Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There are 409 pages of amendments to the Commonwealth’s major environmental laws and, would you believe it, there is not one mention of climate change. Given the attitude of this government to climate change, I know I should not be too surprised about that. But this time the government has really outdone itself with the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 is Australia’s major environmental law. It establishes the framework for assessing the environmental impacts of proposed actions in relation to world heritage properties, Ramsar’s wetlands of international importance, nationally threatened species, ecological communities, migratory species, nuclear actions, the Commonwealth’s marine environment and those places which are listed on the National Heritage List. So it is quite an important piece of legislation. This government argues now that this bill reduces the process time and cuts the costs of development interests. It also curtails third party appeal rights, undermines the public consultation process and further politicises decision making.

This government has swept the pool on this one. It has managed to introduce legislation that implements the exact opposite of what the Australian community wants. This is quite startling. Not only does it not mention climate change, not only does it not include a single measure aimed at reducing greenhouse pollution, but this bill also goes against the desire of the Australian public. It is staggering. This bill will fundamentally change the way in which the Australian environment is protected, and neither the parliament nor the community will have the opportunity to consider the implications of this bill because, just like everything else this government wants to achieve, or hide from the Australian public, the government is going to ram it through this parliament. It has been rammed through this parliament with very little discussion, little debate and, worse, little concern from this government.

This has been an amazing week. Earlier this week we had a new regime introduced for the regulation of Australia’s media. That was certainly rammed through this parliament. Now we have a wholly new regime about protecting Australia’s environment. Similarly, it is going to be rammed through this parliament. It is staggering. The government is elected to administer public policy, and this is not good public policy.

Most people with any concern about the future of Australia’s environment have long known that the government does not share that concern. Sure it pretends to when it comes to a marginal seat, when one of those creatures is at stake, but generally this government has exhibited an attitude that it could not care less about protecting the Australian environment.

Over the last decade, while this government has been in office, Australia’s environment has been under sustained pressure. Water resources are under strain and almost gone, to some extent, in various areas. The amount of land affected by salinity has increased astronomically, and Australia is facing a plant and animal extinction crisis. It is not a record that this government often points to; nevertheless, it is a fact. I doubt that it will make it into the bevy of material that government members distribute in their newsletters but, as I said, it is the case and it is certainly a fact.

Since the government came to office, nearly every single measure of environmental health has gone backwards. As I mentioned, Australia has a plant and animal extinction crisis. Twenty per cent of our species are threatened with extinction by the end of this century, and the number of terrestrial and animal species listed as extinct, endangered or vulnerable rose by 41 per cent between 1995 and 2005. Disturbingly, Australia is the world leader in mammal extinctions. This is a disgraceful record, and the passage of this bill does nothing to try to address that. Therefore, it does not look good for our future in that regard.

As I mentioned at the outset, I am stunned that the government has introduced 409 pages of amendments into this place without a single reference to climate change. The science behind climate change is well established. Apart from a small minority of virtual extremists, it is essentially accepted. Very few governments in the world persist with the attitude that climate change is not a reality. Most are not persisting with that dogmatic attitude to climate change and I would be confident that most governments, where they have introduced changes to major environmental laws, would include aspects to combat the effect of the onslaught of climate change.

Very few people continue to ignore the real and significant impact that climate change not only will have on our economy and society but, quite frankly, is already having within our communities. Many businesses have accepted the need to address the impact on the economy and have accepted the fact that they need to address their levels of carbon emissions. But still the Howard government continues to ignore climate change. Only three weeks ago Richard Branson committed $3 billion to abatement measures, and we have this bill representing 409 pages of the government’s efforts to do the exact opposite—that is, to ignore climate change itself.

I noted earlier that the science around climate change is largely accepted. The impact that climate change is having on our natural environment is, indeed, largely accepted by the community, let alone the scientific community around the world. For those who do not believe that change is taking place, you only need to consider our weather of last week. In addition to the fact that Australia, in some parts of the country, has just finished the driest winter on record, we have just had the hottest and driest August in 106 years and, in Sydney last week, at the start of October, temperatures were well above 30 degrees. We have already seen the demand that that is causing with respect to bushfire brigades and the warnings that were put out last week. It is very clear that change is already occurring. As much as this government might want to ignore the fact that this is occurring, as much as this government might want to avoid its international responsibility and, indeed, as much as this government might not want to admit that it has got it wrong, climate change is happening now.

Last week, the Prime Minister marched into this House and, in effect, admitted to getting it wrong on the skills crisis. He admitted that to the parliament and, therefore, to the Australian people. I call upon him to do the same when it comes to admitting that they have got it wrong on climate change. We know he can do it because he did it only last week. He even conceded to the media, when dealing with the skills crisis, that it was better late than never. With respect, I never took him to task on that. I thought that, at least, that was somewhat honest coming from the Prime Minister. He admitted to getting it wrong and, as he put it to the media, ‘The changes we’re going to bring about are better late than never.’

Although I have a certain amount of respect for the comment—and certainly I have some criticism, in that he has taken 10 years to get to that realisation—I hope we do not have the same approach taken when it comes to climate change. When it comes to climate change, it is not an option to be better late than never. It is not an option that we continue to stick our heads in the sand and try to pretend that this is not a real phenomenon. For many people, communities, species, plants and animals, better late than never will mean never. These changes are occurring now and they do require the attention of this government.

A better-late-than-never approach may in fact be too late, as we hear from scientists, for some islands, particularly Pacific islands. Following the Prime Minister’s recent comment about gloomy climate change predictions, on the 7.30 Report former US Vice President Al Gore said:

He’s increasingly alone in that view among people who’ve really looked at the science ... The so-called “gloomy predictions” are predictions of what would happen if we did not act. It’s not a question of mood. It’s a question of reality.

Mr Gore went on to say:

And, you know, there’s no longer debate over whether the earth is round or flat. Though there are some few people who still think it’s flat, we generally ignore that view because the evidence has mounted to the point where we understand that it shouldn’t be taken seriously.

The Australian people should take the view that this government’s level of inaction when it comes to climate change should be taken seriously. It is too serious a problem to ignore and it is certainly too serious a problem for the government not to show leadership on.

Labor has called on the government repeatedly to address this issue, to identify and acknowledge that the issue is real but also to show leadership. After all, a government is elected not to govern in the present but to make decisions that influence our future, the future of our kids and the environment that we wish to bequeath to those who follow us. This is just not occurring. Labor has shown leadership on this issue of climate change and will continue to do so. It will be a central plank in our policy. I have to say that I am very proud that we have shown that leadership throughout our communities, because it is a reflection of our ongoing commitment to this country and to the sustained and appropriate development of industry while having regard to the sensitivities imposed by the environment.

Labor members understand the importance of the problem, and that is why Labor has committed itself to ratifying the Kyoto protocol, cutting greenhouse pollution, establishing a greenhouse emissions trading mechanism, substantially increasing the mandatory renewable energy target, the MRET, and establishing a climate change trigger—which has now been formally rejected by this government—with the introduction of the private member’s bill by the member for Grayndler.

This government continues to resist the need to ratify Kyoto, sticking to its alternative, the Asia-Pacific climate pact. If Kyoto is so bad, you have to ask yourself: why is it that every other country that is involved in the Prime Minister’s alternative model—that being the Asia-Pacific climate pact—has already ratified the Kyoto protocol? All countries other than Australia and the United States have done so. Republican Senator John McCain is someone who ordinarily would not be a standout for supporting Labor ideals or anything that Labor has to say. Nevertheless, he said the following about the Howard government’s position on the Asia-Pacific climate pact:

The pact amounts to nothing more than a nice little public-relations ploy. It has almost no meaning. They aren’t even committing money to the effort, much less enacting rules to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.

That is not a bad commentary from a Republican senator in that regard. But there is more. The Chinese ministry for foreign affairs said:

This pact has no power for legal restrictions. It is a complement to the Kyoto treaty, not a replacement.

These are the views of some of the major players in the world on the government’s poor facsimile of the Kyoto protocol, and, if this is the calibre of people who are criticising the Australian government over its lack of action, one can only conclude that the time for hiding from climate change has well and truly passed.

Comments made yesterday by the Canadian environmentalist Dr David Suzuki have been reported pretty widely in our newspapers. He has commented on the Howard government’s approach to Kyoto. The member for Throsby made some remarks about this, but I would like to pick up on one thing that Dr Suzuki had to say. He said:

I believe that future generations will look back on the inactivity, the unwillingness to do anything, as a crime against future generations.

That is a reasonably strong statement from an environmentalist of his calibre. Future generations probably will damn us for our failure to act and to act now.

To say that I am disappointed by some of the contents of this bill would be an understatement. To say that I am amazed that in 409 pages of amendments to the government’s major environmental law there is not a single mention of climate change would also be an understatement. The Australian people expect more. The Australian public recognises the real and present danger to our economy and our society if climate change is not addressed. The Australian public is doing its bit but it is lacking the leadership that it expects the government to provide.

The Prime Minister and others continue to argue that taking action on climate change will cost jobs. I disagree with that. As anyone who has ever dealt with businesses going through change will know, businesses look for certainty. Certainty encourages investment decisions and innovation, as businesses try to get ahead of their competitors and protect their market share. Give businesses certainty, introduce measures to address climate change over a period of time, but set out the markers now. Allow businesses to understand where the government expects them to be and how they should achieve that within a reasonable time frame. There is no need to surprise them and introduce changes overnight. That has not worked in the past and it will not work here. But to lay down a series of markers that business can work with will establish certainty and will contribute a lot to reforming and changing business practices. Give Australian businesses certainty about what is expected of them and I am pretty confident that they will move in new and innovative ways to meet the goals which are established.

I am opposed to this bill. I believe that all fair-minded members of this place should also oppose it. I am opposed to it because it will decrease accountability, it will increase the strength of development interests and it will all but silence the public in speaking out against development interests that are not in the interests of their communities. If the National Party members who come to this place to represent the agricultural communities really care about those communities, they should be voting with Labor on this bill—and voting it down. I strongly support the second reading amendment moved by the opposition.

See this speech in context