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

I take on this matter of public importance debate with relish and I do so because it defines the difference between this government and this opposition. What in essence is that difference? It comes down to two principles. The first is that the opposition would sign but we are already delivering. Its entire principle on this is that you must ratify the Kyoto agreement so that you can achieve the target of 108 per cent of 1990 emissions for the period between 2008 and 2012. Guess what! We are one of the only developed world countries that is actually meeting its targets. We are one of a handful of countries that is achieving the very outcome it wants to pursue.

What does that mean in a broader sense? It is the difference between doing the easy and the hard. What is it that defines the Leader of the Opposition? It is the desire to do the easy. What is it that defines the Prime Minister and the government that supports him? It is the desire to do the hard. The concern of the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Grayndler comes down to a simple principle, and that is, ‘Look, let’s just sign and everything will be fine.’ We have already delivered in a way that almost no other developed world country has.

I want to deal with this fraud in four steps. Firstly, I want to deal with the notion of how Australia is one of the few countries to actually be meeting its targets under the international agreements. Second is the fact that we do accept the IPCC findings and recommendations in relation to climate and we have taken profound action. Thirdly, I am happy to say that, of all the countries in the world, we have taken the best and most practical international leadership role. We have taken a step to produce savings of 90 billion tonnes of CO over the years between now and 2050 through the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate—which is approximately three times the amount that would come through the Kyoto mechanism. These are real figures with real estimates which utterly put the lie to the position that the member for Grayndler outlined that by signing and ratifying everything will be fine, whereas we take the real steps. The fourth thing I want to do is outline some of the practical steps we are taking to control our greenhouse emissions. Let me put a very simple proposition. In 1990 our greenhouse emissions as a country were 550 million tonnes; in 2004 and 2005 we are looking at a figure of approximately 560 million tonnes. That is a fascinating reality check for the great claims made by our friends in the opposition.

Let me go first to this notion of meeting our targets. The very concept here is that, when you look around the world amongst the developed countries, Australia is almost unique or alone in doing the practical things to meet the outcomes. The great shibboleth on the other side is that we have to ratify Kyoto. What defines Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Norway, New Zealand, Canada, Japan? All of them have ratified Kyoto; none of them is meeting its targets. Not one of these countries, which the opposition hold up as moral leaders, is meeting its targets. Denmark is 25 per cent over its target; Austria, 22 per cent; Belgium, 8½ per cent; Italy, 9½ per cent; the Netherlands, 10 per cent; France, nine per cent; Ireland, 20 per cent; Spain, 36 per cent; Portugal, 25 per cent; Norway, 22 per cent; New Zealand, 10 per cent; Canada, 22 per cent; and Japan, 12 per cent. They are all over their targets.

In Australia, by comparison, we are achieving what we set out to do. But we did not accept that the mechanism for doing it was in the Australian interest or in the international interest. Why? Because of a simple proposition. It is the proposition of perverse outcomes—that if you pursue that particular mechanism what is likely to happen is precisely what has happened in Europe where we have seen aluminium and cement plants not close down, not cease to exist but move from Europe to North Africa. That has actually led to an increase in total global emissions. That is the only test that matters: what is the effect on total global emissions? So we have a mechanism that relies on an accounting fraud in that it relies on the collapse of Russian industry post-1990 and achieves a perverse outcome. It achieves precisely the opposite of what our friends in the opposition would seek to portray as happening. They wish to sign and they wish to ratify but we have already achieved the outcomes. They demand that we adopt a mechanism, though, to achieve those outcomes which globally is having a perverse effect. That is why we reject it—because it does not do what it was intended to do. It does not do what they said it would do. Worse than that, it is destructive and is backed up by the hypocrisy of all those countries whose names I have just read into the record and the amount by which they are exceeding their targets.

I make no apology for the fact that we have not fallen for this particular trap but instead have delivered where none of those other countries has delivered. And that is fundamental. What it means in practice is, firstly, that we have been able to achieve a sensible outcome in the balance between the contribution of this generation and future generations and, secondly, that we have been able to do it in a way that makes Australia a global leader. I particularly pay respect to the work of Senator Ian Campbell in doing this and point out that Australia has been enlisted through the role of Mr Howard Bamsey, who is the head of the Australian Greenhouse Office, as one of the world’s two co-chairs of the post-2012 negotiations.

That is what is fascinating in this regard. Of all the countries in the world, Australia, through the work of Senator Ian Campbell and, through his agency, the work of Mr Howard Bamsey, has been selected as one of the world’s two co-chairs of the post-2012 talks. I think that is a recognition of where Australia stands in the international community on this matter—amongst those people who actually focus on balancing our economic responsibilities for individuals’ lives, for people with families and jobs, with our responsibilities for future generations.

Having mentioned future generations, this brings me to the next point that I would like to make. We do, as a country and as a government, accept the general principles of the IPCC and we accept the general principles of climate change. Our key advisory bodies, the Bureau of Meteorology, the CSIRO, the Australian Antarctic Division—which does a lot of core sampling—and the Australian Greenhouse Office, have all presented material which the government has accepted as setting out a principle. There may be some debate about the extent and range of activities, but all of these key advisory bodies, as the Prime Minister himself has acknowledged, have set that out. That is why we have invested almost $2 billion in addressing climate change. That is why Senator Ian Campbell was able to work with the Prime Minister on establishing the Solar Cities program. We have real programs, backed by $2 billion of funding and by the delivery of real abatement changes. We can compare that to the notion of hollow rhetoric—and I think that is a fundamentally important point.

I do take it as a responsibility that we recognise that we have to make abatement cuts, that we have to achieve outcomes. But we have to compare that to the magical notion that if we simply ratify a document suddenly everything will change. We say that that mechanism will not work. Also, there is the problem of perverse outcomes: by exporting jobs, plants and factories from Europe to North Africa, precisely the opposite of what is intended will be achieved. In Australia, we have achieved what we wanted to achieve, and that is why we are not going to export our jobs and our emissions to other countries. That is why the mechanism is fundamentally flawed. It is what I call the Union Carbide argument: export your problem overseas and pretend that you are absolutely fine. So I respect that people have good intentions in this regard, but it is a mechanism that fundamentally fails to deal with the very thing that it purports to deal with.

This brings me to our role in leading international change. The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate—I call it the Sydney partnership, put together by the Prime Minister, the foreign minister and the environment minister, Senator Ian Campbell—brought together six nations. But it did not just bring together any six nations; it brought together Australia, the United States, China, India, Japan and South Korea. Between them, those nations represent 50 per cent of global emissions, approximately 50 per cent of the world’s population, and the greatest growth in emissions through India, China and South Korea. By bringing those countries on board, we helped to establish a framework and a mechanism to try to introduce clean technology into the countries where the greatest growth in emissions is likely to be found.

As an aside, I point out that the member for Grayndler was absolutely silent when the Victorian government reapproved the Hazelwood power station and he said nothing about the Sydney desalination plant. He was totally silent when his state colleagues took such steps, even though they were responsible for the activities.

To return to the point, these countries are fundamental. If we do not deal with them, nothing that we do will have an impact. Australia’s emissions represent 1.4 per cent of global emissions. We could close Australia down, as some on the other side may implicitly want us to do, and within nine months all the emissions saved would be recovered by China’s growth. We emit 560 million tonnes a year of CO, and that is less than the amount by which China’s emissions profile is growing annually.

Through the Asia-Pacific partnership mechanism, we have put together a system of clean technology on issues such as clean coal—which is fundamentally important—and all sorts of other projects which can, over the period between now and 2050, lead to the abatement of 90 billion tonnes of CO. That is the estimate from ABARE—that the Asia-Pacific partnership is likely to lead to the abatement of 90 billion tonnes of CO.

Let me put that in context. Under Kyoto, the estimate is that, between now and 2050, if the figure is extrapolated out, about 25 billion tonnes is likely to be saved. Let us increase that figure to 30 billion tonnes. With the partnership mechanism we are talking about a proposal which is complementary but which is likely to lead to the saving of up to three times as many emissions that may occur under this great saviour that our friends on the other side argue is the key to everything. It is a flawed mechanism which exports jobs, which exports emissions, which exports the problem but which makes people feel good about themselves.

Let us compare what we are doing at the international level with what we are doing domestically. I am very proud of what we are doing domestically. We have a series of initiatives in Australia that contribute to greenhouse gas initiatives worth $2 billion. The practical steps that we take mean that Australia is one of the very few countries in the world to actually be delivering in this regard. So where others promise, where others would sign, we are delivering on real targets and on real outcomes. We are delivering on the 108 per cent target.

What are these practical initiatives? We are not talking about two per cent of renewable energy, as some would say. Australia is currently at about eight per cent, and on track to reach 10 per cent, of our total energy generated, or 11 per cent of our energy consumed, being from renewable sources by 2010. So 11 per cent of energy consumed in this country will come from renewable sources. People misrepresent what happens in that regard. I would hope that folk on the other side would not fall into that trap but would be honest about it.

We have a $500 million Low Emissions Technology Development Fund. That may help with solar, geothermal energy or clean coal—which I think is fundamentally important for the future. I would say that all of those are critical. They are critical to our economic health; they are critical to our innovation; and they are critical to our contribution at an international level. Ultimately, whether it is the Solar Cities program, whether it is the renewable energy development initiative or whether it is the $500 million Low Emissions Technology Development Fund, our proposal is simple: we are meeting our targets, we are making investments and we are making absolutely no apologies for failing to adopt a proposal which would endorse a flawed mechanism. (Time expired)

See this speech in context