Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources (Senator Abetz) to questions without notice asked today.

Today a number of questions were asked of Senator Abetz which sought to draw the government on what it was doing in relation to climate change, and quite frankly the answers again reinforced the message that the government does not understand climate change, has no plan for tackling it and is being dragged reluctantly by the community to confront the issues of climate change. For 11 years the government did nothing in the face of those challenges and it is only in recent times, when the community proved that they were way out in front of the government, when the community concerns were so strong and so loud, that the Prime Minister finally agreed to establish a task force to look at the question of climate change and propositions for a carbon emissions trading system.

We heard from the minister today that the government have no idea about what is going on in terms of the climate change challenge. We know they have not ratified Kyoto. We know they stand outside the international community. We know they have let the MRET run down to the point of making no practical contribution to renewable energy in this country. We know that solar research has been cut by the government to the point that the major leading solar research technologies that were developed in this country have been forced overseas and that Australia’s leading scientists in solar matters are now working overseas due to the lack of funding and lack of interest by this government in solar energy. We have the situation now where Germany leads the field on solar research. Australia has dropped back and our resources in this area have been cut back dramatically, and a country that once led the world in solar research effort is now very much following. There are many good scientists still left in this country, but the funding is not there to provide the leadership in that area that we should be providing.

The government just do not get it on climate change. It is a reflection, I think, of the lack of leadership, the failure to come to terms with modern issues, the failure to come to terms with the future challenges that Australia faces. Because the government just do not get it, they cannot come to terms with leading the Australian community in tackling climate change. To be fair, there is a fundamental problem inside the government—they do not believe that climate change is caused by human activity. The Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Minchin, Senator Abetz himself, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, Mr Macfarlane, actually do not believe that the science about climate change is right—they are climate sceptics. I think Senator Bernardi and others are of the same view. The Liberal Party is full of people who do not accept the science. That is fine, but it makes them totally incapable of leading the response Australia needs to make to climate change.

My view, and I think the view of most Australians, is that the evidence is in, the science is now widely accepted in the world that human activity is making a huge impact on climate, that we cannot go on emitting carbon at the rates we are and that we need to respond. But if you do not believe it, you cannot respond; you cannot provide the leadership necessary. So I accept that the government have a fundamental problem. They do not believe it; therefore they are totally hamstrung in terms of responding. So the Prime Minister had to be dragged into doing something, as Crosby Textor kept reinforcing to him that Australians understand the problem and accept the science and that something needs to be done. But the government have failed to act in a way that would provide the leadership in tackling climate change.

One of the things that struck me when I took on the shadow ministerial responsibilities for resources and energy late last year is that business gets it. Business absolutely gets it. Business wants the certainty of knowing what is going to happen in terms of climate change in this country. It wants the certainty of knowing whether it is going to have a carbon emissions trading system. It wants a price on carbon. It wants to know that we are going to seriously tackle climate change, because it is affecting it very fundamentally. Business cannot make huge investment decisions in Australia until it knows what the price of carbon is, what targets the Australian government has set and what commitment there is to renewable energy in this country. It is crying out for leadership from the Australian government and it is not getting it. Business will get it from Labor because we will set targets, sign up to Kyoto and establish an MRET scheme. (Time expired)

Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We hear this mantra from Labor time and time again that the Howard government has done nothing about greenhouse issues or climate change. It is absolute nonsense, as we have said time and time again in this chamber. Usually Senator Evans gets his lieutenant, Senator Wong, or one of the other people in his party to put up this nonsensical argument, presumably because he is too embarrassed to persist with it, but today Senator Evans has jumped in with the absolute nonsense claim that the Howard government has not done anything about greenhouse issues or climate change.

Senator Evans is fully aware that one of the first things the Howard government did when it came to office in 1996 was to establish the world’s first greenhouse office. If the previous Labor government had any awareness of climate change, it was open to them during the 1990s to establish a greenhouse office, but it did not do anything. In fact, it is a matter of great pride within the coalition that it can say that it established the first greenhouse office of a government anywhere in the world. That probably should be enough to completely destroy the credibility of the rest of Senator Evans’s remarks.

One of other comments Senator Evans made was that we were doing nothing about renewables, but of course we have a very strong renewable energy program and we have committed almost $3.4 billion to initiatives that directly address climate change and over a quarter of a million dollars to more indirect measures. The Howard government’s energy white paper is the most definitive statement on lowering greenhouse gas emissions. The strategy includes, for Senator Evans’s information, the $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund and the $100 million Renewable Energy Development Initiative—so much for the Howard government, Senator Evans, not doing anything about renewable energy.

Most significantly, in terms of what Senator Evans just had to say, the $75 million Solar Cities initiative very much underlines our commitment to seeking to develop the science and technology to enable solar energy to be used in this country. Of course, Australia is blessed with abundant sunshine and if we can develop the science of solar energy to a degree that it can be used to power cities and plants and provide lighting along highways then Australia will have developed a very useful technology indeed. In Victoria we have set up the largest solar energy plant in the world, at the cost of many millions of dollars. Senator Evans, rather than criticising the Howard government in this chamber, should give credit where credit is due. The Howard government surely deserves credit for its imaginative initiatives in setting up Solar Cities programs around this country.

The government’s climate strategy has also stimulated significant private investment in low-emission technologies. One of Senator Evans’s criticisms was that business was not happy with the government’s policies on climate change, but the mandatory renewable energy target is expected to leverage $3.5 billion in private investment over the coming years. Lastly, the Prime Minister recently announced the next major plank of our climate change strategy, which is a national emissions trading scheme due to begin in 2012. Senator Evans knows that and his remarks about us not having an emissions trading scheme are quite wrong and misleading. Again, the government deserves to be congratulated. (Time expired)

Linda Kirk (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note today of answers given in question time also in relation to climate change. The absolute, bare truth of this matter in the climate change debate is simply that the Howard government has had 11 years to take resolute action on climate change and has done no such thing. What has it done? It has denied, it has run sceptical lines and then it has tried, as a last resort, spin.

The fact is that it has spent millions, not billions, of dollars on climate change. In fact, it has spent less than 0.05 per cent of the annual federal budget on climate change expenditure. Here is an inconvenient truth: during this term of the parliament alone, the Howard government will spend about the same amount on advertising—that is, about $850 million—as it has spent on climate change since 1996; that is, $867 million. So, in the course of the last 11 years, it has spent $867 million on climate change; yet, just in the term of this parliament alone, it has spent almost exactly the same amount of money on government advertising.

As I said before, the government spent less than 0.05 per cent of the annual federal budget on climate change. This amounts to about $5 a year for every man, woman and child in Australia. It is an absolutely miniscule amount. As we have heard today, the government’s problems on climate change are systemic. The government cannot bring itself to accept that we should ratify the Kyoto protocol and that we as a nation should be sitting at the table and influencing the negotiations surrounding this matter. This government cannot bring itself to accept that a target is a perfectly reasonable public policy position to have. As we heard Senator Evans mention, a number of government members cannot even bring themselves to accept the fact that we, as human beings, have created the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to global warming. We know that there are a number of climate change sceptics within the government. In the time I have available I do not have time to mention them all. The government simply will not recognise that global warming will have significant impacts on our economy, our environment and our society. It is time that the government took some responsibility for this—here in Australia, right now, in 2007. That is the bottom line in this debate.

By contrast, Labor have indicated that we are ready, willing and able to tackle this dangerous problem of climate change. There are many things that a Labor government would do. For example, we would restore Australia’s international leadership on climate change, we would immediately ratify Kyoto and we would provide $150 million within our aid budget to assist our Pacific neighbours to adapt to climate change. A Labor government would develop a carbon market and reform our institutions. We, in contrast to this government, would lead by example. We would drive a clean energy renewable revolution. Labor would increase the mandatory renewable energy target that is now languishing under this government. We have seen that the renewable industry has had to go overseas in order to make a go of it. Labor, in contrast to this government, would be—as our shadow minister, Peter Garrett, has said on a number of occasions—fair dinkum about climate change. We would meet the climate change challenge, something that this government—a tired, 11-year-old Howard government—has no possibility whatsoever of doing.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kirk spoke of taking resolute action, suggesting that this government over 11 years has not taken resolute action. I would contend that this government for 11 years has consistently been taking resolute action on the matters around climate change. As my good friend Senator Eggleston pointed out, this government within just 18 months of being elected, in 1997, launched a package of investments to address climate change initiatives. This government quickly followed that up with the establishment of the Australian Greenhouse Office, and this government has since then committed some $3.4 billion in investments to address the challenges we face as a result of climate change. These are real investments, real measures, taken by a government that recognises that it needs to address this issue. Rather than the rhetorical flourish we hear from the other side of the chamber or the hyperbole we hear from the crossbenches on this subject matter, this government is looking to address it with meaningful, real, practical measures, with sensible policy outcomes that will effect change for the long term to fix this issue but that will not along the way cause enormous pain to the Australian economy.

If there is one thing that Senator Kirk said that I do agree with, it is that the issue of climate change has the potential to have an impact on the economy. Yes, it does, and managing the threats of climate change has the potential to have an impact on the economy. That is why this government, which has demonstrated over 11 years that it can invest in climate change, and that it can effect change along the way whilst also delivering strong economic growth and benefits for all Australians, is best placed to continue to confront these challenges into the future. This is a government with a track record of strong economic management, as well as a track record of addressing this very important issue. That is the tandem approach we need into the future.

We hear an awful lot about ratification or otherwise of the Kyoto protocol, which is due to expire in 2012 in any event. But this government, by taking sensible steps, has ensured that we can hold the principled ground of not ratifying—because we have concerns that Kyoto will not deliver for the world what is required to ensure that other emitters are tied to targets as well—but of, within Australia, working hard to meet the targets that were set for us under Kyoto in any event. Labor keep trying to claim that we will not meet those targets. They hope that, by saying it often enough, that will be the case. They are obviously being extremely pessimistic in their approach to this. The data shows that, with respect to Australia’s target of achieving 108 per cent of emissions at 1990 levels by 2012, we are on track; we are just one per cent over target. We are well and truly on track when compared to numerous other countries. New Zealand is 13 per cent above its target. That is a country with a Labour government, a country that has ratified Kyoto but a country that is not managing to achieve its targets. There is no point in us having targets if we are not able to meet them. The government has happily said, ‘We will meet the target,’ but also, ‘We expect the rest of the community to play its role as well.’

We heard from both Senator Evans and Senator Kirk. Senator Evans said that this government stands outside of the international community, and Senator Kirk said that we should be sitting at the table with the international community. I am not sure, frankly, where they have been recently. At the APEC summit we saw this government take a leadership role in placing climate change at the forefront of discussions. We are committed to developing the post-2012 arrangements for climate change management in the world. That is why this parliament, hopefully later today, will be passing the first framework for greenhouse gas reporting as part of our emissions trading scheme, which will ensure that this country is playing a leading role into the future in this very important policy area—not just at home, where we will set the standard, but also abroad in ensuring that both developed and developing countries play their role into the future.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the answers given to questions on the important issues of global warming and climate change. I would first like to make mention of the contributions by Senator Eggleston and Senator Birmingham to the debate. Senator Eggleston would like people to give the Howard government some credit for what they have done on climate change, but it is drawing a really long bow to expect the Australian community to acknowledge the very little that this government has done over 11 very long years. The senators on the other side are champions at taking credit for anything that is good—for example, the way the state governments have managed their economies—but, when it comes to taking responsibility for the lack of action, we see this government running a mile, and they are the champions of the blame game.

It is Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party that have shown leadership on this very important issue. Mr Rudd recently outlined the details of the very clear need to address the serious issue of climate change and of the policy agenda that the Labor Party will take forward to the pending election. A Rudd Labor government will take decisive action on climate change because we believe climate change is the greatest environmental challenge facing the global community. Tackling climate change should be a national priority, but, after the Howard government’s 11 years of inaction and denial, Australia is now on track to increase its greenhouse pollutants by 27 per cent by 2020.

In reports released earlier this year, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, reaffirmed unequivocally what the Howard government has known since 1996: climate change is real, it will hurt our economy, it will hurt the environment and, most importantly, it will affect our children’s future. In coming decades, hotter and drier summers in the south of our country will threaten our rural communities and industries. The harsh reality of climate change is that the Great Barrier Reef could be destroyed through coral bleaching, the Kakadu wetlands could be flooded and the Snowy Mountains could lose much of their snow. These Australian icons are the backbone of our tourism industry and regional economies.

It should be noted by the Senate what the Stern review in the UK made clear last October: the costs of delay will be far greater than the cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions now. Labor believes we can address climate change immediately with solutions that ensure the integrity of our water supply, protect our environment and secure Australian jobs and industries now and into the future. A Rudd Labor government would be committed to restoring Australia’s international leadership on climate change and would immediately ratify the Kyoto protocol to help forge a global solution to climate change. Labor will aim to cut Australia’s greenhouse pollutants by 60 per cent on 2000 levels by 2050 and introduce an effective emissions trading scheme by 2010.

Labor is also committed to leading by example. Central to this point, Labor has committed to using its purchasing power to provide a market for new, efficient technologies. Labor has also pledged to help Australian families to green their homes. Labor will offer $10,000 low-interest loans for Australian households to implement energy and water savings and provide rebates for rooftop solar panels. These are real initiatives that go part of the way towards a solution. Labor has agreed to work in partnership with businesses to drive energy efficiency improvements that will deliver smarter and more productive industries and to establish a $500 million national clean coal fund.

Labor is also willing to invest in sustainable agriculture and to protect our biodiversity. We will work with farmers to encourage sustainable farming practices which reduce emissions, develop carbon sinks and protect our unique plants and animals. As I said, it is not about blaming others and wanting to take credit; it is about action and leadership. I think it is necessary and vitally important. It is something that the Howard government has not done and on which it has shown no leadership, and I do not believe it will do so. Labor is the only party—(Time expired)

Question agreed to.