John Forrest (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

To those Australians listening out there I say: this is a government that has made a major contribution to addressing this century’s greatest challenge. For opposition members to talk about failures is absolute nonsense. I have noted that their strategy is highly dependent upon the simple notion of signing up to a protocol, that that is the panacea for our problems and that they are going introduce a carbon trading scheme. But there is no detail as to what that is going to cost the Australian economy.

I would like to tell Australians, particularly my constituents who are listening: in the first year after their ratification of the Kyoto protocol in February 2005, electricity costs in Denmark rose by 39 per cent, a figure that is projected to increase in the next 12 months to 91.5 per cent—nearly a doubling of electricity charges.

This information was supplied last year by the NUS Consulting Group as a result of an international electricity survey. In one year, the electricity costs of the United Kingdom increased a staggering 41.4 per cent, projected to reach 80.7 per cent. In one year, France’s electricity charges increased 48 per cent, projected over a five-year trend to reach 75.6 per cent. This government is serious about addressing the challenge of the century confronting us —and that is not disagreed upon; at least we all agree it is the challenge of the century—but not in a way that crucifies the Australian economy, because the Australian economy is all about jobs and prosperity.

The opposition suggests that we use the fact that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are a mere 1.6 per cent as an excuse, but it is not an excuse. As a perfectly rational person, I would like to go to work on the big emitters. The member for McMillan has made reference to the dramatic challenge of reafforestation. Even Tim Flannery—I have read all his works and do not necessarily agree with them—asserts that the challenge is the big emissions. There is the potential to sequester enough carbon over the next 50 years to make up for human contribution right back to the 1800s. As a pragmatic Australian, I say: where are the benefits from making an international contribution for me and my electorate? As the minister has said, with a 1.6 per cent contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, we endure 100 per cent of the impacts of climate change.

In the last decade I have seen that in very real terms across my constituency of Mallee, with dramatically reduced precipitation outcomes and dramatically reduced reservoir yield which has put my constituents, particularly across the Wimmera, under category 5 water restrictions. They have been showering with buckets to preserve their water so they can use it to save their roses for another five years. There has been a furore recently, I note, as those in the metropolis have been confronted with that—and the member for McMillan has addressed that issue.

It is simply a complete manipulation for the opposition to come in here and suggest that there are simple panaceas—there are not. This is an enormous challenge. The government is rightly doing research to make sure that whatever we do does not penalise the Australian economy, because we as government members are immensely proud of the investments and tough decisions that we have made over the last decade that have ensured the Australian economy is strong. We want to continue to ensure that that occurs whilst also addressing this enormous challenge. It is the challenge of the century—there is no doubt about that. It is recognised. I have been researching this and understanding it for some time. What we heard today from the opposition is complete rhetoric and it is appalling.

See this speech in context