David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Grayndler proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The urgent need for the Government to take action to avoid dangerous climate change based upon independent scientific analysis.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A dangerous climate of fear clouds the Howard government climate policy, and the victims of that climate of fear have been some of Australia’s top scientists at the CSIRO. Just like the ‘wheat for weapons’ scandal, this is a government that governs in its own political interests, not in the national interests. Last night’s Four Corners program raised serious allegations that senior CSIRO scientists are being gagged on climate change issues when it does not suit the Howard government’s political message. One of Australia’s most respected climate scientists—nationally and internationally—Dr Graeme Pearman, was gagged because he said that we need greenhouse gas emission targets and we need carbon trading to help avoid dangerous climate change.

Who is Graeme Pearman? Dr Pearman joined the CSIRO in 1971 and was Chief of Atmospheric Research at the CSIRO for a decade. He published 150 scientific papers. He was the winner of the UN Environment Program global award in 1989 and the recipient of an Order of Australia in 1999. In 2003 he received the Federation Medal, but in 2004 he was made redundant. The CSIRO did not need a person of this stature! Frankly, I think we need the involvement of more people like Graeme Pearman in public debate, and we need his views on the public record.

I want to tell the House that I have some personal experience with this. On 28 July 2004 I organised a forum, at Newtown RSL in my electorate, titled, ‘The day before tomorrow: the real threat of climate change and what Australia should do about it’. I placed ads in the newspapers. We produced posters. I direct-mailed around the electorate. I had speakers advertised for this information forum—Kelvin Thomson, the shadow minister for the environment; Anna Reynolds, the climate change campaign director from WWF; and Dr Graeme Pearman from the CSIRO—on the greatest challenge facing the global community. But Dr Pearman rang us up the day before the forum was to take place—it was not taking place during an election campaign, it was not canvassing votes for any political party; it was doing what good local members in this place do on both sides of the House and doing what Dr Pearman has told me he has done before for forums of all political persuasions: being there as an eminent scientist—and said that he was told he was not allowed to come to that information forum in my electorate to talk about climate change.

It is a disgrace that other scientists have been gagged; he is not alone. Dr Barrie Pittock was expressly told that he could not talk about mitigation, about how we might reduce greenhouse gases and about rising sea levels in the Pacific. But such is the attempt from the government to deceive and spin that in responding to the launch of Labor’s Pacific climate change strategy on 6 January 2006, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage said, ‘I have spoken to the head of the Australian Greenhouse Office this morning. In terms of sea level rise and its impact on Tuvalu in particular but the Pacific in general, the jury is really out. Saying that we are going to evacuate them is very premature. Let’s hope it never happens.’ The response of the federal environment minister was: ‘Let’s just cross our fingers and hope it never happens.’ Political inadequacy is one thing but the systematic destruction of the very nature of Australia’s Public Service, in the dissembling of information, is another.

The Australian Greenhouse Office produced a report in 2003 entitled Climate change—an Australian guide to the science and potential impacts. It says at page 155:

For the rest of the Pacific region, however, the number of people who experience flooding by the 2050s could increase by a factor of more than 50, to between 60,000 and 90,000 in an average year ... Vulnerability in the Pacific Islands could impinge indirectly on Australia, through our external relations and aid programs.

Again, the report Climate change—risk and vulnerability given to the department in July of last year warned about rising sea levels and the impact on our Pacific neighbours. But when Labor comes up with some foresight, some policy and planning to do something about it, what is the government’s response? One, let us cross our fingers and, two, it misleads once again on the advice the government had been given by the Australian Greenhouse Office.

If you want an example of the intimidation that has occurred under this arrogant government that thinks that it controls a one-party state just because it controls both houses in this parliament, then have a look at the exchange between Kevin Hennessy, the coordinator of the CSIRO Climate Impact Group, and Janine Cohen on the Four Corners program last night. There you see it all laid out before you. You see an extraordinary dissembling by this official. Here you have it, and it says it all about the climate of fear—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hunt interjecting

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and intimidation from these spivs opposite.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Flinders will have an opportunity to reply.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Four Corners asked Kevin Hennessy, ‘Some scientists believe that there’ll be more environmental refugees. Is that a possibility?’

KEVIN HENNESSY, CSIRO IMPACT GROUP: I can’t really comment on that.

JANINE COHEN: Why can’t you comment on that?

KEVIN HENNESSY, CSIRO IMPACT GROUP: That’s, that’s, er... No, I can’t comment on that.

JANINE COHEN: Is that part of editorial policy? You can’t comment on things that affect immigration?

KEVIN HENNESSY, CSIRO IMPACT GROUP: No, I can’t comment on that.

JANINE COHEN: Can I just ask you why you can’t comment?

KEVIN HENNESSY, CSIRO IMPACT GROUP: Not on camera.

JANINE COHEN: Oh, OK. But is it a policy thing?

KEVIN HENNESSY, CSIRO IMPACT GROUP: I can’t comment on that.

And so it goes.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An absolutely cowardly attack.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders, if he wants to speak, will remain quiet.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is an attack on the government, a cowardly government that hides behind the bureaucrats and officials, that intimidates them and that threatens world-renowned scientists with redundancies if they actually speak about what they are expert in. And these clowns over here have the hide to say that it is us attacking the bureaucrats. These are the clowns that will not allow bureaucrats to answer questions in Senate estimates hearings. These are the clowns that attack independent institutions, world-renowned institutions such as the CSIRO—one of the world’s great science organisations intimidated. And if you want to see it, parliamentary secretary—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler will address his remarks through the chair.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

just have a look at the body language of Mr Hennessy in that Four Corners program last night. Just have a look at the graphic depiction of the intimidation. What we have seen from the government are completely contradictory positions and it was clear last night. I also encourage people to watch the Insight program on SBS in a couple of weeks, because the minister put in an absolute shocker there. He could not explain the contradictions in the government’s position.

These are the government’s contradictions: firstly, that Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are on track—‘She’ll be right, mate; we’re doing real well.’ The fact is that, but for land use changes in New South Wales and Queensland, we are headed for a disaster. The Australian Greenhouse Office reports that emissions from energy and transport will be 70 per cent above the 1990 baseline by 2020. The ABARE report given to the climate pact meeting—this is best case scenario, if everything they want to do comes off—indicates a 50 per cent increase in greenhouse gas emissions. This is at a time when the rest of the world is indicating that we need to move to a 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. A great contradiction is there.

The other great contradiction is that somehow ratifying Kyoto will be bad for the economy. We know that the government does not actually believe that, because we know that the Treasurer took a proposal to the cabinet in 2003 to introduce a national greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme—and we know that he was knocked over by the Prime Minister. We have asked questions in this House on that basis. The truth is that it is one thing to be a climate sceptic. We know that the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources is a climate sceptic. Just last week he was saying that there will be no impact of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef—we know that he does not believe that it is happening. But it is another thing for a government that prides itself on its free market ideology to be a market sceptic. That is what this government is. Due to ideology it has rejected the Kyoto protocol and it has rejected emissions trading—it has actually gone out there and said that it is bad for the economy.

The great contradiction is that, on the one hand the government says it is going to meet the target of 108 per cent; on the other hand it says that the Kyoto protocol is bad for the economy. The truth is that the Kyoto protocol is a carrot and a stick. The carrot is that, if you meet your target, you open up economic opportunities—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Hunt interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Flinders will have an opportunity to reply.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in what the future economy will look like, in what the future is—the future in areas such as solar energy, which increased globally in 2004, the latest figures, by 65 per cent. Fifteen years ago we were in the position to be the Silicon Valley of the solar industry; now we account for less than one per cent. With the reaching of the mandatory renewable energy target, and the refusal of the government to get on board and do something about that, we are seeing a decline.

The member opposite, the member for Flinders, talks about the climate pact. We see the climate pact as being positive. We see discussions that are taking place around the world as being positive. But they are extremely limited, because they do not provide a real solution. You need both the push of new technology and the pull of the market to make them happen. One of the government’s favoured ideologues on this, who they brought out from the Pew Centre in the United States, Eileen Claussen, had this to say:

If you really want results you have to do something that’s mandatory. It’s not going to happen with voluntary approaches.

Because history tells us that good intentions simply are not enough. They certainly are not enough, and surely we should look at cases such as Enron in the United States and James Hardie to see that, unless you intervene and establish a market, you will not get the innovation. It is an absurd position because the government—the Treasurer, the environment minister, the foreign minister—is on record as saying that what we need here is a price signal, but not yet.

What an absurd proposition. Here we have the carbon market that will be the world’s biggest market. And we are saying, ‘We don’t want to get involved; we want everyone else to have a head start.’ That is why Australia is isolated. The government said that Kyoto would not come into effect—Russia ratified it, and it did. They said emissions trading would not start, and it did on 1 January last year. They said that it would not last beyond the Montreal climate change summit, but that summit saw the world move forward and start negotiations for the global situation post 2012. But we are not around the table for those decisions. Australia and the United States, alone among industrialised countries around the world, are on the outside looking in. We cannot afford that luxury—we need to engage, because younger generations will recall climate sceptics who denied human contribution to climate change as being misguided, but those who acknowledge the problem but fail to do anything about it will be judged much more seriously indeed. We need to take action now. We need to take action if we are going to avoid dangerous climate change.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take the allegations of the member for Grayndler head on. I want to make this a debate about hypocrisy. This debate comes down to two key differences. On the one hand we have what is happening on our watch today with the reality of a world-leading set of changes. There is the creation of the Asia-Pacific partnership, the largest initiative on the planet in terms of actual decreases in greenhouse gases.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You’re not serious.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Grayndler was heard in silence.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not!

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I intervened and I would expect the member for Grayndler to respect that.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ABARE is talking about an approximate 90 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases. I repeat for the member for Grayndler: 90 billion tonnes of greenhouse gases over the period to 2050—approximately three times more than that which would be projected under the Kyoto agreement. But it is in addition to—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s not true.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s rubbish!

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is the figure of ABARE. If you wish to challenge it, do so; but we have yet to see any credible challenge. So we draw a distinction here between two things: between the action at present and the hypocrisy as presented by the now fleeing member for Grayndler. The action on the one hand is what has occurred under the current watch and leadership of Senator Ian Campbell, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the foreign minister and the Prime Minister; and what is being alleged by, and the silence and hypocrisy that comes from, our friends on the other side of the chamber.

Minister Campbell has done essentially three critical things in Australian greenhouse policy, which has put Australia at the forefront of international initiatives on greenhouse. Firstly, he has said clearly and categorically that from a government perspective there is an acceptance of the science. He has done that. He has pushed the position forward and he has made it absolutely clear. It is a categorical position and it is one which is underpinned by $1.9 billion in investment by the Australian government. Secondly, he has acknowledged and been an international advocate for the fact that there has to be a 50 per cent reduction globally in greenhouse gases over the course of this century. That is not a denial. That is not the action of somebody who wants to see something hidden. That is a bold and courageous pronouncement, and it sets over the coming years the direction, the test and the challenge for Australian policy. We make no apologies for that hard position.

The third, and I think the most profound and the most significant, thing the minister for the environment—along with the minister for industry and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, with the support of the Prime Minister—has done is to help establish and found the Asia-Pacific partnership, or the Sydney partnership, as it is sometimes known. That brought together countries that produce 50 per cent of the world’s emissions. It brought together Australia, the United States, Japan, South Korea, China and India. China and India are the largest emerging economies in the world, economies which for the most part are not included and not covered by Kyoto. This addresses a volume much greater than Kyoto does. This partnership sets those countries together on a path which included the world’s first true greenhouse gas aid initiative, something which was dismissed by not just the member for Grayndler but also the Leader of the Opposition. Unfortunately for them the member for Batman pulled the rug out from underneath them and showed precisely that it was a worthy initiative and a critical initiative. That is what we have done on the one hand.

I can talk also about my own experience here. Dr Geoff Love, the Director of the Bureau of Meteorology, an organisation for which I have responsibility, very early on in my career talked about the reality of climate change. My view is very simple: you make that case directly and as forcefully as possible to as senior people as possible in the government. That presentation was made to senior ministers, with the support of Senator Ian Campbell, the foreign minister and the industry minister. It was critical in doing two things: firstly, in encouraging action within the Bureau of Meteorology—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Grayndler.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and, secondly, in helping to lead to the creation of the Asia-Pacific partnership.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Albanese interjecting

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Member for Grayndler.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say to the member for Grayndler—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler is warned!

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that we have, as a new generation, taken it on directly—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I was addressing this matter—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler has no right to debate with the chair. He might have noted I pulled up the member for Flinders when he was interjecting; I am doing the same to the member for Grayndler. The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler will resume his seat.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is balance, Mr Deputy Speaker!

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler will remove himself under standing order 94(a).

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler will remove himself under standing order 94(a) or be named.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you are throwing me out?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said 94(a). Remove yourself from the chamber.

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For what? For taking a point of order?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For arguing with the chair. You have no right. There is no standing order. The member for Grayndler will remove himself under 94(a).

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I have to be allowed to move a point of order.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can take a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. That is what I was trying to do, take a point of order. I think it is reasonable that I be allowed to take a point of order.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of order?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is that there needs to be balance. I accept being called to order—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are now reflecting on the chair.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am merely pointing out the fact that the parliamentary secretary, when it was my opportunity to speak, did not speak softly but yelled across the chamber.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler is now reflecting on the chair. Under standing order 94(a), remove yourself from the chamber.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For being allowed to move—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler will be named if he does not remove himself.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. On what basis was the member for Grayndler warned for interjecting when the member for Flinders was not warned for interjecting.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wills is now reflecting on the chair.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am entitled to an explanation as to why the member for Flinders was not warned. If you study the transcript, you will see that the—

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wills will resume his seat and I will explain. When the member for Flinders interjected, I called him to order and told him he would have a right to reply—on three occasions that I remember. I am doing exactly the same thing to the member for Grayndler. He has then taken offence at that and tried to argue with the chair. He has then refused to obey the chair and he has been asked to leave the chamber under standing order 94(a).

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I moved a point of order.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Grayndler has no right to debate it.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a right to move a point of order.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do not have a right to move a point of order; you have a right to take a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I took a point of order.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the point of order was ruled on.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I take another point of order?

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Take a point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is this: I asked you to reflect on your ruling and your exclusion of me from the chamber given the circumstances which occurred, which were that I could barely hear myself when I spoke and that there was no warning issued to the member opposite.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have the point of order.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask you to reconsider. Thank you.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will reconsider, Member for Grayndler, but remember when you are called to order the chair has the right to do that.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was making a very simple point: we have presented a strong case internally that you have a new watch within the government that is absolutely clear as to the reality of this phenomenon. It has not just taken a position but encouraged the bureaucracy to make the strongest case possible on the basis of facts. On the basis of those facts it has presented public statements, and on the basis of those public statements it has pursued the strongest of international action. That is the reality. We have stood absolutely clear on what we regard to be the position and the responsibilities.

We can compare this with a silence on the extraordinary greenhouse factory of desalination within Sydney—a silence from the member for Grayndler and his team on the greenhouse factory, a silence on the fact that the states—the Labor states—are currently proposing 25 new power stations in Australia, many of which have a heavy coal fired base, including Hazelwood in Victoria. We now finally have a backflip on the Asia-Pacific partnership, after it had been rejected. And, in addition to that, over the last few weeks we have had an extraordinary attack in relation to Australia’s role at Montreal, where Australia was not only heavily engaged in the meeting of the parties and the conference of the parties and not only invited to be part of the ‘Friends of the President’ meeting in Ottawa but, under the leadership of Senator Campbell, played an absolutely instrumental role in pulling together the Montreal plan of action in relation to a post-Kyoto framework.

How do we take this forward? There are three key principles here. Firstly, Australia is one of the few countries meeting its targets under the Kyoto protocol. We are actually doing what those opposite are arguing for and delivering, whereas they are silent about the hypocrisy of much of the rest of the world. Secondly, we have moved beyond that to a complementary but, I would argue, more significant agreement, the Asia-Pacific partnership, and I will address some of the elements of that. And, thirdly, we are pursuing a powerful but balanced domestic greenhouse initiative.

Let us look at what is happening internationally and the silence of our friends on the opposition bench. Firstly, while Australia is on track—and it does not matter what is the source of us being on track; I think that is a good thing, not a bad thing—let us look at the EU. The EU is 5.1 per cent over its targets. Germany is 2.1 per cent over its targets. The Netherlands is 6.6 per cent over its targets. Denmark is 20.2 per cent over its target. Japan is 13 per cent over. New Zealand is 32 per cent over. Canada is 19 per cent over. Australia is on track. Australia is on track whereas these countries are in breach of their Kyoto targets. We are delivering whereas others are promising. For some reason, the member for Grayndler thinks that there is a moral debt when you are delivering and a moral supremacy when you are promising but failing to deliver. That is the first point.

Secondly, in relation to the Asia-Pacific partnership and what the Australian government has helped to create in partnership with the other five countries, we have laid down an initiative which will deliver an estimated 90 billion tonnes of greenhouse gas abatement between now and 2050. Is that all that is necessary? No. If we said that, it would be flawed. But it is a fundamental contribution, on a greater scale than what is being delivered under Kyoto.

Let me provide the facts to the House. The facts are these. The Kyoto agreement produces a greenhouse gas abatement of approximately 500 million tonnes of CO or CO-like gases per year. If you were to multiply that out between now and 2050, you would be looking at 25 billion tonnes of CO. But even if that process were to escalate and to triple—even if we took the most conservative estimates in relation to the Asia-Pacific partnership and the most expansive outcomes in relation to the Kyoto protocol—we would still have a difference of 75 billion tonnes under Kyoto and 90 billion tonnes under the ABARE estimates for the Asia-Pacific partnership. However, the great thing is that these are not the same gases. These are complementary reductions.

What we have done is provide a complementary reduction over and above anything which is calculated in relation to Kyoto. It brings in the United States, India and China. These are the greatest sources of CO emissions in the world. Australia has just over one per cent of emissions. If we are to have a global effect, we need to take domestic action. None of us deny that. But, most significantly, we need to be able to leverage the international effect of how you decrease the total global greenhouse gases available. How do you do that? The answer is simple. We have brought together these six countries. It is a foundation and a platform, and that is a conservative estimate from ABARE.

No other country in the world has been able to leverage its own size relative to the total greenhouse gases which it is looking to save and abate worldwide. That is a very simple proposition. Of all the different nations in the world, Australia has put together on a reduction versus per capita basis the single greatest savings package through the Asia-Pacific partnership.

We also recognise that there are critical domestic initiatives which we seek to take—at $1.9 billion. That is a combination of three things. The first involves a reduction of CO and like gases from fossil fuel outputs. We make no apologies for trying to get the greatest savings at the source of the greatest emissions. The second is in relation to renewable energy, whether that is encouraging solar, wind or water. It is all of those different things. We actually created a wind industry in Australia. If the states want to take it further, it is up to them. And the third thing is that we are responsible for an international initiative which provides the first truly international greenhouse gas initiative. We have a proud history and a proud record. (Time expired)

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Reconciliation and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Flinders has made a great deal out of very little. It is too little too late. Interestingly, not one word has been said to defend the principle of scientific inquiry that was raised in last night’s Four Corners program—not one single word. How can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage come into the House when the national broadcaster has produced a 45-minute documentary detailing charges against the government of which he is a member—significant and important charges, including whistleblower comments from someone who was a previous speechwriter to the environment minister—and not mention it at all. That defies the politics of this place, I tell you—not one word about Four Corners, not one word of defence of scientific inquiry. There is a recognition that finally the minister for the environment accepts that there needs to be targets. Hallelujah! I hope the Deputy Prime Minister realises it too.

Climate change policy in this country is in crisis due to the Howard government’s persistent refusal to seriously address the issue. Many voices are raised—constantly. The National Farmers Federation group in Western Australia, the Australian Medical Association, Engineers Australia and, of course, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the largest collection of scientists addressing this single issue—all speak to the need for us to have robust, targeted reductions in our greenhouse emissions, with time lines.

Alone amongst developed countries, with the exception of the US, we fail to ratify the Kyoto treaty. Although the Prime Minister thought it was a good idea at the time, we now denigrate Kyoto under Minister Campbell and Foreign Minister Downer. At first the absolute refusal of the government to look at climate change was based on climate scepticism. That is fading away. Then it was based on the lack of effectiveness of Kyoto, despite the fact that the government claims to have met the target. That argument is fading away. Then it was on the fact that there was a better option—the Asia-Pacific climate pact that the member opposite refers to. It has no targets and no time lines. That has faded away as well. All we are really left with is the big lie: ‘We are doing more than anyone else to address this issue and you should believe us when we tell you what we are doing about climate change.’

But no matter how big the effort to push a propaganda line might be, climate change is bigger. This, undoubtedly and regrettably, is the biggest immediate long-term environmental challenge we face. A failure to concretely come to some policy outcome on climate change has not only a negative environmental impact but also social and economic consequences for us. Climate change is so big that people who study it—and many do—need to speak to it. They must present scientific papers, they must appear in public, they must speak to the media and we must hear their voices. In order to get policy right, policymakers—governments—need to make decisions based on sound science. In order to have an informed, open debate, the public needs to know what scientists think and, of course, in the spirit of the Enlightenment—the Prime Minister spoke favourably to that spirit—to hear what they have to say.

But that spirit has been broken. Following last night’s Four Corners program, we have compelling testimony from senior CSIRO scientists; present and former leading climate change scientists have been directly pressured into modifying or submerging their views on climate change and how best it should be addressed in policy terms. The loss of their expertise and critical insights in this debate is a great loss. But the more serious allegation is that climate change policy has been perverted, we might say polluted, at the highest levels by special interest lobbyists with access to and involvement in the preparation of cabinet submissions, documents and costings.

This is genuinely a very serious issue. Not one single word spoken by the member for Flinders points to this. The self-named greenhouse mafia have, if the research by ex-Liberal Party ministerial speechwriter Guy Pearse is accurate—and there is no reason to think that it isn’t—perverted the greenhouse policy processes of the government. They have rendered Australia more vulnerable to climate change, they have exposed our Pacific neighbours to a greater risk of becoming environmental refugees through an absence of robust policy and they have clearly tarnished Australia’s reputation as a country which values and respects the spirit of scientific inquiry. The perversion of policy ends up, from last night’s Four Corners, with what I would describe as ‘tortured pollie speak’. That is Senator Campbell’s assertion that:

Australia is doing more than most countries in the greenhouse policy area. We’re respected for our policy efforts, for our investments and our practical policy outcomes.

‘More than most countries’? We need to do a great deal more than we are doing. To remind Australians, as a nation we are more vulnerable than most to climate change. We are a land of drought and flooding rains, and, with our thin soil profile, we are more vulnerable than most to climate change. We are also the nation with the highest—or second-highest, depending on how you count them—per capita levels of greenhouse gas emissions in the developed world. That is the situation that Australia is in. We have no targets, we have no time lines and we will blow out our greenhouse gas emissions by 23 per cent in 2020. So when the government says that we are still on track, the train wreck is coming just around the corner and we will be off the rails.

The minister says we are ‘respected for our policy efforts’. It is common knowledge that in international fora the participation by Australia in the environment debate, just as with our participation in debates about the International Court of Justice or UNESCO’s convention on cultural diversity, is seen as a spoiling contribution. That is something that is well known and well discussed in international fora.

‘Respected for our investments’? Hardly. In fact, by failing to sign on to Kyoto we have reduced the opportunities for Australian businesses to export energy efficiency and renewables. Without a national greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme we cannot even begin to trade in carbon reduction offsets. We have reduced the stimulus for local business at the same time as failing to sign our way into an international trading arrangement. The current situation with mandatory renewable energy targets sitting only at two per cent—and now I think we know why they are only at two per cent—means that renewable industries, wind et cetera, have hit the wall in their inability to grow and in so doing provide some of the clean and green energy that is needed as demand for energy rises.

There is job growth in renewables, there is job growth in energy efficiency and there is job growth in developing innovative industries and technologies to successfully meet the challenge of climate change. But the Howard government, fiddling while we burn, is now without a shred of credibility or authority as we learn that the greenhouse mafia have moved through the halls of power in Canberra.

Last night’s revelations were just another example of how this government has intimidated senior government officials and government agency management. A serious pattern is emerging. We have seen some evidence of it this week and in the week previous in the AWB debate. Now we have CSIRO management effectively either putting pressure on senior CSIRO scientists or the scientists themselves exercising self-censorship, knowing that, if they speak out, their programs or funding have the capacity or the likelihood of being cut. There were very clear allegations and evidence to that effect on Four Corners last night.

The government claims that it has done a great deal about climate change, but something completely different is happening. It is actually penalising and punishing those great Australian scientific minds that want to speak to the issue and deliver policy suggestions to the government that could see us seriously address the issue.

The science has been overwhelmingly conclusive for years. The situation is serious. The expertise is being muzzled by government, and the truth of the Four Corners program shows that now the government panders to self-interest. It has been manipulated by industry forces. As they say, always back the horse called self-interest, because you know it is always trying.

Regrettably, there is no such thing as ministerial responsibility now—none whatsoever. The minister has not been called to account for the allegations that were aired on Four Corners, and it is ridiculous that even ministers such as the minister for immigration still get off scot-free. She is in charge of immigration and she has presided over of a litany of horrible mistakes and they are ongoing; they still continue. The former minister for science was also named in the paper today with a charge that he too has presided over pressuring and bringing influence to bear on scientists working for the CSIRO.

The future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada’s Inuits see it in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. Australians see it in fatal heatwaves and extended droughts. Scientists see it in tree rings, ancient coral and bubbles trapped in icicles. All of these things reveal that the world has not been as warm as it is now for a millennium or more, and that the last years have been the hottest on record. But in Australia the government is numb and blind to what is going on in our world, and in this building and in the building that surrounds it the government stands accused of allowing a fatally compromised policy to inform Australia’s response to climate change and of muzzling those scientists whose informed views would assist us in addressing this most serious issue. (Time expired)

Russell Broadbent (McMillan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great country we are in where we can have a debate like this, where there is enthusiastic, open and forthright debate on an issue that is important to the nation. It is also personal for me. I am more than happy to participate in this debate, as the issue of climate change and its impacts are of particular importance to my electorate of McMillan. A sizeable proportion of the population of McMillan is directly dependent on the brown coal power electricity generated in the Latrobe Valley. It is well known to this House that of even greater importance is the contribution this power source makes to the manufacturing industry in Victoria and its overall economy—and the national economy.

Implicit in the matter of public importance raised for discussion by the member for Grayndler is that the Howard government is sitting on its hands on the question of climate change and its impact. He seized on last night’s Four Corners program on the ABC as an opportunity to attack the government’s environmental credentials. The member for Grayndler has called for the urgent need for the government to take action to avoid dangerous climate change based upon independent scientific analysis. He has apparently overlooked the fact that the Howard government is already committed to a $1.9 billion package of climate change measures.

He also seems to be oblivious of the fact that, while there is agreement on the fact there is climate change, there are still uncertainties about some aspects of climate change science. What is needed in facing the challenge of climate change is a measured and coordinated approach, not a shoot from the hip reaction based on alarmist and sensational claims, again based on extreme views of the impact of climate change. This government recognises the need for development of renewable energy and is pouring considerable resources into a range of initiatives. But the simple fact is that in the short term we will continue to be heavily dependent on coal based electricity generation if we are to maintain our economic development and high employment rates. This is why this government recently committed $2.2 million to a project in the Latrobe Valley to support the development of technologies to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from brown coal.

If ever there were an example of why the federal government should not be rushed into decision making in its response to climate change, it would be the unseemly haste in rushing to support the development of wind turbines in a number of areas. In the McMillan electorate we have the beautiful coastal vista outside Wonthaggi permanently scarred by wind turbines that are producing what can only be called a token amount of electricity at great cost—that is, when the wind blows—and at only 13 per cent efficiency. Further east, the Victorian government is trying to ride roughshod over local planning authorities and residents to approve developments at Bald Hills and Dollar. We will see about that. Again, the Bracks government in Victoria has taken little or no account of the objections of residents to the visual impact on the scenic areas of the state that rely on tourism and the potential impact on local birdlife. All this is to appease a noisy minority and is an effort to attract a handful of Green votes or preferences.

We are going through the same process here in the Australian Capital Territory, where there are a number of wind turbine projects planned or under way. Again we have the same noisy minority trying to shout down communities that have genuine concerns about these monstrosities in their midst. Again they are being accused of NIMBYism and this, to me, is the feeblest criticism of anyone exercising his or her democratic right to oppose a development they feel is going to have a negative impact on their life and on their amenity.

Around the capital at the moment, particularly the Molonglo ridge area—which you, Mr Deputy Speaker McMullan, would be well aware of—there are a number of local people who do not want that area destroyed by wind turbines. If it is destroyed by wind turbines, the vista and the amenities of the area will be changed forever, because these things take a very short time to put up, they are there for 30 years and then they will have to be torn down. To me they will always be ugly; to me they have destroyed the amenity and the beauty of the areas in which they exist, and may even go further by destroying the amenity and the beauty of Gippsland—especially that trip that takes you from Melbourne to the Prom. It is one of the great wonder trips of that part of Victoria.

I just wish the member for Grayndler and the member for Kingsford Smith would go down to Victoria and look at what the Bracks government is doing in the name of renewable energy. I do not want your Molonglo hills destroyed on the altar of renewable energy, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am a great supporter of renewable energy and the way we go about it. In the committees that I work with there are some very good people from the opposition, without naming names, and we are at one on renewable energy and the desire of this parliament to respond to climate change and respond to renewable energy. We have different ways we might like to go about it, but we will respond in a way where we can mount the arguments.

I do not think the member for Grayndler today mounted a great argument. I thought he was very good with the Deputy Speaker in the way he handled himself and was able to remain in the room. However, the member for Kingsford Smith was obviously passionate about what he was on about, and it was a great performance. I am not sure whether it was a great contribution, but it was a good performance that will perhaps encourage other people to take a deeper and abiding interest.

A writer in the Canberra Times drew the analogy between the opponents of the wind turbines and Don Quixote in his tilting at windmills on the plains of La Mancha. I look at it rather as a David and Goliath struggle, and we all know who won that battle.

When I came to this place on my first occasion—this is my third—it was under the Hawke government. They had a particular committee on which they needed to place a former minister. His name was Barry Jones. They created a committee called the Standing Committee for Long Term Strategies. I asked the then former minister Mr Jones one day, ‘Mr Jones, what’s long-term strategy around this place?’ and he said, ‘Next Tuesday.’ But the truth is that we took that committee very seriously.

We had a lot of dealings with CSIRO, because Barry Jones at that time took a huge interest in what was happening at CSIRO, where the nation would go in the future, and what was happening to Australia as a whole, particularly with regard to its land. They did a report for us that showed very clearly how our rangelands were drying. I just want to mention one thing about dealing with the CSIRO. It was very clear that all the scientists there were very open regarding the technical aspects of what they were doing. They were not entering at any time into the policy of where we were headed. That was clearly left for a committee report or for the minister or, as in our case here, for the parliamentary secretary. Those rangelands were drying then—and I think there is an ongoing process now—and salting.

The nation has responded since 1990 in many ways, but particularly the federal government has responded. How have we responded? Here is some information. Australia’s climate change package includes $100 million for the Renewable Energy Development Initiative; a $75 million Solar Cities program, where there will be at least four solar cities chosen from a short list; $20.5 million of renewable energy storage; a $31.6 million Challenge Plus partnership with industry to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; a $243 million Greenhouse Gas Abatement Program; a $205 million Renewable Remote Power Generation Program; a $52 million Photovoltaic Rebate Program; and a $14 million wind energy forecasting capacity program.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to contribute today. Climate change is important to the nation. We have had a gradual increase in the temperature over 1,000 years. I hope there will be a gradual increase in this debate, and Australia will come to— (Time expired)