Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

and, as my colleagues behind me are saying, irresponsible. It is both ridiculous and irresponsible. It is no solution. It is a solution to start to deal with the opportunities to develop research on clean coal technology. It is absolutely essential that we do that and that we look at the possibilities for gas to liquid conversion and coal to gas conversion. All these things offer very substantial possibilities for us in relation to our coal and gas industries, and we must engage. But if we happen to be signed up and ratifying the Kyoto protocol, if we happen to be at the forefront of dealing with international environmental issues, how much more trusted will we be as a focal point of investment in these areas and as a producer of those technologies? Or are we going to find ourselves in the same position then that we now find ourselves in in relation to our renewables, where projects are shutting down in this country or where those particular firms are badging themselves overseas? To be associated with Australia or operating in Australia finds you no assistance at all, effectively, from the policies of the government, and finds you on the outer because the government is not a ratifying power to Kyoto.

This government is so far away from where this nation now needs to be in dealing with the consequences of climate control. It is so far away from arriving at the solutions that this nation must arrive at both to advance ourselves economically and to protect our people. The public is so far away from this Prime Minister. I happen to be one of the few Labor members who represent a seat which borders the ocean. And I know darn well that, on the projections over the next 20 to 30 years of rising sea levels—on modest assumptions—my constituency will be massively affected. But the truth of the matter is the vast array of those constituencies on the coastline are held by our political opponents. At the next election, your constituents around the shoreline of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane ought to think very seriously about what you mean to them.

I see the Prime Minister has just destroyed his chair! Unfortunately, that is a bagatelle compared with the destruction that he is effectively threatening ordinary Australians with by his complete unwillingness to confront reality when it comes to issues of climate change. Once, the Prime Minister had a sensible view. It was a long time ago. That was when the Prime Minister said the Kyoto protocol is ‘a win for the environment and a win for Australian jobs’. Once, the Prime Minister was influenced by sensible points of view on the part of his frontbenchers. John Anderson, former Deputy Prime Minister, said:

... the Kyoto agreement permitting Australia an 8% increase in emissions of 6 greenhouse gases by 2012 over 1990 levels will preserve the interests of farmers, miners, manufacturing industry and the economy in general.

Once, the Prime Minister had the view that he shared with his former Minister for Resources and Energy, who said:

The Kyoto protocol provides a sound basis for protecting Australia’s export competitiveness …

But the Prime Minister has changed. He has had seven different positions since then and two or three different positions in question time today. There is no time to waste. Thanks to John Howard’s short-sightedness we are 10 years behind. He is now paying lip-service to climate change, but his heart is not in it. It never has been; it never will be. He is a Prime Minister obsessed with his past, not Australia’s future. He is a Prime Minister who is a climate change sceptic, despite a tsunami of science. He does not believe it, and he will not act to protect our future. John Howard is living in denial. His denial is selling out the future of our kids. This is a new challenge and a modern challenge—a challenge that only a future party can meet. We are the future party. (Time expired)

See this speech in context