Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the House for the opportunity to talk on this matter of public importance on the need for strong government leadership to address the real and present threat posed to Australia’s economy and environment by dangerous climate change. I must admit, though, I am struggling still to get my head around the logic of the previous speaker, the member for Flinders, although I thought it was very telling that he stood up and said that he was happy to outline the initiatives that the Howard government has taken over the last couple of days. What is telling about that is that it highlights the lack of action that the Howard government has taken over the last decade. That is something that we know on this side of the House and the Australian community also knows that very well.

I have risen to speak on the issue of climate change in this House on a number of previous occasions and again today I welcome the release of the British government’s Stern report, which reaffirms in stark detail what we on this side of the House have been warning for some time. I absolutely believe in the need for strong government leadership on this issue. I speak today not just of my own absolute belief that this government has let people down but to represent the people of my electorate of Adelaide, who regularly inundate my office with letters and calls of despair at the lack of action by this Howard government.

I have just a couple of examples of these sorts of sentiments from my own constituents, which I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House. One wrote to me saying:

Dear Kate,

Thanks for the letter of 22 March responding to an email I sent you. I read the ALP climate change policy presented by Kim Beazley and it was excellent, combining the necessary warnings with constructive solutions.

He went on to say:

Personally, I think John Howard will be cursed by future generations for wasting his golden opportunity to act, but he’ll be long gone by then.

Another wrote to me saying:

Dear Ms Ellis,

Thank you for showing that movie the Inconvenient Truth to us free of charge. That really opened my eyes to the effect that we are having in this planet. Before I saw that movie I thought the extreme weather was just natural and that the planet just goes through these cycles. But now I believe that we are the ones causing it. I don’t even want a V8 anymore. I think that I’ll make do with my own Corolla. When that guy said on the movie that America and Australia were the only developed countries that hadn’t signed the Kyoto protocol I felt really embarrassed.

That is a sentiment that is shared by millions of people around this country and by many of us in this House today, who think it is an absolute tragedy that the government have so massively failed the Australian people.

Whilst it is a tragedy, I actually do not think that it is really a surprise. It is no surprise, because the absolute first principle in tackling climate change is admitting the problem. The Stern report accepts the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is a man-made global threat to the sustainability of life on earth, yet the truth is that the Howard government still does not accept this. We see evidence of this in the comments from the government’s own Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, who has consistently criticised the Kyoto protocol and who, as recently as just two months ago, admitted that while he acknowledged the climate was changing he was sceptical that the cause was greenhouse gas emissions. As was reported on 5AA in my home state of South Australia yesterday—and a fine radio station it is, I might add—the minister went on to say that the federal government is ‘already doing enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions’ and that it is other countries that need to step up and do something.

We see evidence of this head-in-the-sand approach all throughout the Howard government—in the comments from the coalition Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, De-Anne Kelly, who likened the scientific warnings on climate change to 19th century warnings on horse manure, arguing this week that, ‘At the turn of the century economists in the US predicted horsedrawn carriages would lead to the country being covered in horse “you-know-what”.’

We saw evidence of this again yesterday with the comments by the Liberal MP and scientist Dr Jensen, when he restated his scepticism about global warming. In comments reported by the AAP, he stated, ‘I am somewhat sceptical about global warming.’ He went on and argued that, ‘Too much has been seen in a short-term trend and to me there’s too much conflicting evidence as well, so for me the jury is still out.’ This is from the Howard government’s own scientist! The jury should be in no doubt about where the Australian Liberal Party and the Howard government stand on climate change. They simply do not accept, as the rest of Australia and indeed the people of the 165 countries who have ratified Kyoto accept, that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of climate change, a phenomenon which threatens our global environment, our global economies and our very existence on this planet.

But you may ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether it really matters if the government actually believe it. Does it matter if they actually believe how serious this issue is or whether they just act and introduce some policies because the Australian people demand it? I would absolutely stand here and say it matters—it matters because it is the difference between showing bold leadership and vision on the issue and just offering one-off, piecemeal policies to try and settle down the Australian public and show that you are actually doing something.

This is why the Howard government’s approach on climate change has been so inconsistent and reactive. The inconsistencies do not take long to pick up, and I fear that I will not have time to outline all of the massive inconsistencies in the Howard government’s policy on this. We had the Howard government, which has consistently refused to participate in an international carbon-trading scheme, yesterday announcing that it would participate in a scheme only if all other countries did so first. The logic in this simply beggars belief. It is actually an embarrassment to this country. The simple response is: what happens if one other prime minister or one other president shares that sort of logic? The answer is: it does not go ahead. At the very heart of it all we have heard the Howard government’s adamant refusal to sign on to Kyoto because they believe it would cost Australia jobs—but, of course, they also argue that Australia will most likely reach the targets in the protocol anyway, so there is no need to sign it, but that reaching these targets will not cost us jobs. So figure out how those two policies are not completely inconsistent.

We also know that the government have completely changed their tune since their original decision in 1997 to sign on to the protocol at a time when the Prime Minister said that it was a win for the environment and a win for Australian jobs. While the government today masquerade as a believer in climate change, the reality is that they do not accept it. They are fools, because they are intent on clinging to their outdated views on climate change and now, as community understanding of these issues has so completely accelerated, the government are finally being exposed for their neglectful approach.

The list of Howard government failures and inconsistencies goes on. We have the federal government’s Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, which depends upon market based renewable energy targets which have been established by our state governments—a policy that the Howard government has explicitly rejected. We have the $550 million worth of renewable energy projects that have had to be abandoned in my state of South Australia and in Tasmania because the Howard government has not increased the mandatory renewable energy target. We have the Howard government’s embarrassing about-face this month on its nonsensical decision to end the solar rebate program after sustained community pressure for them to do so.

And in my electorate we are also seeing the consequence of the Howard government’s backward thinking and lack of practical measures to address climate change in a scandal that is currently unfolding involving a very cute electric car known as the Reva. I am proud that it is a company in my electorate of Adelaide, the Solar Shop, that last year imported an all-electric car into this country in the hope of offering Australians an alternative to a petrol car that would slash their motoring expenses and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But this government have refused to allow the car onto Australian roads just because they do not have a category that would allow the car to be imported and driven in this country.

Unlike in the UK, where this car is winning awards for innovation and is being trumpeted by both sides of politics for its environmental credentials, in Australia the government will order this Sunday that the one Reva electric vehicle in the Solar Shop in Adelaide must be crushed. I think this is an absolute disgrace, but it is a pretty good illustration of where the Howard government stands on practical measures. Rather than encouraging families who want to adopt a greener vehicle, it is demanding that this vehicle be crushed. I think this an absolute disgrace.

In contrast, we on this side of the House actually have policies and practical measures. We have argued that we would ratify Kyoto. We would increase the mandatory renewable energy target; we would establish a national carbon-trading scheme; we would make Australia’s 10,000 schools solar powered schools; we would help Australia to have 1.5 million solar powered homes by 2015; and there are many other measures that we will continue to push to the Australian people. (Time expired)

See this speech in context