Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (9) as circulated in my name:

(1)    Schedule 1, before item 1, page 5 (before line 5) insert:

1A After paragraph 3(1)(ca)

Insert

     ‘(cb)    to protect Australia from the adverse effects of climate change;’

(2)    Schedule 1, before item 1, page 5 (before line 5) insert:

1B After sub paragraph 3(2)(e)(i)

Insert

      ‘(ia)    establish a climate change trigger to ensure that large scale greenhouse polluting projects are assessed by the Federal Government; and’

(3)    Schedule 1, before item 1, page 5 (before line 5) insert:

1C After paragraph 3A(a)

Insert

     ‘(aa)    decision-making processes should consider and minimise where possible the adverse effects of climate change on Australia;’

(4)    Schedule 1, before item 1, page 5 (before line 5) insert:

1D After section 3A

Insert

‘3B Climate change

The Parliament acknowledges that climate change

             (a)    is the greatest threat to Australia’s natural environment;

             (b)    will have far-reaching impacts globally, in Australia’s region and in Australia, including:

                   (i)    possible higher temperatures and lower-rainfall in southern Australia;

                  (ii)    possible more frequent extreme weather events such as storms, heatwaves and drought,

                           impacts to which Australia’s natural, rural and urban environments, and many industries, are potentially vulnerable.’

(5)    Schedule 1, before item 1, page 5 (before line 5) insert:

1E Subsection 5(5)

Insert the following definition:

Adverse effects of climate change means changes in the physical environment or biota resulting from climate change which have significant deleterious effects on the composition, resilience or productivity of natural and managed ecosystems or on the operation of socio-economic systems or on human health and welfare.

(6)    Schedule 1, before item 1, page 5 (before line 5) insert:

1F Subsection 5(5)

Insert the following definition:

Climate change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

(7)    Schedule 1, before item 1, page 5 (before line 5) insert:

1G Subsection 5(5)

Insert the following definition:

Climate system means the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions.

(8)    Schedule 1, before item 1, page 5 (before line 5) insert:

1H  Subsection 5(5)

Insert the following definition:

Emissions means the release of greenhouse gases and/or their precursors into the atmosphere over a specified area and period of time.

(9)    Schedule 1, before item 1, page 5 (before line 5) insert:

1I Subsection 5(5)

Insert the following definition:

Greenhouse gases means those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation.

                   (i)    possible higher temperatures and lower-rainfall in southern Australia;

                  (ii)    possible more frequent extreme weather events such as storms, heatwaves and drought,

                           impacts to which Australia’s natural, rural and urban environments, and many industries, are potentially vulnerable.’

Adverse effects of climate change means changes in the physical environment or biota resulting from climate change which have significant deleterious effects on the composition, resilience or productivity of natural and managed ecosystems or on the operation of socio-economic systems or on human health and welfare.

Climate change means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

Climate system means the totality of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere and geosphere and their interactions.

Emissions means the release of greenhouse gases and/or their precursors into the atmosphere over a specified area and period of time.

Greenhouse gases means those gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and re-emit infrared radiation.

I am moving amendments to the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2006 which amends the EPBC Act because this is a totally inadequate performance from the Howard government. It is an indictment that, after 10 years, they have produced what they say is their major piece of environmental legislation without any reference to climate change. And this is on the day that the Stern review in the United Kingdom, to be tabled in the coming hours, has indicated the drastic economic as well as environmental consequences of inaction on climate change. It underlines the lack of responsibility from this government.

The Stern review indicates a potential loss of global economic growth of some 20 per cent. It indicates a potential cost greater than the cost of two world wars and the Great Depression. It indicates that early action on climate change is what is required. By taking early action you will actually save money as well as save the planet.

I am moving this first block of amendments to the bill, and I have done them in two separate lots because I cannot comprehend that the parliamentary secretary for the environment and heritage opposite, in his heart, can vote against such amendments. A simple amendment to add an objective of the act to protect Australia from dangerous climate change—is the Howard government really going to vote against that? It is a simple position whereby we add a new principle of ecologically sustainable development to note:

decision-making processes should consider and minimise where possible the adverse effects of climate change on Australia.

The amendments add a new section 3B outlining the significance of climate change. They add a definition of climate change—and we have not made up a definition; it is the definition of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change established under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which the Australian government is a signatory. How can you argue for this massive bill, with 409 pages of amendments, totalling some 3,000 amendments to the act and not one mentioning climate change?

The Prime Minister from time to time concedes that climate change is occurring. Surely, if it is occurring, we need a reference to it in the Commonwealth’s environmental legislation. But this exposes the hypocrisy of the government. The parliamentary secretary actually spoke about morality when it came to climate change. I think this is a moral question for our generation and we will be judged extremely harshly for generations to come. We will talk about two groups: one will be the climate sceptics; people will just feel sorry for them. They will be regarded as the flat-earthers of the 21st century—the industry minister, the Prime Minister some of the time, but not the parliamentary secretary. I give him credit. I think he knows that climate change is real. But you will be judged more harshly if you know the problem but refuse to do something about it—if you refuse to take the action that is necessary to avoid dangerous climate change.

These amendments that I am moving are very simple. They should not be controversial—they are straightforward, they put climate change front and centre of our national environmental legislation. Quite frankly I was shocked when I received the amendments from the government (Extension of time granted) to find that there was no mention of climate change. When I spoke to people—economists, environmentalists, people concerned about this in the scientific world—they said, ‘You can’t be right. It can’t be right that the Commonwealth would, in the year 2006, produce 409 pages of amendments to the act, more than 3,000 amendments to the act but not one of them mentioning climate change.’ We raised it in the briefing we had from the minister’s office—the department frankly are embarrassed by this. Why wouldn’t they be embarrassed by the lack of action?

Of course, the parliamentary secretary did speak about morality. The parliamentary secretary featured in an article by Peter Hartcher on 20 October. That was extraordinary. We had Alexander Downer stating that he had gone to the Port Elliot Show—it was hot day, it was 33 degrees, and there was a north wind—and a bunch of people, not just farmers, were saying that maybe there is something in this climate change thing. Where was the Minister for Foreign Affairs when Australia signed the Kyoto protocol back in 1997, when the Prime Minister said it was a win for jobs and a win for the environment? It is absolutely extraordinary that we have had 10 years of denial from the government and then they think they can come up with, ‘We think there might be something in this climate change thing,’ and announce a couple of projects and everyone will go, ‘That’s okay—they take it seriously.’ The government will be judged very harshly by history because on this, the most important issue facing the global community, you cannot fudge. You cannot say on the one hand that the Kyoto protocol, if we ratified it, would ruin the economy and then in the next breath say, ‘But we’ll meet the target.’ It does not make sense. You cannot have both positions—and the parliamentary secretary knows that well. You cannot say, ‘We are doing a great job,’ when the figures show that, if you exclude the decisions on land use, between 1990 and 2004—

See this speech in context