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

The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources is fond of asserting that the Howard government has done more to tackle climate change than any government in the world and that the climate change record of the Howard government is the envy of the world. It is the case that Australia generally has a proud record of hitting above its weight internationally. It is something which a former Labor minister, Gareth Evans, said here and actually instituted in his career. We have produced many world leaders—in sport: Don Bradman, Ian Thorpe, Lauren Jackson, Liesel Jones and a host of others; in science: Peter Doherty, Macfarland Burnett and Howard Florey; in acting: Nicole Kidman, Cate Blanchett and Russell Crowe; in literature: Tim Winton; and, in business: Rupert Murdoch. We acknowledge those outstanding Australians, the leadership that they have displayed and the success that they have had in the world. In politics the environment minister proclaims himself and the government as world leaders—and there the comparisons end.

The environment minister is no world leader, nor is his government, and yet he has the gall to say that Australia is leading the world in tackling climate change. Let us just consider what he means when he says that Australia is leading the world by producing the facts in this matter of public importance. Australia is the second highest greenhouse polluter in the world; Australia’s emissions are growing at twice the global rate on average—or nearly; Australia has an effective additional renewable energy target of 0.9 per cent by 2020. In climate change programs since 1996 this government underspends—a $33.7 million underspend on clean energy programs in the last financial year. That does not sound like leading the world. Minister, your statement that Australia is leading the world on climate change is simply a fraud. It is hyperbole and it is spin, but the substance and the facts are that this government, in addressing climate change, is going backwards, and, in terms of Australia meeting its climate challenge, we are worse off now than we were when the government came to power.

The Prime Minister’s guarantee to the Australian people has been made often enough—that his government will actually be judged by the solutions that it delivers. If it cannot deliver climate change solutions, then the Prime Minister’s guarantee is worthless. Not long ago the Prime Minister said he was approaching carbon trading in a methodical way. Let me remind the House of what the Prime Minister means by ‘methodical’. In 1997 the environment minister, Robert Hill, established an inquiry into emissions trading; in 1998 the foreign minister backed emissions trading; in 1999 the Australian Greenhouse Office released four discussion papers on emissions trading; in 2003 the Treasurer and the environment minister took a submission to cabinet to establish an emissions trading scheme, which was vetoed by the Prime Minister; in 2003 the government wound up the work of the Australia Greenhouse Office on emissions trading and, of course, the federal government would not cooperate with the states when it introduced its work to consider the establishment of an emissions trading scheme. For the entire period up until climate change became an issue that showed up in its polling, this government has done nothing—absolutely nothing—to take up what was one of the most significant and important elements of addressing greenhouse gas emissions: the establishment of a national emissions trading scheme.

The fact is that the Howard government has wasted a decade, and the fact is that Australia’s greenhouse pollution is spiralling out of control. It is due to increase some 27 per cent by 2020. The challenge for the government is to name the date it will start to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with the need for us to reduce emissions some 60 per cent by 2050. The challenge for the government is to show that it is serious about climate change, not to produce climate change brochures to convince Australians of its merits but rather to actually address the climate change challenge in a significant and profound way.

I had the opportunity on Monday to attend a business leaders for sustainable development conference, and a charter for climate action was delivered at that conference. It identifies three specific measures that it believes governments need to respond to in order to be taken seriously about climate change. What are those measures? They are the very measures that the Howard government refuses and has refused up to now to consider or accommodate: global leadership, a national emissions trading scheme and the setting of targets. It is on those foundations that a sensible framework for addressing climate change actually lies, and it is those particular and specific matters where the Howard government has not delivered.

I believe very strongly that an old era is passing away and a new era is beginning and that our response to the risks and opportunities of climate change is one of the signal parts of this particular era. In the new era, we will build businesses and safeguard the environment by taking climate change seriously. We will build the national consensus that Kevin Rudd has called for in order to strike those actions that are necessary to both reduce emissions and build business. We will not conduct scare campaigns. We will not mislead the public. We will not misrepresent our political opponents. We will get on with the business of enabling the Australian economy to respond to the urgent need to reduce emissions and to build economic prosperity while it is doing that. The work done by Sir Nicholas Stern and the work done by the business leaders roundtable shows conclusively that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and not have a significant impost on the economy. And that is the challenge that this government has to face.

But substantially reducing carbon emissions means understanding what reducing carbon emissions is all about. It was very interesting that a couple of days ago the Prime Minister described the issue of managing the question of the government reducing emissions as an ‘irritant’. I think this word ‘irritant’ shows a great deal about the Prime Minister’s approach, because it was on the same day that he used the word ‘irritant’ that Australia’s track record on tackling climate change was shown by research from the CSIRO, again, to be—and I quote the CSIRO scientist at the time—‘dreadful’. Our emissions were blowing out at nearly twice the global rate, with the perils of greater temperature increase even more likely. You would have thought that something of this consequence would have got more from the Prime Minister than considering managing this issue as an ‘irritant’.

Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery, says we should approach climate change as though we are ‘on a war footing’. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says, ‘The debate is over, the jury is in and the time for action is now.’ Yet Australia, under the Howard government, is set to increase its emissions by 27 per cent within 13 years and is one of the worst-performing developed countries in the world. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources says, in Orwellian fashion, that no government is doing more to tackle climate change than the Howard government. It is no wonder that the propaganda blitz is now in full swing as the government tries to deflect attention from its significant public policy failures and tell us that it is doing something else altogether.

Rewind to yesterday and an answer to a question from the Leader of the Opposition concerning government market testing on its climate change brochure. The Prime Minister said:

No such decision has been made by me or, to my knowledge, by the government.

Yet the letter from the department of the environment first assistant secretary dated 23 May shows that Blue Moon Research & Planning were appointed to do research for ‘the’ climate change information campaign. I think the use of the word ‘the’ is interesting—not to see whether one should be done or not but really to test the existing material. The appointment of this particular company to do this was made by the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications. Our understanding is that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Tony Nutt, sits on this committee and was there at the meeting on 16 April which determined this research contract. We know that there is a mock-up of the brochure and the Prime Minister’s letter, that the letter has been market tested and that it is going to cost Australian taxpayers in the order of—and I quote—$176,000. By five past five or so last evening, the Prime Minister was then saying that the government was still considering whether to send it out. Today the Prime Minister, in answer to a question asking, ‘Has the government entered into a contract to conduct the climate change community information and education campaign?’ used the expression that he was not going to confirm it or otherwise. When the question—whether the government had entered into a contract, yes or no—was asked of him again, the Prime Minister simply failed to answer the question.

I think it is clear that the Howard government is planning a massive propaganda blitz on climate change. The reason for that is fairly clear. Bloomberg.com today has: ‘Howard Risks Political Climate Change as Aussies Warm to Kyoto’. It quotes Clare Idriss, who was so concerned about carbon emissions generated by her wedding guests travelling across Australia that she bought pollution credits to offset the greenhouse gases. There is a debate about that; I am sure the minister will engage on that issue. Idriss says:

... Prime Minister John Howard isn’t doing his part to address climate change. Howard has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon emissions, saying it will hurt the economy of the world’s largest coal exporter.

Paul Verness, a Perth accountant, is not impressed. He says he is switching allegiances to Labor:

“Howard’s climate change policy is a joke,” said Verness ... “It’s been dreamed up because he knows it’s on people’s minds, not because he cares about what impact we are having on the environment.”

Senate estimates revealed that there was underspending on climate change matters in the current budget. If the government is doing the best of any government in the world to tackle climate change, how is it that it remains underspent on its climate change budget? But, more importantly, how is it that we do not have a plan or targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? This new era is about understanding the challenges and being prepared to address the future. The door is closing on the old way of doing things and opening on the new. Again we say in this House that climate change represents the biggest challenge that this generation of politicians will confront, and it is one that the Howard government consistently fails to measure.

Just to remind us that the science is in and the evidence is compelling: the 10 hottest years on record occurred in the last 14 years; the Murray River is at its lowest level for over 100 years; and rising sea levels are flooding Pacific islands and threatening our coast. If action is not taken, the CSIRO predicts that water supplies for cities and agriculture will drop by 25 per cent by 2030 while the population will increase by over 20 per cent. Labor has committed to cut Australia’s emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. Not only is the science in, but the economics is in as well. Study after study shows that the cost of action is far less than the cost of inaction. As companies as diverse as News Corporation and other leading corporates around Australia begin to take on the task of reducing emissions, there is only one odd man out—and that is the Howard government.

Labor have a comprehensive approach to climate change that has been consistent from the start. We would ratify the Kyoto protocol. We would set up a national emissions trading scheme. We have already set up a $500 million national clean coal fund. We have already announced a solar green energy and water renovations plan for Australian households. We have already set up a $500 million green car innovation fund. We have already indicated that we would substantially increase the mandatory renewable energy target. We have already said that, when it comes to climate change, we would make climate a priority for government.

The marker of fitness to govern is to understand the true extent and scale of the issues that lie ahead. Climate change, without any doubt, represents the most significant and important issue that we have to manage. With a framework of policy suites in place, this party on this side of the House is ready to do the job. The question is whether the party on the other side understands the scale and importance of addressing climate change. On the evidence so far, the answer is no. On the evidence so far, all we have had are assertions. I am sure that we will hear some assertions from the minister when he gets to his feet—assertions about how small is the size of our contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and how we should not focus on it at all.

I invite the minister to consider that argument in some detail now, because it seems to me that it goes to the heart of the government’s approach. What they are really saying is: ‘We’ll manage climate change in a way that we think we can. There are some of us who do not think it is particularly serious, but we understand that there is some public concern about it.’ At the same time, they will seek to deflect the key challenge—which is to reduce greenhouse emissions—by saying: ‘Look at our contribution to the global average’ or ‘Look at what other countries are doing.’ Prime Minister—

See this speech in context