Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Hansard source

I want to commend opposition members for their speeches in the House and I commend the opposition leader for his budget in reply speech. I want to say very clearly that this 2007 budget was an opportunity for the government to show that it understands the world it operates within and Australians make their way in, that it recognises there are national risks and opportunities and that it is willing to put measures and policies in place to address and manage those risks, to create pathways to harness and harvest those opportunities.

As well as committing the government spending for the next year it is also an opportunity for the government to show that it has a grasp of what the future brings—what the future holds for us—and what it might mean to us. The budget should be fiscally responsible and future accessible. It should demonstrate a real understanding of the evolving world we are in and a real understanding of the patterns, the challenges, the obstacles and the possibilities that lie ahead. Regrettably, on these counts, the 2007 budget missed the mark. As a political document it was given a pass by the commentators. As a document of vision preparing us for the future, which ironically is a topic the Treasurer has claimed to have some purchase on, it contains staggering deficiencies. History, unlike the headline writers, one suspects, will judge this budget more harshly.

Five days before the Treasurer brought down the 2007 federal budget, the World Bank’s State and trends of the carbon market 2007 report found that carbon markets traded $30 billion worth of greenhouse gas emission reductions around the world in 2006, an almost threefold increase on the previous year’s $11 billion. But from reading this year’s budget papers and examining the announcements made by the Treasurer you would never know it. This is the economics of the future that the government just does not get. This is the emerging reality of industries moving to a business model which seriously addresses climate change and harnesses the economy to do the job, a task that the Howard government is simply incapable of engaging with due to its persistent denial and downplaying of the seriousness of the risks of climate change. It is a fact that the Treasurer’s previous budgets have studiously avoided mentioning the words ‘climate change’ at all, just as the government chose to ignore the warnings of reports and studies it has previously been privy to on this matter, including its own Climate change risk and vulnerability report of 2005. All showed the likely impacts of climate change on our economy and our environment.

There was pre-budget spin this year that the 2007 budget would be an environment budget. That environment budget failed to materialise. Despite the advance promises only a smattering of initiatives were announced, the most significant a very modest $30 million per year for the solar panel rebates program. It is a policy that Labor welcomes. In fact we have previously advocated it in the face of coalition indifference. But it is not a new policy, nor is it of sufficient scale or impact to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The calculation is that after five years the reduction in emissions from this program would amount to only 0.01 per cent. That is not to gainsay the usefulness of a program of this kind, nor in any way to say that people should not take it up and make the most of it; it is merely to point out that its overall real impact in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, our most urgent national task, is quite small. It was on the promise of this initiative before the budget was delivered that the government claimed it would deliver a budget for the environment, and it was found to be a hollow claim.

The primary task we now have and the issue that should have been addressed in the budget and was not is: what measures will we bring to bear to rein in our rocketing greenhouse pollution? What framework will be provided to business and the community to engage in this task? What support will the government provide to enable a significant and substantial effort in reducing greenhouse gas emissions to be made into the future? The budget contains no initiatives that suggest that there is a glimmer of understanding that Australia’s future prosperity is linked directly to our willingness to engage with the climate change challenge and to provide business with a framework to do what it wants to do, which is to begin to reduce emissions now. We need policies that encourage people to reduce emissions and to significantly take up the greenhouse challenge. None of that was addressed by the Treasurer. We were left with the non climate change budget.

The World Bank’s global carbon market report goes on to show that there were $24 billion worth of transactions completed in the European market and another $5 billion traded in carbon offset credits under the Kyoto protocol schemes. This is an indication, I think, of the extraordinary growth of this market and the tremendous opportunities that exist for countries that are part of Kyoto, which regrettably Australia is not, and willing to invest in and develop those industries which can export clean and renewable skills and technologies and expertise. As Warren Evans, the World Bank’s environment director, said:

The carbon market has become a valuable catalyst for leveraging substantial financial flows for clean energy in developing countries.

Yvo de Boer, the head of the UN climate change convention, stated it very clearly:

If rich countries commit to reduce emissions by 60% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels, and if they buy half of the reductions in developing countries that would generate a $100 billion in financial flows for clean development options.

This is the 21st century economy that the Howard government is leaving Australia out of, the economy that Australian firms like Global Renewables have had to locate offshore to access, the economy that Australian businesses are denied full participation in. As there is no prospect of Australia ratifying Kyoto unless there is a change of government, Australian businesses remain constrained by the ideological fetters that the government has placed them in. Businesses head offshore or deal with the frustrations here of aiming to build successful green industries and businesses. Without the policies or the framework to begin the most economically urgent task we have—namely, to reduce our greenhouse pollution—we are not only denying ourselves business opportunities but also increasing the risks to the economy and the environment that climate change brings.

It needs to be said loudly and clearly that Australia’s future productivity success will be increasingly linked to our capacity to produce goods and services which are carbon light, to develop techniques and technologies that use energy more efficiently and effectively, and all of that within the context of fronting up to addressing climate change. There is no indication from this government—nor was there in the Treasurer’s budget—that it comprehends the enormity of this task. The Prime Minister says that setting a target as proposed by Labor will result in disastrous consequences for the economy. Yet last week’s report on the impacts of climate change on the Victorian infrastructure showed very clearly the significant economic loss that is possible both now and in the future. Today we had the most recent report from CSIRO scientists released to the National Academy of Sciences containing even more disturbing confirmation of the scale of the climate change challenge and the exceedingly poor performance of Australia under 11 years of conservative rule. Australia is the second highest per capita greenhouse emitter. Our emissions are growing at nearly twice the world average and the jump in emissions since 2000 has been dramatic.

This report should have provided everybody with the opportunity to stop and reflect on what this country will have to deal with in the future. But there was an absence of a systemic approach to climate change, and any thorough reflection of its impact on the economy was not evident in the budget of 2007. Even the Institute of Actuaries of Australia picked up on this point. They are hardly a cabal of hardline environmentalists or green activists. They did welcome the Intergenerational report of the Treasurer but noted:

Given the possibility of irreversible intergenerational effects it is disappointing that the report does not consider environmental intergenerational equity in more detail.

In fact it goes on to note that the brief mention of the need for early action on climate change in the first report was welcome but since then there had been nothing—and why the silence? Why has there been a complete absence of addressing this most important global issue in a year when the challenges are great?

The reason for that is that the government has completely stalled. It has erected a series of ideological and rhetorical barriers against addressing climate change so we do not have any serious modelling or analysis of the economic impacts of climate change. In fact, it is only because Kevin Rudd, with the states, has invited Professor Garnaut to do some significant modelling of that kind that we will actually be in a position to understand both the costs and the benefits to the economy and the environment over time of climate change.

One looks in vain for any understanding in this budget of the scale of risk that the Australian community faces. One obvious example is the eastern coastal zone, which experts have identified as having the greatest level of uncertainty in economic terms for Australia from dangerous climate change because that is where Australians are living. The increased risk to life and property in coastal cities through major storm events of greater frequency and intensity could have and will have significant economic consequences. There are many things for Australians who live on the eastern seaboard particularly, but also in Tasmania, to consider in relation to the risks to coastal communities of climate change—insurance issues, preventative engineering measures to deal with residential dwellings and public infrastructure and funding for emergency services. The list goes on and on. But where is there any indication in the budget that the government has considered this and any other number of critical issues relating to climate change? Why after 11 years are we still waiting?

That is the big picture analysis of the budget, but what about the details? Regrettably, other than the solar rebate extension the budget was notable in that it all but ignored clean energy. It did show, and Senate estimates have confirmed, that the government has underspent some $89 million in this area. But particularly we note that the figure devoted to climate change spending was low—some $148 million. The political point has been well made: comparing this to the amounts that the government is spending on government propaganda reveals it is literally a disgrace.

We do welcome, though, the extension of the Natural Heritage Trust. The government has spent a good deal of money on natural resource management. Regrettably, on nearly all of Australia’s measures of environmental health we still go backwards. Labor believes that we need to see some accountability built into these programs.

There is $50 million over four years for the Environmental Stewardship Program. In principle, it is a good initiative. It certainly did not go far enough and is short of the expectations of groups like the NFF, but it is a good initiative and we certainly support it in principle. But we do note that it does not become available until 2009. The test for these sorts of programs is whether they make any material difference on the ground. We will be watching this very closely.

The announcement of an Australian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation: we welcomed this program when it was first announced at COAG. We desperately need investment in climate change adaptation. We should not have had to wait until an election was looming, but it is certainly a good initiative.

There is $200 million over five years for the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. Whilst I have made comments in the past about this initiative, we will look closely to see how it works itself out. The government missed the opportunity to ratify Kyoto and this initiative should not be seen as a substitute for Kyoto. It is not a substitute for action in Australia, as the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources likes to say. Nevertheless, it can and I hope it will make a contribution to a reduction in emissions.

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act—enhanced administration: Labor welcomes this funding. For too long there has been a lack of funding for compliance under the EPBC Act. The act is getting more and more complex; it sits at some 932 pages. The government rammed some 400 pages of amendments through parliament at the end of last year and is now looking at even more amendments to repeal the ban on nuclear power—amendments we will oppose. It clearly needs additional funding in order to enhance its administration, and we pity the officials who have to work with this unwieldy beast.

I particularly welcome A Better Future for Indigenous Australians. It is critical for Indigenous people, particularly in the north of Australia, to have the opportunity to work in areas of conservation and land management. I do acknowledge that there were some significant spending measures in the budget more generally on Indigenous health. Labor very much welcomes these measures. Clearly, there is still a huge gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. The Australian Medical Association’s figure of some $400 million that is necessary to assist in making up that shortfall has not yet been met. Notwithstanding that, it is a welcome initiative.

I take some time to reflect on the provisions for the arts in the budget. The government’s long overdue response to the significant challenges facing Australia’s film industry is welcome. I note it has been well received by the industry, with some concerns about the timing of the phase-out of the original 10BA provisions. Certainly, Labor has from the very beginning argued very strongly for reform of the film industry and particularly for the merger between the FFC and the AFC and also the need for taxation reform and additional support. We are pleased to see that those calls have been heeded, and we certainly hope that we can now better utilise the talents of our skilled actors, technicians and crew as a consequence of this.

See this speech in context