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

Well, that is what it was all about. That is what the debate was about when we were in the House. The Prime Minister did not want to talk about Kyoto even though it was his view—and it was the view of the government at the time—that they were putting in place matters of substance. If ever there was an example of symbolism over substance it was the position that you held on not ratifying the Kyoto protocol. It is now in the history books. It is a matter of record in this House. And you have tried to distance yourself from it in this MPI—perhaps not satisfactorily.

Let us look at the agenda that the Rudd Labor government has brought forward and let us determine whether it is an agenda of substance or not. But before we do that let us just raise answers to a couple of questions that the member brought into the House. The member for Flinders says that the reasons named in the statement for Port Phillip Bay were inaccurate. In fact, that is not the case at all. In fact, the reasons named in the statement have been subject to a court challenge. The court has found that the statements had validity. Additionally, I will remind the member, if he wants to raise the issue of Port Phillip Bay, that it was the position, as I understood it, of the opposition to support the Victorian approvals process and the independent experts group that was in the process of endorsing that. Now, if that is not your position any longer, bring it back in to us.

The member for Flinders came into the House to talk about green vouchers. I am really glad that the member came in to talk about green vouchers because I can assure the members and public listening that this government takes very seriously both the commitment it has made in respect of the National Solar Schools Program and, particularly, the investment of an extra $153 million to allow schools to choose the most effective way to meet their energy and water requirements. At the beginning of this month I put in place transition arrangements for the government’s $489 million Solar Schools Program. From 1 July this year, every school in Australia will be eligible to apply for grants of up to $50,000 to install two-kilowatt solar panels, a range of energy efficient measures, lighting upgrades, skylights and shade awnings, in addition to rainwater tanks and solar hot water systems. That commitment by the Rudd Labor government will enable schools to choose a flexible mix of measures that they determine in their circumstances are appropriate for them to meet the greenhouse challenge.

That was the problem with the former government’s plan. The former government’s policy was an interesting one. Unfortunately, you could only have solar hot water systems in one aspect of it and water tanks in another. Under the Rudd Labor government’s plan, you will actually have the flexibility to determine the kinds of measures you want to put in place in your schools. If members opposite are wondering why it is that we have not seen a rush of schools taking up the green vouchers—which they are still entitled to do at this point in time—it is because schools are smart enough to realise that the policy that we offered is superior to the one they brought to the last election.

The member for Flinders spoke about the clean energy target. I remind the House that, under the Howard government, Australia not only did not have a position to take to the international community in terms of ratifying the Kyoto protocol but did not have a mandatory renewable energy target at all. In fact, I remember asking a question in the House—I think it might have been the first question that I put to the then Minister for the Environment and Heritage, who is now the shadow Treasurer. The question was a simple one: will the government support a mandatory renewable energy target? The answer was never given. The fact of the matter is that, by having a mandatory renewable energy target, we will enable Australian industries and Australian communities to have a specific target that they can head towards to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Other countries have them. The member for Flinders asks why we are not talking about greenhouse gas emissions in other countries. Why aren’t they talking about mandatory renewable energy targets in other countries? Because they have them. Why shouldn’t Australia have one? The reason Australia did not have one was the same reason we did not ratify the Kyoto protocol. It was the same reason we, as a nation, did not set a target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. One of the most basic and necessary tasks of any government is to set a target. It is a task those on the other side, led by Prime Minister Howard, failed to do.

Why was that? The answer is a very simple one. The Liberal Party did not have a conviction that a national government should take resolute action on climate change. They did not have a conviction that we in this parliament should bring forward policies to deal with addressing dangerous climate change. That is what a mandatory renewable energy target is. It is not symbolic. It is a policy of substance. Setting a target of a 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050 on 2000 levels is a policy. Professor Ross Garnaut was commissioned to consider least-cost paths and matters determined by the state premiers and the Leader of the Opposition at the time—because the government had never done it—and to better inform governments as to how to reduce emissions in a low-cost way to ensure that we have a sustainable economy. Those on the other side of the House, when they were in government, never did it.

In fact, the Liberal Party and the Howard government were so disinterested in addressing climate change seriously that when the states finally got together to determine what a national emissions trading scheme would look like—it was called the National Emissions Trading Taskforce—the Commonwealth did not participate. When the Commonwealth realised very late in the day that climate change was an issue that counted to Australians and that they wanted to do something about it, it was far too late. Notwithstanding the efforts of the former minister for the environment, who went into the cabinet and suggested at the eleventh hour, ‘Wait a minute, maybe we should ratify Kyoto,’ it was too late. It was all over red rover. The symbolism of hanging on to an unwillingness to ratify Kyoto was stronger for the former government than any positive sign they could show the world community that this country knew how to take climate change seriously.

The member for Flinders came in here and said, ‘We don’t hear you speaking internationally.’ He must be joking. He was in Bali when the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, and I went to Bali. Australia was given a standing ovation in the halls at Bali as a consequence of our ratification. It was not that the world was not listening. The world could not believe that for 11 years Australia had been led by a government that was not willing to ratify the Kyoto protocol. It is as simple as that. To say that we are not speaking in international fora is to deny the absolute facts. We have ratified the protocol. It was the first step of the Rudd Labor government. It was a proud step, which was supported by the majority of Australians and countries right around the world.

I was asked by the member for Flinders about rainforests and what we are saying and doing about it. I want to take the comments that the member made and say that I think rainforests are an important issue. There is no question about it. In the policy repertoire of the former government, rainforests were all they had. Rainforests were in effect their fig leaf—if you will excuse a rather lame analogy. Unwilling to ratify the Kyoto protocol, unwilling to allow businesses access to the market that was generated by the protocol and the clean development mechanism, they trumpeted and talked about rainforests. Rainforests are important, particularly the impact that clearing rainforests for palm oil production will have both on the biodiversity of rainforests and on the greenhouse gas emissions that the planet has got to bear. It is an important issue. It is one that we will look at and consider seriously. We take the environment very seriously. We take climate change very seriously. That is why we have a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is why we have a commitment to adapt to the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid. That is why we have a commitment to work in international fora. The Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, will be going to meetings of the parties, will be going into international fora, to take a position that the Australian government is consistently putting about the need to act nationally.

In the past, in this House—and I think this will shock some new members on this side—members opposite participating in debates on climate change have denied its scientific validity. We had debates in the House from members opposite where they said there was no connection between climate change and drought. They expressed great concern for the farmers of this country and the serious impact that the current drought was having—and we have a genuine concern and awareness of the impact that the drought can have—but who was going to get up here and argue on the basis of symbolism that climate change, already identified as increasing the temperatures in southern Australia over the next decades, did not count and had nothing whatsoever to do with droughts now or in the future? I can tell you who was going to do it: it was the former Leader of the National Party. He got up here and said it and he said it publicly. That is symbolism over substance of the very worst kind. Captive to a narrow ideology and unwilling to accept the validity and the basis of science as delivered by the IPCC and Nobel Prize award winner, former Vice-President, Al Gore, whose contribution was called, by a former government minister in this House, ‘an entertainment’—

See this speech in context