Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition failed to deal with the issue and failed to take steps when he had a chance. What I want to do is compare the three great silences on the opposition side on this issue with the three great practical and international steps which this government has taken. Firstly, I mentioned the failure by the Leader of the Opposition to deal with President Bush. Secondly, there has been a total silence from the member for Kingsford Smith on one of the great challenges—that is, the growth of emissions in the developing world. We have a profound responsibility in the developed world, but emissions in the developing world are far and away the source of growth of emissions in our world today. If you want to solve the problem, you have to deal with that. We have at the moment from Europe the leakage of carbon from aluminium, steel or cement going to the Middle East, China, India or other sources of alternative production, because they are currently excluded from any obligations under the existing international regime. The result is that the very idea which they seek to promote is being undercut by a fundamental flaw in a mechanism. That is a silence which has been propounded by our friends in the opposition.

The third silence relates to the slaughter of global rainforests which comes about from a perverse incentive under the Kyoto system. Let us hear now from the member for Adelaide whether she thinks it is acceptable that this slaughter of global rainforests continues, with the emission of eight billion tonnes of CO a year, or six billion tonnes of CO once you factor in reforestation, because that is a direct consequence of the system which the member for Adelaide, the member for Kingsford Smith and the Leader of the Opposition support. We think there is a fundamental flaw and that this slaughter of global rainforests is not something which is worthwhile or acceptable. It is something which we have moved to address but which they will see propounded, extended and carried on.

Against that background, what have we as a government sought to do? There have been three great actions. The first and most recent is the Sydney declaration. The Sydney declaration is no minor activity. It brings together China, Russia, the United States, Indonesia, Japan, Canada, as well as Australia—13 developing countries in all. Most fundamentally, it recognises not just the need for a global aspirational target—in other words, something towards which we will all work—but the role of all parties in working to achieve that. So the developing world are acknowledging—China and others—that they too have responsibilities to achieve this outcome, and to do it together with the United States is fundamentally important. What was created in Sydney was one of the two indispensable foundation stones for a new global agreement. I repeat: it was one of the two indispensable foundation stones for a new global agreement.

There are currently 40 billion tonnes of CO emitted every year. Australia emits about 560 million of those tonnes, or 1.4 to 1.5 per cent. Without a global agreement which brings in the developing world, the United States and the developed world, all actions we take at home are irrelevant. They are necessary but they will be irrelevant without that agreement. The Sydney declaration provides one of the two foundation stones. First, there has been the partnership between the US and Europe which was formed at Heiligendamm during the G8 meeting in Germany. Second, there had to be a precursor agreement between the US and the Asia-Pacific, China in particular, and there could never be a global agreement without that foundation stone. That is what the Prime Minister, the foreign minister, the Australian negotiators and the minister for the environment all worked towards. They worked assiduously and they knew that there would be no global outcome without this second foundation stone. That is what Sydney represents—nothing less than one of the two indispensable foundation stones for a great global agreement. Without this, there will be no further outcome, so it is a fundamental step along the way.

The second of the great achievements we have had along the way concerns forests. Australia has put reforestation and the ending of deforestation on the international scene in a way that no other developed country has. We put together the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. We put together the $200 million deposit, which is Australia’s initial contribution. We announced on the weekend a $100 million overall partnership, of which we are initially putting in $30 million aimed at working towards 700 million tonnes of CO capture and abatement of CO emissions in Kalimantan on the island of Borneo, Indonesia. This one project alone will save more than a year’s worth of Australia’s emissions. It is good for biodiversity in Indonesia, it is good for the communities in Kalimantan and it is fundamental to savings of CO. How many other countries in the world have put together a project that does that. But that pales into insignificance compared with the declaration about reforestation contained within the Sydney declaration—1.4 billion tonnes of carbon, over five billion tonnes of CO.

When you look at the difference between the two sides, what you see is a failure to even raise the issue with President Bush, a failure to speak up on the destruction of the rainforest and all of the CO that comes from that—eight billion tonnes a year or six billion tonnes net—compared with leading the world and laying one of the foundation stones in relation to the Sydney declaration, which is a precursor to a great global agreement; the most profound and significant action in preserving rainforest in Kalimantan; and, leading and putting together a global initiative on forests and climate that will be the precursor to saving up to half of the world’s three billion tonnes a year of CO. For those reasons we are proud of our record. (Time expired)

See this speech in context