referred to—to restore safe levels of CO emission and concentration.

We support a national energy savings target, also known as an energy efficiency target. We have been strong advocates for that in this place in the last few weeks. We would go further and introduce incentive mechanisms for energy efficiency supported by a strong baseline of energy efficiency regulation. We support a minimum price for renewable energy. We support a feed-in tariff for specific renewable energy technologies but we prefer the creation of specific markets for carbon,‘black’, emissions trading; renewable, ‘green’, emissions trading; and energy efficiency, ‘white’, trading.

Like the Greens, we have for many years been advocating the end of harvesting old growth forests, for many reasons that are well laid out in the bill. As the population grows so do greenhouse emissions and their impact on natural habitats. We think it is essential then to de-link greenhouse emissions from economic growth—and the expansion into natural habitats that that growth implies—to prevent more species being threatened and lost. We think it is critical that the environment is protected from uncoordinated singular development activities that have cumulative impacts that already threaten the compromised habitats and environment systems. We need to move to other practices which increase the carbon sequestration in the soil and biosphere, and of course to maintain and protect existing old growth for its value in storing carbon, protecting habitat and promoting adaptation.

We strongly support the increase in the mandatory renewable energy target and we have moved countless amendments in this place to do that. In this bill the target has been pushed up, as we know it is possible to do. It is a proven and successful market based measure that was introduced in 2001. The concept originally was that it would deliver an additional two per cent of our electricity supply from renewable sources. But, as we all know, the promised two per cent target was so watered down that it was met within three years. Renewable energy had a 10.5 per cent market share before MRET was introduced and now, in 2007, that is down to a nine per cent market share. So clearly, although more renewable energy is being generated, it failed as a mechanism to increase the total percentage. In fact, instead of being two per cent, it looks as if by 2010 it will represent less than 0.5 per cent of total electricity use.

We know that renewable energy has enormous potential to meet our energy needs, with solar, bioenergy and geothermal opportunities being barely explored in this country. The renewable energy target could be doubled and the industry could respond without even a groan. Combined with energy efficiency targets to reduce the overall consumption, it is possible to increase the relative renewable energy contribution to much higher levels than we have—in the order of 30 per cent by 2015 we understand would be reasonable. The Democrats moved an amendment in parliament in June 2006 to increase MRET to 20 per cent by 2020. Naturally the government did not support the amendment. No doubt it has wiped its hand of MRET. MRET will finish in 2010 and leave the renewable energy sector in the lurch.

We support amendments to the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Act. We have spent time this week debating what is missing from that act. The uptake of energy efficiency is a front-line tool in the transition to a carbon constrained future. It is the least-cost greenhouse abatement activity and it has very positive economic and productivity benefits. Yet energy efficiency is underutilised, with the government having only introduced voluntary measures. Other sectors, including agriculture, are not included in the Climate Change Action Bill, but we think that they are important. We need action in the agricultural sector in the research, development, demonstration and commercialisation of low-emission technologies. I would like to stress the importance of action in all sectors of the economy in the transition to that carbon constrained future.

It is understood that enough carbon can be stored in the living biosphere, particularly in the tropics of our planet, to offset all of the atmospheric carbon emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Australia has great opportunities in sequestering or storing carbon in the soil, and the agricultural sector will be a large beneficiary of carbon-trading schemes, as well as a beneficiary of turning climate change around—if we can possibly do that—or avoiding dangerous climate change events.

Increasing carbon in the biosphere can be achieved through soil carbon retention or biosequestration, such as tree planting. There are a number of practices that can increase soil carbon retention, such as organic and low-till practices. They all coincide with good soil management and enhanced soil fertility. Change in management practices and crop choice, such as growing perennial vegetation rather than annual grasses, can sequester carbon in the longer term. Having deep-rooted plants helps store carbon in the soil. If you are dealing with a forested situation, the leaves fall and rot away and store carbon in the soil. The greatest challenge is in quantifying carbon sequestration. This requires basic research to be done and the development of methodologies to account for the carbon. It is essential that methodologies for measuring soil and biosphere carbon sequestration are developed so that the agricultural sector can take the opportunity that should be provided to them with emissions trading. The Democrats would like to reward and support farming communities that transfer to low carbon or carbon sequestering agricultural practices. A solution to greenhouse abatement and transition— (Time expired)

4:55 pm

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

In speaking to the Climate Change Action Bill 2006, I congratulate Senator Milne for bringing the first climate change action bill to this parliament. It is something that should have been introduced here when the Howard government came to office in 1996, but they failed to act. This country is in a ‘back of the pack’ situation because of that failure to act, when we should be leading the world in terms of rescuing this marvellous little planet of ours from what Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, described just a fortnight ago as a calamity facing humankind.

If only our Prime Minister had woken up; if only this government would wake up. What an insult it is to the enormous concern about climate change in this nation of Australia, where any primary schoolchild could tell you of the need for action such as that in Senator Milne’s bill. There is greater concern and intelligence about the matter in an average school class than there is around the cabinet table of this country of Australia. Here today that is exemplified by the failure of the government to produce one minister to speak on this bill. Not a minister; not a secretary—just a gaggle of backbenchers. They are lined up to talk this bill out—to filibuster it—so that there will not be a vote. But we had the government voting no to climate change action brought forward in this manner by the Greens through Senator Milne.

We had Senator Eggleston as the first cab off the rank for the government, saying that it does not matter what the cause of climate change is. He put forward the theory that it may be due to the earth wobbling on its axis. Government members, it does matter, and we know what the cause is. The world’s scientists have been warning about that since the 1960s. The matter was first postulated by Arrhenius back in 1895. Before this government came to office, thousands of scientists, including more than 100 Nobel Prize winners, in their first warning to the planet had said to all the leaders of the world, ‘We must act to stop the destructive impact of human behaviour on this planet or within 40 years we will be seeing not only mass extinctions of species but the planet becoming less tenable for the life of human beings, the big species which we know is the cause.’

What was the reaction to that? In the Australian press, it made no front pages. It was buried on page 9 in the Hobart Mercury but it did not make many newspapers. Had it been a warning of a stock exchange collapse, it would have been on the front page. Had it been about money and profits, it would have been on the front page. But it was not. It was just about the planet, so it did not matter. It is as if there is a disconnect between our leaders—Prime Minister Howard and President Bush—and the planet. There is a failure to understand that we are here because of this planet and that we depend upon it. It does not need us, but we need it. It gives us not only sustenance and life from its living fabric but also inspiration, adventure, joy and fulfilment. And its living fabric is being wrecked at the greatest rate in human history, and we know that that is because of our depredations. A sequela of that is climate change.

There is no escape: whether you are in the most remote wilderness on the planet or in the most densely populated city, climate change is not only stalking the future but impacting upon you now. Yet we have in the prime ministerial office in this country, after 10 years of scepticism of climate change, a no vote to a climate action bill—they say, ‘No, we won’t take action.’ Senator Eggleston resorted to the unethical defence that Prime Minister Howard and several of his ministers have brought out over the years—‘We don’t want to do it because other countries in the world won’t match action at this time.’

Just a fortnight ago Angela Merkel, Mr Blair and the leaders of the 29 European Union nations said: ‘We will take action. We’re going back to our countries to introduce a Senator Christine Milne bill. It will have a target of a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020’—as in the bill Senator Milne brought into this place last year and we are debating this afternoon. The leaders of Europe said: ‘We will aim to have a 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020.’ And that is what the European leaders are doing. Do you know what they were asked? ‘Oh, but aren’t you going to suffer a business disadvantage?’—the thing that terrifies Mr Howard, Mr Costello and their coteries. They had this simple response: ‘The world is threatened and we must take a lead.’ They did not say, ‘No, the coal companies want to keep making their profits; they have us under their thumbs.’ They said, ‘We’re concerned about catastrophe stalking humankind and all life on this planet, and we must act.’ But here on the other side of the planet we have a government that will not act, that has not acted, that has been delinquent and that has sold out this country, this nation and its future.

Let this be said: the last decade of studied ignorance of climate change will cost this country billions of dollars to catch up on. Sir Nicholas Stern, the chief economic advisor to the Blair government and former chief economist to the World Bank, will be in this city next Wednesday. He has done something that the Prime Minister and our chief economic decision maker, Mr Costello, have not done—that is, he has studied the impact of climate change on the world were we not to act as Senator Milne’s bill would have us act. The outcome makes for very daunting reading. Besides the catastrophic environmental effects on the planet by carrying on as this government has done and projects to do, the impact on the gross domestic product by the time the next generation is our age will be some 20 per cent, or $US9 trillion.

What the Howard government is doing is simply saying, ‘No, we won’t act, because the coal industry doesn’t want us to and Australia’s children and grandchildren can pay the penalty in terms of hundreds of billions of dollars per annum for our inactivity now.’ If you do a back-of-an-envelope calculation you will find that just the exudates from the coal exported from Australia will go very close to damaging the economy of our children or grandchildren by an amount equivalent to the current Australian budget per annum. Yet the government could not get a minister in here to debate the issue. The government could not find a secretary, because it does not give a damn about climate change action. It does not want to defend it. It does not want to support it. It does not have an opinion. It simply wants to say no, as it has said for the last 10 years.

If you look at the Costello budget of May last year, you will look in vain for climate change. The two words are not there. We can expect that, in the May budget, there will be some billions spent. I will tell you why, Mr Acting Deputy President: because this greedy, small-minded, venal government is more concerned about itself than it is about the planet and the nation’s wellbeing. So we have the situation where there will be money spent this year on climate change, though last year it was not even mentioned. That is because the government is getting back the polling that shows the Australian people are very worried indeed about climate change and the impact it will have on their children.

Just yesterday I was reading the report of the APIA, the Australian Pensioners Insurance Agency, and they were asking older folk, aged over 50, around the country, ‘What is worrying you?’—and climate change is right at the top. They recognise that most of us in that age category will not be around when the major impacts of climate change come along. But do you know what? They are worried about their kids. Do you know what this government is worried about? The coal multinationals. Do you know who the policy favours? The coal multinationals. Do you know who the policy of this government has let down and will hurt, regardless of whether this bill gets up? Australia’s children, their children and this nation’s environment.

Here we have a negative government confronted by positive Greens, and it does not know what to do about it except to say no. Elsewhere in the world you might have thought Colorado was a conservative bastion in the United States. This is what the governor of that state had to say less than a month ago: Governor Bill Ritter told the media that he envisaged the state getting an increase of $US1.9 billion in GDP by doubling its use of renewables by 2020, and that this would see renewables meeting 20 per cent of the state’s total energy demands. Guess what? That is the exact selfsame figure that Senator Milne has in her bill for Australia to reach.

We just heard Senator Eggleston say, ‘We don’t want to take on strategies that will fix this problem, because they might harm our economy.’  Read for that: ‘They might harm the interests of the coal barons’—who, by the way, do not live in this country. They are not here. They export their profits overseas. Governor Ritter had a different idea. He said:

More clean, homegrown energy means more jobs and higher wages paid for Coloradans. Increasing our use of renewable energy would bring over 4,000 high-paying, high-skilled jobs and over $US570 million in wages paid to our state.

In releasing his report, the governor also said:

… a 20% renewable energy goal would also result in significant reductions of soot, smog, and mercury pollution. Also, since wind and most solar resources use a negligible amount of water compared to fossil fuel sources, Colorado could save over 18 billion gallons of water by 2020.

What a remarkable complementarity there is between Colorado and so much of Australia, except one thing—that is, political sagacity and a long-term view. If there is one thing that must be of equal concern to most Australians, along with the government’s delinquency in failing to support this bill—there are no amendments, no positive contribution, not a senior government member fronting up to put the government’s point of view—is Labor’s approach to the bill. Labor will not support it. They are going to have a summit. What do you do when you do not know what you are going to do? You call a summit. This is after the previous 10 wasted years and, before that, 10 years of Labor failing to act on climate change and 10 years after the warning bells were well and truly sounding around the world. So that leaves the Greens and the Democrats, and let me congratulate Senator Allison on her contribution. She came in as Leader of the Democrats and took the lead on this bill. I say again: there is not even a frontbencher from either side of the two big parties here to contribute to the bill. What disdain for the Australian public!

Government Senator:

Government senator—Senator Lundy is here.

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

Senator Lundy is a shadow on the front bench and, through you, Chair, the interjectors opposite are deciding which government minister should come in for this debate.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting

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

Yes, ex, has-beens, but which of the government ministers will come and front this debate? What a total disgrace they are. I challenge Labor to support this bill, because Senator Lundy did not do it. I do not know whether you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, but we are certainly not hearing it from anybody on the Labor benches. Do you know why? You will know, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I must not tempt you. I will tell you why. Labor do not want to set targets, either, because the coal industry does not want them to set targets. In the last 48 hours ExxonMobil have said they want a carbon tax. Watch it! Sir Nicholas Stern, who will be here next Wednesday at the Press Club, says $110 per tonne is the price that is required to get us back on track. You will not find ExxonMobil supporting that. If we get a proposal for a carbon tax from either side of the big parties, we will get some proposal—one-tenth or one-fifth of that price—which will fail to have the impact that we need to have if we are really thinking about this nation’s future.

The Greens proposal—this bill—would greatly enhance the Australian economy. It would be a massive job producer. It would be an enormous boost to technology so that the Australian citizen—the billionaire we saw on SBS last night—would not have to repeat the solution to his obstruction in this country and go to China and make his billions out of renewable energy. He was essentially forced out of here by the Howard government’s delinquency. Isn’t it time we took the advantage of this legislation to boost business, to boost jobs, to boost export income and, most importantly of all, to secure and to keep the intergenerational compact we should with our kids and our kids’ kids?

5:15 pm

Photo of Dana WortleyDana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Climate Change Action Bill 2006 and acknowledge that it calls on the government to take specific action in relation to climate change. Labor will be guided by our planned national climate change summit with respect to further details of Labor’s plans to address climate change. I am pleased to outline our plans to date and to call the Howard government to account on its disgraceful neglect. Climate change is a serious issue with serious consequences and, again, an issue on which the Howard government has a poor record. If it were a report card, you would not want to take it home. It would read: ‘Eleven years of inaction in the face of Australia’s greatest environmental challenge.’

I remember an Australia when summers were summers, winters were winters and rarely did the seasons combine. Our lifestyles were set by the seasons that were clearly defined by the months of the year. You could count on a wet, cold winter. You knew you would get drenched playing netball or watching a local game of footy on a Saturday afternoon. You did not leave home without an umbrella. Our winter birthdays were planned as inside parties. And then, in the summertime, as children we would go swimming after school on weekdays and at the beach on weekends. I recall the simple pleasure of playing with my brothers and sisters under the sprinkler on the back lawn on a summer’s afternoon—sadly, because of our environmental crisis, a pleasure my young son is denied today. There is no playing with water. Back then, our seasons were generally predictable, and we lived our lives accordingly.

Last year, on Christmas Day, Australia was served up all four seasons in the one day: snow in Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania; a hot and humid day in Queensland; the coldest December day on record in Melbourne; a sunny, hot summer’s day in Perth; and a mild day with a maximum temperature of 17 degrees in Adelaide.

Australia’s climate is changing, and it will impact on each and every one of us. Dr Geoff Love, director of the Bureau of Meteorology, said recently:

I expect climate change to affect all Australians. It is the Bureau’s responsibility to provide decision makers and the general public with accurate observations and information about our changing climate.

Now our children and future generations are faced with the possibility that the Great Barrier Reef could be destroyed through warmer seas; the Kakadu wetlands could be flooded; the Snowy Mountains could have less snow—Australian icons and the backbone of much of our tourism industry and regional economies severely damaged.

The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, is due for release this year. Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report released a summary of their report a few weeks ago. According to that summary:

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values ... The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land-use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.

The summary says:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level ...

Further:

At continental, regional, and ocean basin scales, numerous long-term changes in climate have been observed. These include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones.

The evidence is laid out before us. We need climate change policies that will be effective—that will give our children and grandchildren a future.

And the evidence before us too is that we will not get that from the Howard government—the government that last year rushed through legislation in the form of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1). It was another lost opportunity to improve on existing legislation, a lost opportunity to address the very real challenges of climate change we are facing in Australia. The government not only failed to take up the opportunity to improve existing legislation but, through the changes, effectively weakened existing legislation. It weakened the protection that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 provided for Australia’s biodiversity and heritage.

What is the reality? Australia is facing a plant and animal extinction crisis. Twenty per cent of our species are threatened with extinction by the end of the 21st century. Australia now leads the world in mammalian extinctions. So we trail the world in setting the example on climate change and, to our shame, lead the world in mammalian extinction.

The Howard government cannot be trusted with the environment. It has wasted a decade denying the existence of climate change, and Australia is now facing the consequences of more than 10 years of denial and inaction. The government has failed to adequately address environmental challenges. It has failed to deliver on the environment, to the Australian people, to our children and to future generations. There is overwhelming evidence that warming temperatures and associated changes in rainfall and sea-level rise will have consequences both for the world’s environment and for the economy.

Today is World Water Day. Water and climate change are not separate issues; they are unavoidably linked. Future generations will, unfortunately, be the recipients of the severe consequences of climate change. It is our generation, here and now, that must address this issue. According to the CSIRO, by 2030 the water supply for Sydney and Melbourne will drop significantly because of reduced rainfall and higher evaporation from climate change, while their populations will increase by 30 per cent.

Addressing our water crisis requires taking action on climate change. Our environment cannot afford a future of inaction. We cannot afford a future with a government that has wasted more than a decade without addressing serious environmental issues. Only last month, during budget estimates, it was revealed that no analysis at all of the long-term consequences of climate change had been done under this government. This is despite the fact that the Stern report stated that climate change poses economic and social risks in our lifetime ‘on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression’. Yet the government has continued to ignore these immense economic risks to our prosperity and living standards. In fact, the Treasurer, Peter Costello, has not mentioned climate change once in 11 budget speeches.

It was also revealed during Senate estimates that greenhouse issues had not been factored into economic forecasting because their economic impact to date had not been sufficiently large. This is a reflection of a government that has had its head in the sand on climate change for 11 years. Now, in an election year, the government is desperately trying to play catch-up on climate change. We have seen 11 years of scepticism and inaction, while the damage continues. The government has refused to sign the Kyoto protocol and has locked Australia out of a global market valued last year at more than $28 billion.

Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are set to soar by 27 per cent by 2020. Scientists tell us we need to reduce them by 60 per cent by 2050. Only last week there was an announcement by 27 European Union leaders that they aimed to cut their greenhouse emissions by 20 per cent by 2020. These EU countries have goals to reduce greenhouse emissions by 20 per cent while, due to the current government’s inaction, Australia’s greenhouse emissions are set to increase by 27 per cent. What do we have in Australia? We have a Prime Minister who will not even set a date to start cutting further greenhouse pollution.

Today we have a situation where clean energy companies are leaving Australia and taking Australian jobs with them. Only last week, the Australian company Global Renewables announced a $5 billion deal with Britain’s Lancashire County Council and Blackpool Council. Global Renewable has had to go to Britain to realise its ambitions. Only four weeks ago, another Australian company, Pacific Hydro, announced its move to Brazil. According to its general manager, Rob Grant, the growth in Australian clean energy assets has been held back by Australia’s decision to not sign the Kyoto protocol. So the company is looking internationally for investment opportunities in countries that are enacting positive policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address global warming.

As Labor’s shadow minister for climate change, environment, heritage and the arts, Peter Garrett, stated this week:

We need climate change solutions that maintain existing jobs and create new jobs into the future.

Labor supports the coal industry and wants much more investment in clean coal technologies.

Because climate change is a global challenge it brings with it global opportunities and markets. Australia can’t afford to be locked out of this future.

What the Howard government truly lacks on the issue of the environment is good policy and good leadership. It is out of touch when it comes to protecting the planet for future generations.

Federal Labor, like many European nations, has a comprehensive plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions and tackle climate change. Federal Labor understands that national leadership on climate change means new opportunities for the Australian economy. A federal Labor government will: immediately ratify the Kyoto protocol; cut greenhouse pollution by 60 per cent by 2050; set up a national emissions trading scheme; set up a $500 million clean coal fund to promote cleaner coal and protect jobs in this sector; and boost the mandatory renewable energy target to encourage, amongst other things, greater use of solar and wind power.

This week, federal Labor released a comprehensive discussion paper outlining its plan for the future of Australia’s coal industry. The paper, New directions for Australia’s coal industry: the national clean coal initiative, outlines Labor’s detailed plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions and create and secure jobs in the coal sector. Practical, immediate action and long-term vision on both water security and climate change—that is Labor’s agenda. Labor is committed to bold, clean energy reform.

5:28 pm

Photo of Rod KempRod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I would like to paint a picture of the chamber at the moment, since Senator Milne started off her remarks by discussing who was and who was not in the chamber. It is a picture of why the Climate Change Action Bill 2006 will not proceed and why it will fail. I will outline again the reasons why the government will not support this bill. Labor are not supporting this bill. Senator Milne sits on the back bench, alone. The three other Greens are not in the chamber. Senator Brown walked in, made his usual extreme comments and then walked out. The Democrats, who apparently support the bill, are not in the chamber to give any support to Senator Milne. It is a sad and sorry sight, and those who are listening to the radio broadcast should be aware of what the scene is like in this chamber.

I must say I felt sorry for Senator Lundy and Senator Wortley. I have respect for both those senators and I tend to listen to their remarks.

Photo of Stephen ConroyStephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting

Photo of Rod KempRod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Not to you, Senator Conroy; I rarely listen to your remarks. But Senator Wortley and Senator Lundy are capable of making careful and thoughtful speeches. I wonder why neither of them said, ‘We are not supporting this bill’—and they are not. I wonder why neither of them came in and made it crystal clear what Labor’s policies were? Could it be that they were ducking the issue? Could it be that they were playing politics? The answer, of course, is yes. They are under strict orders from Peter Garrett to say absolutely nothing.

I must say, Senator Wortley, one of the saddest things to be said of the Labor policy—such as it is and inadequate as it is—is that, after 11 years in opposition, the Labor Party greenhouse policy is to have a summit. I can honestly say, Senator Wortley, that that is a pathetic effort. The one thing I agreed with Senator Brown on was his comment in this regard.

Quite rightly, Senator Wortley did not speak of the record of the Keating-Hawke government in this area; of course she did not, because they have no record. There is no commitment. All of us know that the Labor Party have serious difficulties in this area. What an astonishing thing that Senator Wortley is sent in to discuss support for the coal industry while we are debating Senator Milne’s bill! This government is supportive of the coal industry but not so the Labor Party.

Peter Garrett was sat on. This is the high-profile shadow environment minister who was fast-tracked to the front bench and whose main aim, which was to attempt to shut down elements of the coal industry, failed—or at least up to the election period. The Labor Party is bitterly divided on this, and I would be interested to hear Senator George Campbell’s views on this issue. You can say what you like about Senator George Campbell but he is a man who is proud of the workers and a man who will stand up for the coal industry. I would be very keen to listen to a debate between Senator George Campbell and Mr Peter Garrett on this issue. I suspect that would illustrate very nicely the massive divisions in the Labor ranks.

Let me turn to a couple of remarks that have been made in the course of the debate. I congratulate Senator Eggleston for outlining in great detail the government’s magnificent record in this area. I will not go through the list he put forward to the chamber, but he outlined the seriousness with which the government takes the climate change challenge. He outlined carefully some of the very important initiatives that the government has taken. I listened to Senator Milne’s debate because I was coming into the chamber to debate this. I agreed with Senator Milne on one thing: Senator Milne said that the government will be meeting the Kyoto target—

Photo of Christine MilneChristine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

No.

Photo of Rod KempRod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Yes, you did, Senator. You can go and check the record.

Photo of Christine MilneChristine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator Milne interjecting

Photo of Rod KempRod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

‘With difficulty,’ Senator Milne said. I thought that was a significant concession. Senator Brown has now been tempted back into the chamber, correctly, and I think you should also tempt back the other Greens senators to support Senator Milne. One thing they can say about you, Senator Brown: you were not at a Senate committee hearing. No man has gone missing in action more than you on Senate committees. But I would bring in the rest of the Greens and I would ask the Democrats to come in.

I did agree with Senator Milne that the government is on target to meet the Kyoto target. That was a big concession, but then Senator Milne tried to draw back a little and say, ‘But the target was too soft’—that was Senator Milne’s view. In fact, I think she said it was the most generous amongst major countries—not so, actually. There are other countries in Europe that have targets, Senator Milne, which more than meet the target that was set for Australia.

Photo of Christine MilneChristine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | | Hansard source

I would like you to tell us where.

Photo of Rod KempRod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Yes, there are, Senator Milne. I invite you to carefully—

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator Kemp, please address your remarks through the chair.

Photo of Rod KempRod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I think Senator Milne was heard in silence. It is interesting with the Greens: every time someone differs from them or points out an error, you suddenly get interjections. We sit here and listen quietly to the Greens. We raise some issues and, of course, the interjections then follow. Senator Milne would understand that the Kyoto target was set to recognise the nature of the Australian economy. The Europeans are not noted for giving big concessions to the Aussies, I have to say. So the Kyoto target was set in negotiations and, to the shock and horror of the Greens, Australia is on target to meet the Kyoto target.

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

No, it is not.

Photo of Rod KempRod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator Brown shakes his head. I must say, Senator Brown, when I listen to you debate I can understand what extremism is in this country. Senator Brown and his colleagues are extremists. I will be explaining to you carefully why they are. Senator Brown came in and he postured, as he always does, waved his hands around and said: ‘Look. It’s terrible there aren’t government ministers in here. It’s terrible there aren’t Labor shadow ministers.’ I might say, ‘It’s terrible there aren’t any Greens in here,’ to be quite frank. Anyway, it is your bill and you cannot apparently roll out your own people. Then he said, ‘We want the government to debate this.’

I looked at the speakers list. The speakers list has been carefully arranged by Senator Brown and Senator Milne. Where did they put the government speakers? I will tell you where they put the government speakers—the last four speakers in this debate are government speakers. What Senator Brown wanted to do was to make sure that the government had the last say in this debate, rather hoping of course that the Greens had been able to get their own views across. Senator Brown, you have played funny games, as you often do. You have been caught out this time. So what do the government think? We get the speakers list and we see that we are all shoved down the bottom of the list except for my esteemed colleague Senator Eggleston. The Labor Party is given priority. Senator Brown, you wonder why sometimes you are not taken seriously; it is because you play these rather childish games.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Kemp, I have asked you to address your remarks through the chair.

Photo of Rod KempRod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I raised the issue of extremism in politics. Australians are not extreme, to be quite frank. Australians understand the complexity of the climate change issue. Australians want action to be taken in this area. But Australians reject extremism. Let us look at what is proposed in this bill. The proposal is ultimately for an 80 per cent cut in emissions. The Greens’ position is for an 80 per cent cut in emissions. This is what happens when there is a 60 per cent cut in emissions: petrol prices would rise by approximately 100 per cent—so the Greens would have to go to the next election talking about petrol prices at $2 a litre because that is obviously their policy. Under a cut in emissions below what the Greens are suggesting, GDP growth would be cut by about 11 per cent. Real wages—and I refer to Senator George Campbell, who has written extensively on real wages over the years—would be 21 per cent lower than they would have been under another scenario for 2050. Coal production would be down by 32 per cent.

We know that Senator Brown’s view is to wipe out the coal industry. I am pleased to hear Senator Wortley at least give some support to the coal industry, and in particular to pick up the government’s policy about clean coal. I thought that was good. You were not quite gracious enough, Senator Wortley, to concede that this is a Howard government initiative; but nonetheless you gave it your support. What we are seeing, I believe, is utterly extremist politics.

They have decided that Australia should sign on to Kyoto. But let me read a list of some of the countries in Europe which were referred to so extensively by Senator Milne and Senator Brown. Spain is over its Kyoto target by 36 per cent. Australia, as I understand it, is on target. Denmark is over its target by 25 per cent. Italy is over its target by 20 per cent. Ireland is over its target by 17 per cent. Portugal is over its target by 20 per cent. Norway is over its target by 22 per cent. And yet Senator Milne comes in here and tells us how well the Europeans are doing.

I think it is absolutely extraordinary that the real facts of this case are not being put on the table. Why are we scared of the real facts in this case? Let us have an honest debate on this. If Senator Brown wants to debate this again and is prepared to give the government speakers a chance to get up early in the debate to put their case, as distinct from this time, then maybe we can have one. Let us get the facts straight. Senator Milne should have indicated—

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. If the government moves that we extend this debate into the evening, the Greens will support it.

Photo of Gavin MarshallGavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

There is no point of order.

Photo of Rod KempRod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Of course that is another weak stunt because, as Senator Brown well knows, the program is set for this evening. You have been caught out again, Senator Brown. Do not play these games. Let us have an honest debate. We are more than happy to come into the chamber and have an honest debate. We have an issue that we have to take some real action on to deal with the issues of climate change. The Labor Party’s policy apparently is to have a summit. We shall wait anxiously to see the results of that summit: whether Peter Garrett will get his way and close the coal industry down or whether Senator George Campbell will get his way and provide support for the industry and support the government’s policy for developing technologies to encourage clean coal.

The idea that somehow this government have come to this recently is extraordinary. Senator Brown made a big song and dance about how the government are playing catch-up in this area. Senator Brown said that nothing has been done while this government have been in office. I have just done some quick checking. I asked: when did we establish the Greenhouse Office? The answer is April 1998. Senator Brown said that nothing had been done, but the Greenhouse Office was established in April 1998. The debate was continuing at that time. It was not honest for him to pretend that nothing had happened.

Senator Brown then said that nothing has been done in relation to budgetary arrangements for greenhouse issues. I looked at that claim because I thought it was extraordinary. I know that we are spending a lot of money in this area. I have now discovered that the Australian government are leading the way, investing in a range of measures through our $2 billion climate change strategy. Senator Brown suggests that there was nothing in the budget. The fact that the Greenhouse Office was established in 1998 apparently means nothing. We note that there is a $2 billion strategy. Why don’t you get the facts right? Why don’t you carefully go through the facts so that we can have a proper debate on this issue?

In the end, Australians will reject extremist positions. They always have and they always will. The problem that the Greens have is that they are total extremists. There is no possibility of a debate with Senator Brown when he tries to fix the debating list in the way that he has. Of course, he forgot that the broadcast time starts at five o’clock. Unfortunately, Senator Brown, your manoeuvre did not quite pay off. I put that on record.

The government have a very strong record in this area. We have had a range of very effective ministers for the environment: Senator Robert Hill; Dr David Kemp, whom I know very well, was a very effective minister; and you would have to say that Senator Ian Campbell led a very strong debate in this area—and all credit to him. Malcolm Turnbull has now been given the portfolio. So it is no wonder that the Labor Party are worried.

Let me, in the concluding moments, comment on some of the other matters that were raised in this debate. Senator Wortley indicated—again, picking up the Senator Brown theme—that nothing had been done. I wonder why Senator Wortley did not mention the Australia-China Joint Coordination Group on Clean Coal Technology, which will provide strategic guidance, oversight and impetus to a range of clean coal activities in Australia and China. I wonder why that was not mentioned in your remarks, Senator Wortley. This is a very important initiative and one in which Australia is again leading the world. We can take great pride in our initiatives.

Senator Brown said nothing was being spent on the climate challenge. Three new solar cities, which have been announced for Queensland, South Australia and New South Wales, will install 3,000 solar panels on private and public housing and other buildings. Why not mention these initiatives? Senator Wortley shakes her head. You will have to wait until the summit to be able to tell us what the Labor Party will do, and you will have to resolve the conflicts in your own party about what you do with the coal industry. I do not think you should shake your head at me in that way.

The Acting Deputy President:

Senator Kemp, please address your remarks through the chair.

Photo of Rod KempRod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, unfortunately, we have had what I think is a very average debate. We have had a very misleading debate from the Greens. I cannot speak for the Democrats, because they are not in the chamber and I do not like to make comments about people when they are not in the chamber. The Labor Party were told not to support the bill and try not to give the impression that there was big action occurring, because we are all waiting for the Labor Party summit. I think that is a very weak position. My advice to Senator Wortley and Senator Lundy is that, next time you are sent in to debate an issue like this, make it clear where you stand and get your orders so that you are able to make a stand. I know Mr Rudd’s view is that you run very hard on both sides of the street, that you try to convey different messages to different people. This approach by the Labor Party is coming unstuck, and it will come unstuck because you simply cannot fool the Australian people all the time. To be quite frank, to my mind the Labor Party was given a very weak position in this debate. As I said, I felt very sorry for Senator Wortley and Senator Lundy.

Photo of Stephen ConroyStephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator Conroy interjecting

Photo of Rod KempRod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Senator Conroy has come in. Senator Conroy, I do not know whether you are speaking in this debate—I suspect you are not. I suspect you have been chained up, and rightly so. I think it would be very unwise for the Labor Party to let you loose in this debate. I will tell you why: I know your views on this and they are not strictly on message. (Time expired)

5:49 pm

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

I rarely disagree with Senator Kemp, but I have to on this occasion. He said that the debate was ‘very average’. It has certainly risen to a higher plane in the last 20 minutes, Senator Kemp, because your speech has put some class and quality into this debate. I know that Senator Kemp is a very humble person—full of humility. He mentioned a string of very successful Liberal Party environment ministers and he did it quite well—Senator Robert Hill, an exceptionally good environment minister; Dr David Kemp, a very good environment minister; Senator Campbell, absolutely marvellous; and our current minister, Mr Turnbull, is demonstrating what caring for the environment is all about. What Senator Kemp did not mention was that a string of great coalition ministers and the policies that they adopted were all put together when he was the coalition shadow minister for the environment prior to the 1996 election.

We all remember well how, in those days, the Labor Party used to get the tick in the box for ‘Which party is best to look after the environment?’ That was as a result of Richo’s fairly nefarious approaches to the environment. He was not interested in the environment; he was just interested in getting power and whatever it took—and it took a bit of a pretence of being interested in the environment. Former Senator Richardson had fooled a lot of people. Senator Kemp single-handedly turned around the approach of the Australian people to the environment and who would be best to look after it.

It was an interesting time, as I remember, Senator Kemp. What some might have said were more radical environmental organisations came on side and assisted you, because your policies were so good. To a degree, it was your effort that helped with the tide that returned the Howard government. Those who were genuinely interested and involved in the environment—not in the tricks and the left-wing activism that Senator Brown is renowned for—followed the policy that Senator Kemp had prepared in opposition and supported the government.

I did have a prepared speech, but I have been thrown off my track by Senator Kemp’s revelation about petrol prices going up under Senator Brown’s proposal. I understand from what you said, Senator Kemp, that if there was a 60 per cent cut in emissions—and I understand Senator Brown is calling for 80 per cent—

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I would just draw the ex-minister’s attention to the fact that this is Senator Christine Milne’s bill and he should be addressing that.

Photo of John WatsonJohn Watson (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

There is no point of order, Senator Brown; sit down.

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

Senator Brown, you are the leader of the Greens—for the moment; I understand there is a bit of murmuring on the back bench about the leadership quality in the Greens at the present time. It has been going on for a while. I cannot but think how sexist the Greens are—due to the fact that Senator Brown maintains the leadership position. Senator Brown has been here for a long time—some would say too long—so we have heard this debate before. We have heard all of these discussions before. But Senator Kemp alerted me to the fact that if we had a 60 per cent decrease in emissions, that would lead to an increase in petrol prices of approximately 100 per cent. I find that absolutely amazing. I would even start to doubt you, but you quoted that from ABARE, the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics, a very well-qualified and respected organisation that is not prone to making outlandish claims.

I just wonder, as a representative of regional Australia, from North Queensland, what it would mean to our economy if we had a 100 per cent increase in fuel prices. Senator Brown and Senator Milne would not understand. They come from the state of Tasmania, which is a lovely state with lovely people, lovely forests, a lovely timber industry that is sustainably managed, a great fishing industry and a good tourism industry that is working side by side with production sawmills. It is a great little state, but it is a little state. I know that you also come from that lovely state of Tasmania, Mr Acting Deputy President Watson, but it is only a little state. If petrol prices go up 100 per cent, it will have an effect on Tasmania but only a small effect. If you come from a state like Queensland, as I do, with vast distances from town to town and from the sources of production to the ports or the manufacturing areas, the imposition of a 100 per cent increase in the cost of fuel would be catastrophic. And this is what the Greens are proposing.

All of the hundreds of thousands of people who are listening to this debate on the radio should be aware that Senator Brown, Senator Milne and their party want to increase petrol prices by more than 100 per cent, and people should be aware and understand the catastrophic effect that would have on a state like Queensland and on Northern Australia in particular. In addition, I understand that ABARE says that GDP growth would be 10 per cent lower, oil and gas production would fall by 60 per cent, and coal production would be down 32 per cent. I hang around in an area of North Queensland which is near the Bowen coalfields; I live not far from there. The people who work in the coal industry there are all good workers—and for some strange reason they still vote for the Labor Party; I cannot fathom that—and they are making an enormous amount of money. They well deserve it, I might say, but they are making huge wages in their work in the coal industry.

That is an industry that has been nurtured and promoted by the Howard government, and it is an industry that will be an environmental model when our clean coal technology gets going. The miners in the Bowen coalfields area, who make a lot of money, also put a lot of money back into the local economy. They buy houses, they go to the pub, they go on holidays and they buy cars. It is tremendous for the North Queensland economy to have all this money floating around. Senator Brown and his team would have all of that stopped. Can you imagine, on top of the doubling of fuel prices, the catastrophic effect it would have on Queensland if coalmining was to be reduced, as Senator Brown has proposed? If that happens, you can shut down half of Queensland, and the other half would be in a pretty poor state. Mr Acting Deputy President, I wonder if you could guide me: does this debate finish at 6 pm or 6.30 pm?

The Acting Deputy President:

Six o’clock.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. That leaves only three minutes, but, if the government speaker wants to put this to a vote now, the Greens will be supporting it.

The Acting Deputy President:

There is no point of order.

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

I had a prepared speech for quite a period of time, and I know that Senator Ronaldson had another 20 minutes prepared, because we have an interest in this. We have a good story to tell from our government. You think everything will be cured if we sign a bit of paper—the Kyoto protocol. Of course, none of the big emitters have done that. Signing the Kyoto protocol will not make one iota of difference to climate change in Australia. I know that Senator Ronaldson has a couple of very salient points that he wants to make before this debate comes to an end, so I am going to throw away the rest of my speech and allow Senator Ronaldson to have a few minutes on this very important subject.

5:58 pm

Photo of Michael RonaldsonMichael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Thank you most sincerely, Senator Macdonald; that is very gracious of you. I was enjoying your contribution. In your former role you were well recognised as a fantastic minister. It is an absolute joke that the only way Senator Bob Brown is dragged into a matter that he has an interest in is when someone like Senator Kemp alerts him to the fact that he is not down here. Of course, he scuttled back quickly. I remember vividly the Telstra bill, and the Greens were opposed to it. Who was out the front, on his mobile phone, and did not have the intestinal fortitude to come into the hearing? The great joke about today, as Senator Kemp has alluded to, has been the Australian Labor Party, whose only policy—as Senator Milne indicated—is a summit. After 11 years, the best thing they can do is to have a summit. They have no policies. The Australian Greens have no answers. This government has got $2 billion on the table and it is meeting its Kyoto commitments—and that is acknowledged. (Time expired)

Debate interrupted.