Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

I was making a very simple point: we have presented a strong case internally that you have a new watch within the government that is absolutely clear as to the reality of this phenomenon. It has not just taken a position but encouraged the bureaucracy to make the strongest case possible on the basis of facts. On the basis of those facts it has presented public statements, and on the basis of those public statements it has pursued the strongest of international action. That is the reality. We have stood absolutely clear on what we regard to be the position and the responsibilities.

We can compare this with a silence on the extraordinary greenhouse factory of desalination within Sydney—a silence from the member for Grayndler and his team on the greenhouse factory, a silence on the fact that the states—the Labor states—are currently proposing 25 new power stations in Australia, many of which have a heavy coal fired base, including Hazelwood in Victoria. We now finally have a backflip on the Asia-Pacific partnership, after it had been rejected. And, in addition to that, over the last few weeks we have had an extraordinary attack in relation to Australia’s role at Montreal, where Australia was not only heavily engaged in the meeting of the parties and the conference of the parties and not only invited to be part of the ‘Friends of the President’ meeting in Ottawa but, under the leadership of Senator Campbell, played an absolutely instrumental role in pulling together the Montreal plan of action in relation to a post-Kyoto framework.

How do we take this forward? There are three key principles here. Firstly, Australia is one of the few countries meeting its targets under the Kyoto protocol. We are actually doing what those opposite are arguing for and delivering, whereas they are silent about the hypocrisy of much of the rest of the world. Secondly, we have moved beyond that to a complementary but, I would argue, more significant agreement, the Asia-Pacific partnership, and I will address some of the elements of that. And, thirdly, we are pursuing a powerful but balanced domestic greenhouse initiative.

Let us look at what is happening internationally and the silence of our friends on the opposition bench. Firstly, while Australia is on track—and it does not matter what is the source of us being on track; I think that is a good thing, not a bad thing—let us look at the EU. The EU is 5.1 per cent over its targets. Germany is 2.1 per cent over its targets. The Netherlands is 6.6 per cent over its targets. Denmark is 20.2 per cent over its target. Japan is 13 per cent over. New Zealand is 32 per cent over. Canada is 19 per cent over. Australia is on track. Australia is on track whereas these countries are in breach of their Kyoto targets. We are delivering whereas others are promising. For some reason, the member for Grayndler thinks that there is a moral debt when you are delivering and a moral supremacy when you are promising but failing to deliver. That is the first point.

Secondly, in relation to the Asia-Pacific partnership and what the Australian government has helped to create in partnership with the other five countries, we have laid down an initiative which will deliver an estimated 90 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas abatement between now and 2050. Is that all that is necessary? No. If we said that, it would be flawed. But it is a fundamental contribution, on a greater scale than what is being delivered under Kyoto.

Let me provide the facts to the House. The facts are these. The Kyoto agreement produces a greenhouse gas abatement of approximately 500 million tonnes of CO or CO-like gases per year. If you were to multiply that out between now and 2050, you would be looking at 25 billion tonnes of CO. But even if that process were to escalate and to triple—even if we took the most conservative estimates in relation to the Asia-Pacific partnership and the most expansive outcomes in relation to the Kyoto protocol—we would still have a difference of 75 billion tonnes under Kyoto and 90 billion tonnes under the ABARE estimates for the Asia-Pacific partnership. However, the great thing is that these are not the same gases. These are complementary reductions.

What we have done is provide a complementary reduction over and above anything which is calculated in relation to Kyoto. It brings in the United States, India and China. These are the greatest sources of CO emissions in the world. Australia has just over one per cent of emissions. If we are to have a global effect, we need to take domestic action. None of us deny that. But, most significantly, we need to be able to leverage the international effect of how you decrease the total global greenhouse gases available. How do you do that? The answer is simple. We have brought together these six countries. It is a foundation and a platform, and that is a conservative estimate from ABARE.

No other country in the world has been able to leverage its own size relative to the total greenhouse gases which it is looking to save and abate worldwide. That is a very simple proposition. Of all the different nations in the world, Australia has put together on a reduction versus per capita basis the single greatest savings package through the Asia-Pacific partnership.

We also recognise that there are critical domestic initiatives which we seek to take—at $1.9 billion. That is a combination of three things. The first involves a reduction of CO and like gases from fossil fuel outputs. We make no apologies for trying to get the greatest savings at the source of the greatest emissions. The second is in relation to renewable energy, whether that is encouraging solar, wind or water. It is all of those different things. We actually created a wind industry in Australia. If the states want to take it further, it is up to them. And the third thing is that we are responsible for an international initiative which provides the first truly international greenhouse gas initiative. We have a proud history and a proud record. (Time expired)

See this speech in context