Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a great country we are in where we can have a debate like this, where there is enthusiastic, open and forthright debate on an issue that is important to the nation. It is also personal for me. I am more than happy to participate in this debate, as the issue of climate change and its impacts are of particular importance to my electorate of McMillan. A sizeable proportion of the population of McMillan is directly dependent on the brown coal power electricity generated in the Latrobe Valley. It is well known to this House that of even greater importance is the contribution this power source makes to the manufacturing industry in Victoria and its overall economy—and the national economy.

Implicit in the matter of public importance raised for discussion by the member for Grayndler is that the Howard government is sitting on its hands on the question of climate change and its impact. He seized on last night’s Four Corners program on the ABC as an opportunity to attack the government’s environmental credentials. The member for Grayndler has called for the urgent need for the government to take action to avoid dangerous climate change based upon independent scientific analysis. He has apparently overlooked the fact that the Howard government is already committed to a $1.9 billion package of climate change measures.

He also seems to be oblivious of the fact that, while there is agreement on the fact there is climate change, there are still uncertainties about some aspects of climate change science. What is needed in facing the challenge of climate change is a measured and coordinated approach, not a shoot from the hip reaction based on alarmist and sensational claims, again based on extreme views of the impact of climate change. This government recognises the need for development of renewable energy and is pouring considerable resources into a range of initiatives. But the simple fact is that in the short term we will continue to be heavily dependent on coal based electricity generation if we are to maintain our economic development and high employment rates. This is why this government recently committed $2.2 million to a project in the Latrobe Valley to support the development of technologies to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from brown coal.

If ever there were an example of why the federal government should not be rushed into decision making in its response to climate change, it would be the unseemly haste in rushing to support the development of wind turbines in a number of areas. In the McMillan electorate we have the beautiful coastal vista outside Wonthaggi permanently scarred by wind turbines that are producing what can only be called a token amount of electricity at great cost—that is, when the wind blows—and at only 13 per cent efficiency. Further east, the Victorian government is trying to ride roughshod over local planning authorities and residents to approve developments at Bald Hills and Dollar. We will see about that. Again, the Bracks government in Victoria has taken little or no account of the objections of residents to the visual impact on the scenic areas of the state that rely on tourism and the potential impact on local birdlife. All this is to appease a noisy minority and is an effort to attract a handful of Green votes or preferences.

We are going through the same process here in the Australian Capital Territory, where there are a number of wind turbine projects planned or under way. Again we have the same noisy minority trying to shout down communities that have genuine concerns about these monstrosities in their midst. Again they are being accused of NIMBYism and this, to me, is the feeblest criticism of anyone exercising his or her democratic right to oppose a development they feel is going to have a negative impact on their life and on their amenity.

Around the capital at the moment, particularly the Molonglo ridge area—which you, Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, would be well aware of—there are a number of local people who do not want that area destroyed by wind turbines. If it is destroyed by wind turbines, the vista and the amenities of the area will be changed forever, because these things take a very short time to put up, they are there for 30 years and then they will have to be torn down. To me they will always be ugly; to me they have destroyed the amenity and the beauty of the areas in which they exist, and may even go further by destroying the amenity and the beauty of Gippsland—especially that trip that takes you from Melbourne to the Prom. It is one of the great wonder trips of that part of Victoria.

I just wish the member for Grayndler and the member for Kingsford Smith would go down to Victoria and look at what the Bracks government is doing in the name of renewable energy. I do not want your Molonglo hills destroyed on the altar of renewable energy, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a great supporter of renewable energy and the way we go about it. In the committees that I work with there are some very good people from the opposition, without naming names, and we are at one on renewable energy and the desire of this parliament to respond to climate change and respond to renewable energy. We have different ways we might like to go about it, but we will respond in a way where we can mount the arguments.

I do not think the member for Grayndler today mounted a great argument. I thought he was very good with the Deputy Speaker in the way he handled himself and was able to remain in the room. However, the member for Kingsford Smith was obviously passionate about what he was on about, and it was a great performance. I am not sure whether it was a great contribution, but it was a good performance that will perhaps encourage other people to take a deeper and abiding interest.

A writer in the Canberra Times drew the analogy between the opponents of the wind turbines and Don Quixote in his tilting at windmills on the plains of La Mancha. I look at it rather as a David and Goliath struggle, and we all know who won that battle.

When I came to this place on my first occasion—this is my third—it was under the Hawke government. They had a particular committee on which they needed to place a former minister. His name was Barry Jones. They created a committee called the Standing Committee for Long Term Strategies. I asked the then former minister Mr Jones one day, ‘Mr Jones, what’s long-term strategy around this place?’ and he said, ‘Next Tuesday.’ But the truth is that we took that committee very seriously.

We had a lot of dealings with CSIRO, because Barry Jones at that time took a huge interest in what was happening at CSIRO, where the nation would go in the future, and what was happening to Australia as a whole, particularly with regard to its land. They did a report for us that showed very clearly how our rangelands were drying. I just want to mention one thing about dealing with the CSIRO. It was very clear that all the scientists there were very open regarding the technical aspects of what they were doing. They were not entering at any time into the policy of where we were headed. That was clearly left for a committee report or for the minister or, as in our case here, for the parliamentary secretary. Those rangelands were drying then—and I think there is an ongoing process now—and salting.

The nation has responded since 1990 in many ways, but particularly the federal government has responded. How have we responded? Here is some information. Australia’s climate change package includes $100 million for the Renewable Energy Development Initiative; a $75 million Solar Cities program, where there will be at least four solar cities chosen from a short list; $20.5 million of renewable energy storage; a $31.6 million Challenge Plus partnership with industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; a $243 million Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program; a $205 million Renewable Remote Power Generation Program; a $52 million Photovoltaic Rebate Program; and a $14 million wind energy forecasting capacity program.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute today. Climate change is important to the nation. We have had a gradual increase in the temperature over 1,000 years. I hope there will be a gradual increase in this debate, and Australia will come to— (Time expired)

See this speech in context