Brendan Nelson (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

This World Environment Day is an important day—as should be every day—for us to pause and reflect on the impact that human activity is having on our environment. It is time for our generation as Australians and as global citizens to begin to adjust to living on environmental interest instead of capital. It is about us beginning to adjust to the environmental deadlines that are bearing down on us. But it is not only about those who profess to lead and govern countries, states or local governments; it is about every one of us as Australians appreciating that the way in which we live affects our community and so too we can choose to live in a way which changes our world.

Symbolism is important, but it is substance that counts. Further, it is of little meaning to everyday Australians, whether they are working families, pensioners, carers, owners of small family businesses or men and women on the land, if we preoccupy ourselves only with the future and are indifferent to, if not aloof from, the day-to-day struggles of everyday life—none more so at the moment than getting petrol into the car, diesel into agricultural machinery and groceries into a shopping trolley.

I would also point out that over the last 11½ years an enormous amount of effort by the Liberal and National parties, the then coalition government, was put into securing Australia’s environmental future. There was, amongst many things, more than $5 billion invested in the Natural Heritage Trust, with more than 800,000 Australian volunteers, reflecting the goodwill in this community and the deep concern for environmental preservation, who worked the length and breadth of Australia from our cities and suburbs to regional and rural Australia to do everything they possibly could to support our local communities and local environment, knowing that in the end that would make a better Australia and a better world.

We also contributed significantly to and invested in the preservation of species and habitat protection. None of us should ever forget that we human beings are but one species on this planet which we share with others. We also invested heavily in pest and weed control on over 50 million hectares of land—a size twice that of the state of Tasmania. We also invested in protecting eight million hectares of wetlands and many other areas of this nation’s continent that are so important to preserve for our country’s future and that of the next generation.

We established the Australian Greenhouse Office and, through a variety of initiatives, the Howard government took out 87 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions that would otherwise have been emitted by 2010. All of that has saved what is equivalent to 14 million cars, trucks, buses and other vehicles on Australian roads contributing to, as the Prime Minister referred to, carbon dioxide and carbon emissions.

We developed and invested in the National Water Initiative, the Australian Government Water Fund and a variety of national and local projects to preserve and protect Australia’s water security. We developed water efficiency and labelling standards, which had been unknown to everyday Australians, to give each of us in our day-to-day lives an opportunity to actually understand the water efficiency or otherwise of what we do and that which we buy.

Ten billion dollars was announced and invested in the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative by the then Prime Minister, John Howard, in January 2007. Half a billion dollars was invested in the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund. Then, the former foreign minister, the member for Mayo, developed and announced the reafforestation initiative, particularly for South-East Asia, appreciating that trees that we can keep on the ground and that we can get into the ground, not just in our own country but also in areas of the world that have been stripped of their forests, are a significant way of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.

In relation to climate change, the world has warmed before and it is warming again. There are those who question that science. Our party perhaps takes the view that we will give the planet the benefit of the doubt. We recognise, however, that Australia, which produces in the order of only 1.4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, cannot in itself solve the problem of climate change and the extent to which human activity is contributing to it. However, if we do get this wrong, we can do enormous damage to this nation’s environmental and economic future. All of us need to appreciate that, particularly through the leadership of the previous Prime Minister, John Howard, steadfastly standing by the view that we must have a genuinely global solution to address climate change played a significant role in bringing the then opposition, now government, also to that view on the eve of the last election in November last year. We believe that what happens in Copenhagen in 2009 and then what is finally agreed by 2012 must include the major emitters of the world. To not do so will abrogate our responsibilities to the future that we will leave the next generation of Australians.

We believe that it is absolutely essential that we go into this with our economic eyes wide open. When we on this side of politics have carefully scrutinised the report that will be delivered finally by Professor Garnaut to the government, we will do what we believe and know to be right and in Australia’s environmental and long-term economic interests. If we continue the way we currently are, by 2050 India and China alone will be producing about one-third of the world’s global greenhouse gas emissions, more than the United States, the European Union, Brazil, Japan and Australia combined. Everything that we did in government, everything that we must see our new government do, must be to ensure that we have a genuinely global response, because if we do not we will simply transfer industries and jobs from Australia to countries that are far less environmentally focused on the global response to climate change.

It is also important, in terms of leadership, that the Prime Minister appreciate that it is one thing to capitalise upon the understandable and widespread community support in this country, supported by our side of politics, to genuinely face the challenge of climate change. But it is not leadership to equally capitalise upon the widespread level of ignorance in our community about what that is actually going to cost. Australians need to understand that, in an emissions trading scheme, if we have carbon priced at $25 to $40 a tonne, that will mean somewhere in the order of 5c to 10c a litre more to the cost of petrol. We equally need to appreciate that, if we have a 60 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, then it is possible that in the absence of other policy initiatives we will see domestic electricity charges rise over a two-year period by as much as 30 to 50 per cent. This is a cost that is coming down the line. It is quite possibly, when we have examined all of the evidence, a cost that our country will have to pay. Our side of politics will stand steadfastly to protect pensioners, carers, low-income Australians and everyday Australians struggling to feed, clothe and house their families. We will also ensure that we stand up for what is right in the sense of Australia’s long-term future, and we will ensure that we have viable industries in this country to provide that which we need as a nation, to export to the rest of the world and to provide jobs for Australian families and their children.

This side of politics believes, and the member for Flinders has argued for some time very effectively, that we need a domestic car industry. Of course we do. But we also need clean fuels, biofuels which are predominantly produced from waste. We need to put further technology into cleaning up diesel and to ensure that the LPG subsidies and financial assistance continue. It should not be forgotten by anybody who just listened to the Prime Minister that the LPG subsidy—Australians getting $2,000 to convert to LPG—almost went under the bus in the government’s recent budget. We will be vigilant to see that that is continued. We also need to develop a hydrogen fuel source and fuel industry here for Australia. We must also focus on clean engines, hybrids and plug-in electric vehicles for our country. Governments using hard earned taxpayers’ dollars need to show leadership by choosing to purchase and equip their fleets with environmentally friendly vehicles. It is not just the Australian government; it is also state governments and local governments, and there should be a coordinated strategy in that regard.

Whilst I agree with most of what was said by the Prime Minister in his statement on the environment for this World Environment Day, there are enormous inconsistencies in this government’s approach. We had in the budget an increase in the luxury car tax. Hybrid cars get slugged with tax just as much as Hummers. We also heard the Prime Minister refer to, and indeed applaud, the investment by BMW in microhybrid technologies—BMWs of course have just been taxed further by the same government. One of the early decisions of this same government was to break the commitment by the previous government to sell Australian uranium to India for peaceful domestic power energy generation, when India has a voracious appetite for energy and a growing carbon footprint. It is one of a number of inconsistencies. The greatest inconsistency is on something that affects every one of us and is hopefully something which we will increasingly be turning our attention to as everyday Australians—that is, solar power and solar power in our homes. Every one of us asks ourselves, ‘What can I do individually to make my contribution to live on environmental interest instead of capital?’ One of the key things Australians do is buy solar power and put solar panels on their homes.

The government in its budget announced a $100,000 means test of family income for the solar panel rebate. In other words, if you are a teacher and your wife is a nurse, or, if you are a policeman and your husband is a truck driver, you will no longer get an $8,000 rebate to put solar panels on your roof. I have just returned from Queanbeyan, where I met a man and a woman called Phil and Sophia May, and their daughter, Abi. They have been met by another one of Australia’s leaders. In fact, just over a year ago, our now Prime Minister went to see Phil and Sophia May. They run a very small company called Solartec. They are a husband and wife with a young child—Abi. I was told by Phil and Sophia May that Abi was held by the Prime Minister. In March last year, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said:

Solar is the most greenhouse-friendly energy on the planet, and, therefore, we just need to take some practical steps for as many families as possible to invest in this.

In case the Prime Minister has forgotten, this photo shows us Phil and Sophie May and their daughter, Abi. Prime Minister, remember them. This is the family running a small business, employing a mature-age apprentice, trying to help Australian families contribute to a better climate, to a better world, by putting solar panels on their roofs. This Prime Minister’s government has decided that, if you are a policeman married to a teacher, you will have to pay full-tote odds of $15,000 to $20,000 to go green friendly in terms of your energy generation at home. I also point out to the Prime Minister that this is a small business. This is an industry which we are trying to encourage in its development. We have speeches from the Prime Minister—all kinds of stardust and waffly sorts of speeches—about what might happen in 2020. I point out to the Prime Minister on this World Environment Day that there are real people with real families to feed, house and clothe, and real cars to drive, which need petrol put in them, who are concerned about the environment, and the Prime Minister of this country is saying that, once you earn $100,000 a year, you will get no encouragement whatsoever to go green.

But it becomes more shameful. On this World Environment Day, what would you expect the environment minister of Australia to say about solar power—called ‘the most greenhouse-friendly energy source in the world’ by our Prime Minister? This morning our environment minister, explaining why the means test was put on the solar rebate, said:

It was a program that was overheating and we want to bring some sustainability into this program.

I do not know what planet our environment minister is on, but it is not planet Earth. On World Environment Day, our environment minister is so concerned about the rapid rate of uptake of solar power in Australian households that he wants to put a brake on it. If he was Scaifey out the front at Sandown, he would slow down. What is important here is that we have a government that professes to have a commitment to Australia’s environmental future but, at the same time, by its actions—as distinct from its rhetoric—is actually undermining Australia’s best long-term environmental interests. There are Australians today who are making decisions about whether they can afford another 10 litres of petrol in their car today.

We have heard from the Prime Minister about the clean car and the investment fund which will start in 2011 and hopefully lead to an outstanding green car in Australia—all of which is supported by this side of politics. What is important is that we also focus on and never neglect the day-to-day concerns and struggles of everyday Australians. So at the same time we invest in renewable energy, at the same time we invest in hybrid cars, at the same time we invest in electric cars and at the same time we support our car industry in developing a clean car future for this country. I say to the Prime Minister of this country: give them a break now. Cut the excise on petrol. Stop just watching fuel. Give this country an environment minister who can at least decide he thinks it is better if people get more affordable petrol. Give this country leadership, not only for 2020 but for 2008. Prime Minister, make decisions and give this country an environment minister who actually thinks it is a good idea to have solar power and, most importantly, be man enough to go back to Phil May and his family and explain to them what you have done and drop the means test.

See this speech in context