Harry Quick (Franklin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

It is rather interesting to follow the member for Tangney. Sadly, with the launch of this excellent report today, a report that is long overdue, the emphasis was on the glitz rather than the substance of what appears in the report.

I urge those who are listening to this debate—and, from some of the emails that I have received, people are listening to what was said this morning and are trying to obtain the report—to get as many copies as possible so that they can read not just the dissenting report, which seems to be the focus at the moment, but rather the five recommendations of Between a rock and a hard place. I urge people to log on to the committee website. Read the transcripts of evidence taken at the many hearings that we have held in this house and around Australia. Read the submissions. As the honourable chair of the committee said, all but one of the submissions endorsed the belief that global warming was a serious threat to humankind.

One wonders if this is a great furphy. Some people talk about things coming from outer space and wiping civilisation out, and they say there is a greater chance of that happening than of global warming having an impact on your life. Why are there nine demonstration projects going ahead at such enormous cost? When you look at the report, you see there are the Monash Energy Project, the Gorgon Project, ZeroGen, the Fairview Zero Carbon Project, the HRL Ltd project, the Hazelwood project and the CS Energy project. These are costing in some cases a billion dollars and in most of the others hundreds of millions of dollars. Why in the name of creation are these organisations and industry expending this enormous amount of money if they do not have to? Are they are just doing it for their own self-satisfaction? Other speakers have mentioned the intergovernmental reports of the 1,500 scientists. Are those people crazy?

Even though we contribute only 1.4 per cent to global greenhouse gas emissions, Australia must set the example to the neighbouring developing countries—the Indias, the Chinas and the like. I am appalled by and disappointed with the dissenting report. It is basically the member for Tangney going off at a tangent, and there are sloppy contributions by the members for Solomon, Hughes and Lindsay, who—I hate to say it—really have not made a contribution to this whole debate and with regard to the evidence taken at our hearings.

I was somewhat amazed when I got back to my office just after question time and I got an email from someone who criticised my use of the word ‘sceptic’ in my speech when this report was tabled in the House earlier today. He said, ‘What about the Catholics in Nazi Germany, Nelson Mandela in South Africa and the Chinese in Tiananmen Square?’ These are the sorts of crazy things that can be linked to the so-called theological debate that seems to have been generated by the member for Tangney. He stated that the ordinary, average punter will not put up with the additional costs. I think that is totally false. Consumers will, I believe, be prepared to pay increased costs on their power bills to see this issue tackled and tackled sooner rather than later.

If you look at the evidence, you see that between 1970 and 2004, 34 years, there was an 80 per cent growth in global CO emissions, and between 1990 and 2004, 14 years, there was a 20 per cent growth. We are talking about serious problems. As I stated in my earlier remarks: go to Beijing on any given day; do you still reckon that we do not have a problem that we need to address?

This report is timely, concise and scientifically sound. I would like to compliment the secretariat for their hard work. As the chair said, it has not been easy putting this together. I would like to thank the other members of the committee and especially the chair for his guidance and forbearance as he put this together. I would like to urge members in this House—and others—to grab a copy and have a read, because I can assure you that in the upcoming election campaign a hell of a lot of people out there will be talking about this issue. What better than to give them a copy of this report, Between a rock and a hard place: the science of geosequestration, because some of the answers—not all of them—are in here and we need to talk about this. Take the politics out of it. We have had some of the politics inserted today, but this is too big an issue to be a Labor or Liberal or Greens or Democrats issue only and for one of those parties to have all the answers. That is a load of rubbish. We all need to work together, politicians state and federal. Industry want to work with us. The scientists want to work with us. We should be doing it for the punters that we represent.

See this speech in context