Simon Crean (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 and support the amendment that has been moved by the member for Grayndler. This bill demonstrates, as graphically as it can, the vast gulf of difference between Labor’s approach to protecting our environment and the Howard government’s approach. Before I go to the details, we want to complain and register our concern about the process which has been associated with this legislation but which is just a pattern now.

This bill was introduced last week—409 pages of it. There has not been any opportunity for the Parliamentary Library to prepare a Bills Digest to assist us in our research, which is the normal practice in this place. I am told by the library that, because of the way in which this government is bringing legislation in and dropping it on the table at the last minute, they will not be able to produce that digest for another two weeks. I make that point because this is not the way to run a democracy, let alone solve our environmental problems. This government needs to lift its act considerably in terms of treating the parliament with respect so that important pieces of legislation can be given proper and adequate consideration.

This bill is 409 pages of complex law. The one thing that is noticeable from going through the 409 pages very quickly is that in all of those 409 pages there is not one mention of climate change. How can you really seriously introduce environment and heritage legislation that does not mention climate change? Does the government not think it is a problem? According to this bill it is not, because it has no proposals to address that problem.

We on this side of the House argue that climate change is one of the most important challenges facing not just us as a nation but us as a planet. If there should be any doubt about it, at the same time this week a report on a poll conducted by the Lowy Institute for International Policy was released. It is very interesting. It is very revealing in what it says the Australian public consider to be the most important issue. On the issue of global warming, the report says:

Easily the most popular option, supported by more than two thirds ... of respondents, was that global warming is a serious and pressing problem ...

In other words, they identified global warming as the key issue, the consequences of which are climate change. Sixty-eight per cent of people polled see it as a serious and pressing problem and argue that we should be taking steps now, even if it involves significant costs. Another 24 per cent on top of the 68 per cent say that global warming should be addressed but that its effects will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually. Only seven per cent of the population said that global warming is not really a problem and until we are sure that it is a problem we should not take any steps.

That is a very significant finding because it demonstrates where the Australian public is and where the Howard government is. This bill follows the seven per cent. This is the seven per cent option. This is the minimalist, stick your head in the sand and do nothing approach. Even the member for Ryan, who spoke before me, admits that his constituents are urging him to do something about signing the Kyoto protocol, and he ignores them.

See this speech in context