Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is entertaining to hear a member of the National Party bemoan the current state of the Murray-Darling Basin. It is precisely on the watch of members opposite that the Murray-Darling Basin has been trashed. It is precisely as a result of the policies that you have pursued that the Murray-Darling has deteriorated to its present sorry state. The National Party, right throughout, has been running interference on the measures needed to generate environmental flows and to protect the Murray-Darling Basin, and the member for Calare continued to run interference this afternoon on the measures needed to save the Murray-Darling Basin. As a result, we find the Murray-Darling Basin afflicted by rising levels of salinity, algal blooms, the loss of river red gum species, the loss of waterbirds and a Murray mouth which requires dredging in order to keep the mouth open—in other words, it is a river system which is on life support. The honourable member has the gall to refer to the quality of drinking water for the city of Adelaide. It is Adelaide which has suffered as a result of the policies and neglect of the Howard government, yet the member for Calare has the gall to come in here and say that we ought to do more about the Murray-Darling Basin. It is members opposite who have run interference on all measures needed to protect the health of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Members opposite and members of the National Party have sat on their hands while the Murray-Darling and the rest of this country have suffered from the effects of climate change. I draw to the attention of the House the figures from the two-year period to November 2007, which recorded the lowest ever inflow to the Murray River. Inflows during this period were 43 per cent lower than the previous record low, which occurred at the end of 1938. The CSIRO estimates that, if these sorts of trends continue, by 2030 the Ovens River will have a 27 per cent reduction, the Gwydir River a 10 per cent reduction and the Wimmera River a 50 per cent reduction. This will be catastrophic for the Murray-Darling Basin, yet members opposite sat on their hands over the course of 10 years and were completely inactive, completely passive, on the issue of climate change.

When I saw this MPI topic—‘The failure of the government to implement effective climate and water programs’—I was amused. I thought there must have been a typo. Surely the resolution would have made sense if it read, ‘The failure of the Howard government to implement effective climate and water programs’. It is truly remarkable to hear the member for Flinders, having been in this place for the best part of a decade of shameful inaction, spouting the need for effective climate and water programs. Talk about a road to Damascus conversion. What a difference an election makes!

The Australian people might well wonder just when the Liberal and National parties were going to implement effective climate and water programs—it did not happen in year 1, year 2, year 3, year 4, year 5, year 6 or year 7, and it did not happen in years 8, 9, 10 or 11. So we can suppose that it was going to happen in year 12—that they had a year 12 agenda to do something about climate change and water. The member for Flinders asks the nation to take seriously his claim that the Liberal Party would have tackled global warming if only it had been re-elected for its 12th year.

There are three issues that are litmus tests for whether you are serious about tackling global warming, whether it is just posturing or whether it is a fraud. The first test is this: global warming is an international problem. Carbon is no respecter of national boundaries so, if we are going to tackle it, we have to tackle it through collective international endeavour. The forum for that is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and, in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Astonishingly, the previous government, having negotiated a good deal for Australia back in 1997, ratted on the deal, refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol and proceeded to go around doing everything it could to scuttle and undermine collective international endeavours to tackle climate change. At a time when the science was becoming increasingly clear, and the need for action ever more urgent, the previous government were not merely sitting on their hands but doing everything they could to undermine collective international action. They were living in some kind of bizarre fantasy world in which Australia was located on a planet other than Earth, where we were immune from the effects of global warming. Nothing could more dramatically demonstrate the fact that they are the party of the past and we are the party of the future than the first action of the incoming Labor government: the ratification of the Kyoto protocol on climate change. We showed that we are part of the international solution, whereas those opposite are part of the problem.

The second test of whether you are fair dinkum about climate change is to put a price on carbon. Unfortunately we have gone through a period where we have treated the earth as a business in liquidation. We have not put a value on a healthy and functioning atmosphere. The level of carbon has risen from 280 parts per million in pre-industrial times to 380 parts per million as at 2005. It is expected to rise to 500, 600, even 700 parts per million, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Scientists tell us that we need to contain the carbon levels and, in order to do that, we need to put a price on carbon. Labor have committed to doing that. We have committed to the introduction of an emissions trading regime. Those opposite said, ‘Oh yes, we have committed to an emissions trading regime as well.’ They did it last year—another eleventh-hour road to Damascus conversion—but if you are going to have an emissions trading regime, it has to be built around a target. It cannot be fair dinkum unless there is a target. Labor committed to reducing our carbon emissions by 60 per cent, from year 2000 levels, by the year 2050. We put in place a target.

Those opposite did not put in place a target, and they still have not put in place a target. This is just nonsense. If you went to the election and said, ‘We’re going to change the school funding system and we’ll give you the detail after the election,’ there would be outrage and there would be uproar. Or if you said, ‘We’re going to change the private health insurance arrangements; we’ll give you the details after the election,’ there would be uproar, and so there should be. But those opposite attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the Australian people, going to the election without nominating any target for carbon reductions into the future. Until the member for Flinders nominates a target he cannot and will not be taken seriously by the Australian people so far as his bona fides on climate change are concerned.

The third area in which you can tell whether somebody is serious and fair dinkum about climate change is renewable energy. The previous government had a renewable energy target, but it was so ineffectual that the proportion of renewable energy actually declined during their period in office. By contrast, we have set for ourselves a target of 20 per cent renewable energy by the year 2020—a challenging target, but one which is necessary and one which will benefit the Australian economy, because there are jobs in renewable energy and there is regional development in renewable energy. Those opposite failed to set a target. They ran interference on wind farms. They said, ‘We’ll block the south Gippsland wind farm at Bald Hills because it might endanger the orange-bellied parrot,’ even though one had not been sighted in the area for 50 years. That was the kind of interference that they ran on wind energy.

At least the member for Flinders and the Leader of the Opposition have been out there trying; the rest of them are busy playing the blame game about who lost the 2007 election. There they are; they are trying. They are a dynamic duo—Batman and Robin—but I suspect they will be unsuccessful. There are too many sceptics on that side, too many doubters, for them to produce the serious policies which are needed to tackle the major challenge which Australia and the rest of the world faces in relation to global warming and which the Labor government is committed to tackling. (Time expired)

See this speech in context