Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for her question. I draw honourable members’ attention to the report released today by the Queensland government on the effects of climate change in Queensland. I would ask coalition members who come from Queensland to pay particular attention to what this report has to say. The report, Climate change in Queensland: what the science is telling us, compiled by the Queensland government’s Office of Climate Change, outlines the potential impacts for Queensland in a number of areas. These include (1) a tendency for less rainfall, (2) more severe droughts, (3) sea levels rising, (4) more intense tropical cyclones and (5) increased risk of storm surge. Climate change, therefore, as a consequence of these impacts, represents not just a direct environmental assault on the planet and on our country—and in this case the analysis relates to Queensland—but consequential economic effects as well.

Remember that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that temperatures could go up by 2.5 degrees and that would of itself result in an impact on global GDP of between 1.5 and two per cent. That is a most significant impact when it comes to the overall performance of the global economy. Those opposite continue to argue that somehow this does not represent a fundamental economic challenge for Australia to get right for the future and for the world to get right for the future. We say that this is a fundamental economic challenge and that it requires, therefore, a considered policy response.

If you look at Australia, you see that the economic costs that would be borne would obviously fall to Australian farmers, the tourism sector and our key export industries, and there would be higher insurance premiums and public health outcomes. Look at the impact, for example, on our natural heritage and the consequential impact which would then flow to Australian tourism. The CSIRO estimates that if temperatures rose by between two and three degrees then 80 per cent of Kakadu’s freshwater wetlands would be lost due to rising sea levels. Furthermore, according to the CSIRO, under those circumstances almost all of the Great Barrier Reef would be bleached. On top of that, the Queensland climate change report released today reminds us of the value of the Great Barrier Reef—over $4.9 billion in tourism and employment for around 60,000 people—and the danger it faces from climate change. That is the impact on our natural environment and the consequential impact also on tourism.

If you turn then to agriculture, ABARE’s analysis estimates that a changing climate could reduce wheat, beef, dairy and sugar production by an estimated nine to 10 per cent by 2030 and by 13 to 19 per cent by 2050. ABARE also finds that exports of these key commodities could decline by as much as 63 per cent by 2030 and as much as 79 per cent by 2050. Furthermore, CSIRO estimates that flows into the Murray-Darling would fall by 10 to 25 per cent if temperatures rose by between one and two degrees. Therefore, we have the overall economic impact, the impact on our natural environment, the consequential impact on tourism and, flowing through from that, the cost also to Australia’s primary producers and our exports in that sector as well.

Then there is public health. The potential cost there is significant. According to the Climate Institute in the CSIRO, a one- to two-degree increase in temperatures will lead to the southwards spread of malaria-receptive zones and 1,200 to 1,400 more heat related deaths a year in major population centres. On top of that again, a two- to three-degree increase in temperatures would cause the spread of dengue fever transmission zones as far as Brisbane.

We take these technical reports seriously. The government listens to what the science is saying. The government pays attention to what these reports say about the economic cost to Australia, the cost in particular to agriculture, the cost in particular to our tourism sector and the cost to public health over time as well. That is why Australia needs a forward-looking strategy to deal with climate change. That is why we have established a half-billion-dollar Clean Coal Fund; that is why we have established a half-billion-dollar Renewable Energy Fund; that is why we have established a quarter-billion-dollar Clean Business Fund; that is why we have a commitment to increase the renewable energy target for the country; and that is why we have a commitment, unlike those opposite, to introduce an emissions-trading scheme, because an emissions-trading scheme is a core part of providing the market based responses for dealing with the overall challenge of greenhouse gas emissions into the future.

An emissions-trading scheme will help Australia transition to a lower carbon economy, an economy which can then also participate in environmental industries of the future. The government will use revenue from the ETS to help Australians, households and business cope with the costs and invest in cleaner energy options. The government will assist families, pensioners and carers, including low-income households, to adjust to any impact of carbon prices. At the same time, we will be helping Australian families to take practical action in their own homes to use energy more efficiently and to save on their energy bills.

These are practical courses of action. We have an integrated strategy concerned with the investment in new technologies, the promotion of renewable energy, the implementation of an emissions-trading scheme as well as arrangements contained within that scheme to ease any transition burden for households and for business.

I was also asked about what alternative views exist on this matter. I would simply ask those opposite one question: would they consider their responsibilities to the nation in constructively engaging in this debate about Australia’s environmental and economic future as opposed to the campaign of fear which they have launched this week? It is a fear campaign which is designed purely to advance their own political interests, from a party which increasingly shows itself prepared to do anything and say anything in order to gain a political advantage or to gain a headline.

I conclude with this. Those opposite, barely 12 months ago, stood up and said to the nation that they would (a) implement an emissions-trading scheme and (b) they would include transport. And 12 months later what are they doing? They are simply cutting and trimming because they see some political advantage in so doing. We have a clear-cut plan for the future to deal with this. Those opposite are caught on the horns of their own political dilemma and are internally divided. The member for Wentworth has yet to give us any explanation as to why he has not stood up to the Leader of the Opposition and maintained the integrity of the position which he put forward on behalf of the Liberal government of Australia barely 12 months ago.

See this speech in context