Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Hansard source

Climate change is real. It is important. It is significant. But it takes substance, not symbols, in order to manage it. It takes substance, not symbols, in order to manage the water requirements as well as the climate change requirements that this country will face over the coming decade, over the coming 20 years and over the coming 30 years. The case that we want to present today is a simple one: the early signs from this government are not of competent management of climate and water but of incompetent and ineffective management of those programs necessary to make a real and sustainable difference to the way in which Australia deals with both the climate challenge and with our water supplies. I want to make this case, along with my colleagues the member for Calare and the member for Murray, in three stages: the domestic climate change policies, the international climate change policies and the rural water policies.

Underpinning all of this is the concept of competence. Let me start in relation to the issue of competence with a recent decision of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. The minister was called upon under the EPBC to decide whether or not to allow dredging of Port Phillip Bay. He had to make whatever decision he had to make, and that included a decision regarding the two million tonnes of toxic sediment containing zinc, cadmium, lead, arsenic and up to 270 trace elements, which will now be dumped into the middle of Port Phillip Bay. But there was a slight issue. In making his decision for Port Phillip Bay, his reasons referred to Western Port Bay. This is a minister who made one of the biggest environmental decisions in Australian history for the wrong bay. I just want to repeat that: he made it for the wrong bay! Did he know the right bay? No. Did he consult with the community? No. Is he competent? No.

That is the base of and the way in which we are looking at this sort of issue. What we see is a dangerous practice of incompetence and ineffective programs. Let me turn to the first of these areas, which is the notion of domestic failure in terms of the climate change programs which they are seeking to bring forward. We put forward a very interesting proposal called the Green Vouchers for Schools program. What we see today with that Green Vouchers for Schools program is, in a word, chaos under the new government. First, it was axed. Second, it was placed on hold. Third—and I note this from the website in the last couple of days—our program, which was initially axed and then placed on hold, has suddenly and mysteriously been reinstated. Why is that?

We see that the new program which the government put in place to supersede it is late. The website says 1 July, maybe. It is inflexible. There were originally no projects over $30,000; whereas we had a $50,000 limit. I noticed, again on the website today, that it appears—but we do not know—that they have changed their cap to agree with ours to give schools precisely the flexibility which we had given them, but they have done this without even the slightest acknowledgement of the mistake which they made, the way in which we warned them of it and the change that they have made in response to the very problem we identified in the Age on 2 January this year.

More than this, schools seeking to decrease greenhouse gas emissions today are trapped. That is because, at this point in time, the very program which the government said would succeed is not in place. The current program, which they axed, then put on hold and reinstated, is in the minister’s own website accompanied by the words ‘you may wish to reconsider’. Their program promised 27,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas savings a year. At present, how many are we receiving from the work that they have done? None. Zero. Nothing. Not one tonne, precisely because they have put on hold and failed to administer a simple program which was effective, which was wanted, which was appreciated and which they will now spend a significant amount just rebranding. I would be fascinated if the minister could provide the figures to the House of what the cost of that rebranding exercise will be.

So we see, firstly, that this greenhouse gas program, Green Vouchers for Schools, has been axed, put on hold and now reinstated, but the government are discouraging schools from taking it up whilst providing no way forward. On the other front, the Community Water Grants program, from which members on all sides will have seen tremendous results in their electorates, is on ice, on hold, with no date for a new round of Community Water Grants, no date by which community groups, schools, councils or those wishing to avail themselves of the opportunity to save water, to improve riverbanks, to improve watercourses or to work on pollution can do so. All around Australia, community groups are throwing up their hands. We have had the query: when will this happen? Unfortunately, we have to refer the questions to the office of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts or the Minister for Climate Change and Water, and to date there is no news and no sign, just a pattern of maladministration. We have a pattern of maladministration which does not befit officeholders under the Crown.

I turn, secondly, to the biggest area of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia: the question of emissions from power stations. We see a fascinating thing. We set out prior to the last election the need for a clean energy target. The reason we set out a clean energy target is that we believe that we have to go beyond renewables only. Renewables are important, but, unless you have incentives for cleaning up the 75 per cent of coal and gas electricity which is part and parcel of Australia’s makeup, you will never deal effectively with the great challenge of greenhouse in this world. We will see in India and China 800 new one-gigawatt coal fired power stations over the coming five years. Yet we see that they have turned their backs on the need for clean energy which cleans up the power stations.

Do not take my word. Who has put out a report on this? In December last year, after the election, the CFMEU put out a report called Carbon capture and storage: making it happen. What was its conclusion? Its conclusion, at page 15, was fundamental. The CFMEU—great friends of the coalition—said exactly what we have been saying: if you want to make a difference to greenhouse gases in Australia, you have to provide an incentive for adoption of clean coal technology and, if you want to do that, you have to have a clean energy target.

The government have turned their backs on cleaning up the coal and gas fired power stations of Australia. There is no adoption incentive. They will use this idea of technology development, but I can tell you, Minister, that, for as long as we are here, unless you provide an adoption incentive it will not happen. That is the simple answer. My prediction before this House today is that by the end of this term the government will have buckled and agreed with us on the need for a clean energy target. I go so far as to put on the record my prediction that by May 2009, in the budget that comes down then, there will be the adoption of some form of clean energy target so as to encourage clean coal and gas and the cleaning up of our power stations. You can have two choices here: either you clean up the power stations or you do not clean up the power stations.

Our approach is very simple. We are source blind. Everything needs to be cleaned up. But, because of an ideological disposition that the government took to the electorate, they have turned their back on the single biggest challenge facing the world and the single biggest challenge facing Australia in terms of clean emissions and clean energy, and that is cleaning up the power stations, both coal and gas, as well as generating new, clean, renewables. Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal—we support all of those, but unless you have a clean energy target you will never solve the great global challenge.

This brings me onto another issue—that is, the question of international policy. We see here a pattern of silence. Yes, the government will point out one of the symbolic gestures that they have made, and good luck to them, but much more important is this: we see a silence about those countries of the world which, unlike Australia, are not meeting their targets. Of all the developed countries, Australia is one of the few countries to be meeting its international targets, and that is because we put $3.4 billion down into effective greenhouse gas reduction programs over the last decade. The problem is real. The solutions were real. The effect was real. But what we see overseas and from this government, which is hurting our capacity to have an impact internationally, is silence about those countries that are failing to meet their obligations.

Canada is plus 22 per cent on its international greenhouse targets, but have we heard anything from the government about that? No. France is plus nine per cent on its international targets, but have we heard anything from the government about that failure? No. Japan is plus 12 per cent on its international targets. Have we heard anything about that failure? No. Norway is plus 22 per cent on its international targets, but have we heard anything about that failure? No. Spain, for example, is 36 per cent over and above its international commitments, but have we heard anything? No. The government’s pattern is very simple: apologise for Australia being one of the very few countries in the world which is actually meeting its targets and say nothing about those countries which are actually breaching that which they have pledged.

It is very important that we set down $3.4 billion worth of funds to produce real emissions savings. We have achieved real emissions savings of about 87 million tonnes a year. That is real. That is practical. One thing that we know about the atmosphere is the tonnes of CO and parts per million of CO or equivalent gases that are in the air. Yet we see a failure to speak up internationally about the real challenge and the failure of other countries to meet their obligations. It is fine to criticise Australia for not pledging to do what we already did in any event. But will you say something about those countries which I have outlined and the many others that have failed to do that which they have agreed internationally?

The second great failure internationally—and this is important—is a silence on the destruction of the rainforests of the world. The former Minister for Foreign Affairs and the former Minister for the Environment and Water Resources set out a very important initiative: the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. There was a reason for that. That was because of a perverse incentive under the international regime: rainforests are being cleared for palm oil. This is the very regime which needs to be rectified in order to overcome that. As a result, what the previous government did was to lay down $200 million for a Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. Twenty per cent of the world’s greenhouse emissions come from rainforest destruction, and it is the single area which over the next five years can be most quickly turned around and most quickly addressed. Yet we see—in part I think because it was one of the great issues which we championed—a silence on this issue of immediate international action. There is a great opportunity—at the lowest cost and with the highest ecological benefit—for action today. They went to Bali and they said virtually nothing about protecting the great rainforests. They said nothing about our proposal for a global rainforest recovery plan. If you want to have an impact, as the McKinsey report showed only on Friday of last week, you turn to what you can do to capture carbon through natural systems and to prevent its release into the atmosphere.

All of these things—what schools can do as consumers, what power stations can do in order to reduce emissions and what we can do through the natural environment—are fundamental to this question of how we implement real, effective and important greenhouse plans. It is real, it is significant and it is fundamental. But if you engage in symbols alone and if you fail to administer your portfolio properly then what we see is a failure of government to do the real work.

Who on that side of the House will justify the closure of the Green Vouchers for Schools program? Is that acceptable? Are there people over there who have received complaints from schools that they could not access this program whilst it was put on ice and the alternative program to succeed it was put off into the never-never? Ultimately the position is very clear. We are concerned and we raise this as a matter of public importance because the issue is important and what we see is a failure to properly administer the charge of government and a failure to deliver effective programs. We see it in the declaration of the wrong bay, for one of the most important environmental decisions that the government will face. We see it in the failure to administer the green schools program. We see it in the failure to develop a proper alternative for a pathway to clean coal and clean gas. And we see it in the silence about what is necessary at the international level if we are to achieve real, sustainable and important emissions reductions over the coming 10, 20 and 30 years further on. (Time expired)

See this speech in context