Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

I will return to some of the comments made by the newly appointed minister, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, but in speaking on this matter of public importance let me just say that denial, scepticism, delay and inaction are the words that best describe the Howard government’s response to the most serious issue confronting humanity—that of climate change and global warming. For the minister’s benefit, I think it is worth reminding him of the level of scepticism that was allowed free rein. I will refer to a couple of quotes from a very senior minister on your benches, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. He had this to say not so long ago:

... carbon dioxide levels go up and down, and global warming comes and goes.

When interviewed by Laurie Oakes, he confessed:

... I am a sceptic of the connection between emissions and climate change.

All this was being said, Minister, at a time when our own scientific reports and global reports were telling us of the enormous consequences of inaction on this most serious issue. This is the same minister who arrogantly dismissed Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth as ‘just entertainment’. This government cannot keep on dismissing the growing concern of our communities about the impact of global warming. They see it and live with it every day.

I picked up our local paper this morning and the editorial screamed ‘PM sniffs the wind’—and doesn’t that say it all? There is an increasing cynicism out there in the electorate about the quick political fixes when this government is under political pressure. To understand that, you only had to talk to the people who saw the graphic description of the impact of global warming in that most memorable movie, An Inconvenient Truth. The release of the most recent UN climate change report tells us all about the grave and serious consequences of increasing temperatures that could rise in the vicinity of three to four degrees Celsius.

The days of denial, Minister, must surely be over. With the PM sniffing the political wind, I was looking forward to a more enlightened approach with your appointment. I have known you for a considerable period of time, and thought that you would bring a more reasoned and rational approach to this very serious issue. I was profoundly disappointed yesterday, because I think that you have a real identity crisis. On the one hand, you are openly supporting a redefinition of the word ‘scepticism’ by implying that scepticism really means just being open-minded. It was not clear whether you were now on the Prime Minister’s track of being a realist on the issue of climate change. So what are you? Are you a sceptic? Are you a realist? Are you open-minded? Are you an environmental purist? Might I suggest, Minister—with due respect—that you sound just like Malcolm in the middle: not sure of where to turn on this very important national and global issue.

Your Prime Minister now describes himself as a climate change realist. There is one simple reality he needs to comprehend, and that is that right now—this very day—the Australian people are feeling the impact of a 0.8 degree temperature rise. We see that with our horrific drought, with water shortages and water rationing, with mega bushfires and with storms of increasing intensity. This has happened on your watch. You and your government are culpable. The seriousness of the situation becomes even more urgent with the latest scientific report from the United Nations, which points to temperatures rising in the order of three to four times more than they have to date. This would be a catastrophe for our economy, our agricultural sector, our environment and our children’s future. There is no justification for inaction.

If, Minister, you wanted to portray this debate as one being led by just environmental purists—people who are only concerned about the environmental impacts and who do not understand anything about the economics or the impact on working people—let me draw your attention to the Stern report, the most compelling analysis of the economic costs of not acting on this issue. The report concluded:

... it is already very clear that the economic risks of inaction are very severe—

and that failure to act would cost between five per cent and 20 per cent of annual global GDP. For someone who professes to understand the workings of the market, Minister, let me say that the Stern report said that climate change was:

...the greatest market failure the world has ever seen ...

The report’s response was not just to argue the importance of technological development—no-one dismisses that; it is critical for the future—but a lot more than that is needed. What is needed is an effective global response on the pricing of carbon, not just the deployment of low-carbon technologies and energy efficiencies. The central issue was the pricing of carbon. The responses recommended in the Stern report are all actions that the Labor Party has long advocated.

I am pleased to see that, even if your identity might be somewhat confused and you are adopting a ‘Malcolm-in-the-middle’ approach, at least your Prime Minister is now saying that he is a realist on this issue. Let me quote from Tony Jones on Lateline. I nearly fell off my chair with what I heard. Tony Jones asked this:

Prime Minister, what do you think living in Australia would be like by the end of this century for your own grandchildren and for the grandchildren of and great grandchildren of others, if the temperatures, the average mean temperatures, around the world do rise by somewhere between four and possibly even more than six degrees celsius?

These are the actual words of John Howard, the Prime Minister of our nation:

Well, it would be less comfortable for some than it is now ...

Prime Minister, it is certainly not a question of some people being less comfortable; it would be an absolute disaster for our communities. Let me refer the Prime Minster and the minister to our own reports undertaken by the CSIRO. A three degree rise in temperature would have grave consequences. Eighty-six per cent of Kakadu wetlands would be lost to sea level rises, our iconic Barrier Reef would be destroyed through coral bleaching and with it its associated tourism industry and jobs, there would be up to a 70 per cent increase in the number of very high fire danger days in the south east, there would be a southward spread of malaria receptive zones, there would be up to 5,000 heatwave deaths a year, there would be more severe cyclones and higher incidence of flooding from king tides and storm surges, and developed coastal areas would be at risk of inundation. And the Prime Minister tells us that some people would be less comfortable. We expected a far more judicious response from the leader of this nation to the most serious and critical issue facing the planet.

In sorting out the position of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources on these very important issues, let me just say that his own words reveal him to be a sceptic, absolutely, about the issue of rising sea levels. Let me quote again from his comments on the AM program—and I quote in context. He said:

There’s a lot of very exaggerated claims, and you have to bear in mind that most of our coastal population lives on the east coast of Australia, and because of the geology or the topography of the east coast, that isn’t ... you know, much of that is adequately elevated to deal with a 1 metre sea rise.

With due respect, Minister, it seems that you have completely missed the point. Using a range of projected sea-level rises of between nine and 88 centimetres—let alone a metre—scientific modelling at the University of Sydney, not far from your electorate, already shows that, by 2050, the beach at Narrabeen could disappear; within 100 years, the harbour could advance by as much as 43 metres from the eastern side of the Spit, covering the southern approach to the bridge; there is a 50 per cent chance of the beach at Manly Wharf eroding 11 metres, cutting off access to the ferry terminal; and erosion at Nielson Park—very close to home—would threaten the foundations of the pavilion there, a heritage listed building. And the minister at least confessed today that, for every one-centimetre rise in sea level, you get one metre of coastal erosion. Just go and visit Belongil Beach. Have a look at Clifton Beach in North Queensland. That will show you graphically the impact of coastal erosion and the totally inadequate response by all levels of government to these very serious issues. (Time expired)

See this speech in context