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 need for strong Government leadership to address the real and present threat posed to Australia’s economy and environment by dangerous climate change.

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

For a decade the Howard government has ignored the scientists. For a decade the Howard government has ignored the economists. This is a government that only has ears for the pollsters. The glaciers are retreating and so too is the Howard government. Just as the dinosaurs were wiped out by the ice age, there is a need for the dinosaurs in the Howard government to be wiped out politically by the age of global warming. Climate change is a serious threat. The Stern report this week has shone a light on the potential impact of climate change on our economy—the Great Depression but with much worse weather.

The Howard government has known about the threat of climate change for a very long time. There have been CSIRO reports. Ministers and departmental officials have attended numerous international meetings on climate change where the threat has been spelt out. Indeed, they did not have to wait for the Stern report to outline the environmental consequences of climate change because in June 2005 the Howard government received the Climate change: risk and vulnerability report. It outlined the consequences for Australia: the 30 per cent drop in rainfall, the more extreme weather events in northern Australia, where cities such as Townsville, Cairns, Darwin and Broome were all identified by that report as being at risk, and the disappearance of the iconic areas of the Great Barrier Reef and Kakadu.

That is why no-one can take John Howard seriously on climate change. Yesterday we saw him put seven different positions between two o’clock and a quarter to four. Yesterday the Prime Minister invented new Kyoto. It does not exist. I googled new Kyoto and I invite people to do so. When you google new Kyoto, one entry comes up. Does it mention climate change? Does it mention emissions reductions? Does it mention renewable energy? Does it mention the United Nations? No, the one entry on new Kyoto—the one real new Kyoto which is there—is the Hotel New Kyoto. What pops up is a review, and the review says this:

Stuffy rooms—Would choose another.

It says:

The worst aspect of the room was that the window didn’t open and there is no way—

wait for it—

to cool the room down or get some fresh air. They only have a heater (which works really well, blowing out only hot air).

That is the new Kyoto of the Howard government—no substance and something made up on the run. Today is day 2 of what will be regarded as the turning point in the climate change debate—and, I might say, the turning point for another nail in the government’s coffin—because climate change will be an issue which will see the Howard government left behind. We are the future party, the only party, that is able to take Australia forward into this century and look after this generation and generations to come.

The Kyoto protocol, of course, does exist. We saw today, on day 2 of this debate, the Howard government having no answers whatsoever. We sat in tactics this morning and we thought, ‘They’ll have five or six questions on Kyoto,’ but they had nothing. What happened with our questions? The Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister whether Australia and the United States would have a vote at the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto protocol—the second meeting that is taking place in Nairobi this month. The Prime Minister did not have a clue. He did concede that there were two meetings, and there are two. One is the conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which Australia has signed. Yes, we will be participating in that meeting.

But there is a second series of meetings—the meetings of the parties to the Kyoto protocol—that will be sitting down looking at practical measures about how the clean development mechanism operates, the joint implementation system and the opportunities for Australia in the first commitment period between 2008 and 2012. Common sense tells you that the post-2012 Kyoto agreement, which this government now concedes is a reality—forget the ‘new Kyoto’ rhetoric; it is about the next step in Kyoto, the second commitment period of Kyoto from 2013 onwards—will, of course, evolve from the first period of Kyoto. By Australia being on the outside, not able to vote and not able to participate in those discussions in Nairobi, we are doing ourselves a great disservice. India will be there and China will be there, but we will not be around the table during that debate.

This morning we heard from Elliot Morley. I have met with Elliot Morley. He was the climate change minister in the Blair Labor government. I spent two hours with him last year. When you meet world leaders, not just of the Left but of the Right, in Germany and Denmark, and Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Californian government, they express horror at the position of this government, because the truth is that the position of this government is holding the world back. That is what we heard from Elliot Morley this morning—the fact that Australia’s intransigence and position outside of Kyoto, the undermining of Kyoto, gives the US cover, the two countries isolated outside of Kyoto. Elliot Morley and Tony Blair, and Arnold Schwarzenegger for that matter, want Australia to be part of Kyoto because they want to isolate the US and get them in as well. We are providing cover, a handbrake, on the global action that is needed to address climate change. Agreements do not just get made up in question time as a result of a poll or a tactics meeting.

Let us look at how this has evolved. In 1992 we had the Rio summit, which identified the issues and what was needed and established the United Nations framework, which Australia was a signatory to. It took five years of complex negotiations to get to the Kyoto agreement in 1997. Then it took from 1997 to 2005 to have enough countries which had ratified the agreement to make sure it came into effect on 16 February 2005. Every industrialised country in the world except Australia and the US is a part of this and the next agreement is about taking that forward.

Elliot Morley belled the cat. The Prime Minister puts forward the position which is to say, ‘We shouldn’t be a part of it until everyone else is,’ and particularly there is his offensive criticism of China and India. It is the United States that produces 25 per cent of the world’s emissions. Do we hear the Prime Minister say, ‘The United States should have targets, adopt emissions-trading and be part of the global system’? No. We hear him criticise the developing nations struggling to feed, house and clothe their people and to achieve economic growth and move forward. But the truth is they are doing better than we are. That is the truth.

The Stern report identifies China, California and the European Union as the three economic entities which are doing best. Elliot Morley’s comment today really said it all. It said it all about the failure of the Howard government to meet the greatest moral challenge of our times—avoiding dangerous climate change and showing national and international leadership. He said this:

... if we will take that attitude then there’ll be no progress at all, and we will just sleepwalk to oblivion ...

Common sense tells you how absurd this government’s position is. But instead of looking at the Stern report and looking seriously at the three core recommendations—first, that you need an international agreement that provides that economic framework and that that agreement is the Kyoto protocol; secondly, that you need emissions-trading and you need to have a price of carbon; and, thirdly, that you need to support renewable and clean coal technologies and that you need economic mechanisms to drive that change through—

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

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

They are the three key recommendations of Stern for what he describes as the world’s greatest market failure that has led to dangerous climate change. Today, once again we have seen some more one-off announcements. We welcome one-off announcements—they are good in themselves—but we cannot solve this problem with a command economy approach. We cannot solve it with bureaucrats sitting in Canberra and picking winners. It is an absurd proposition.

You need to harness the power of the market and establish mechanisms so that you drive the whole economy towards the carbon constrained model. We know that the system at the moment is not working. We know that the figures released this week by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change showed that Australia’s greenhouse emissions rose by 25.1 per cent between 1990 and 2004. It is clear that when Kyoto comes in—which it has not yet; the first commitment period begins in 2008—and when land use changes are taken into account what will occur is that some of that figure will go down, but the projections are horrific for the government.

Energy emissions increased by 34.7 per cent between 1990 and 2004. Stationary energy emissions increased by 43 per cent; transport emissions by 23.4 per cent. The only reason that the figure goes anywhere near being positive—and it is still a massive increase—is that land use change and forestry emissions, due to decisions of the New South Wales and Queensland Labor governments—nothing to do with the Howard government—dropped 72.5 per cent. Australia’s emissions, according to the Australian Greenhouse Office report released in November 2005, are projected to rise 22 per cent by 2020.

One of my favourite parts of An Inconvenient Truth, the documentary by Al Gore, is that, just like the Stern report, there is a message of hope. There is a warning of danger, a challenge to governments to take up what is necessary, but an optimistic projection if we have the courage to make the decisions that are needed. As Al Gore has pointed out, the Chinese expression for crisis consists of two characters: the first is a symbol for danger; the second is a symbol for opportunity. What we are getting from this government is all the danger combined with the loss of opportunity, the loss of investment that should be occurring and isolation from the massive trillion dollar emerging market in renewables in our region. This is a government that is showing that it simply is not up to governing in this century. It is a government that literally has been fossilised in the past. It is an abrogation of its responsibility to this generation and to future generations not to have a comprehensive plan to avoid dangerous climate change. (Time expired)

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

This debate on climate change in the matter of public importance is not about action versus inaction, as has been presented by the member for Grayndler. It is not a debate about one side doing something and the other side doing nothing. It is a debate about the right way to deal with the real issue versus the wrong way to deal with the real issue. It is a debate about whether you take an approach which goes directly to the supply side and the source of emissions and targets pollution where it begins in an effective way or whether you take an approach—the wrong way—which goes to a petrol tax, a heating tax and things which rely on demand management and are forced, in a false way, on pensioners, farmers and low-income earners. This is what we are talking about—the Beazley petrol tax and the Beazley heating tax. These are real things which are going to hurt real Australians in a real way, but without even achieving the very thing that Labor wants.

It is also a debate about honesty. One of the things about honesty and competence is that you do not mislead the House. The member for Grayndler, only minutes ago, stood before this chamber and boasted about his great skills in research. I just want to hold up an article, ‘Ottawa’s new Kyoto plan emphasizes individuals’. The combination of  ‘new Kyoto’, from advice that I have just received, has thousands of references available. Even the Google list has many of them. But the point that is important here is that he casually misled the House. He happily based an entire humorous speech on misleading the House. I just want to read that again: ‘Ottawa’s new Kyoto plan emphasizes individuals’. He was happily careless with the way he presented material. What is significant is that the man who wants to be the environment minister of Australia—although he may be lucky to hold onto his job as the shadow spokesperson for the environment in the next month or two—was not even able to do basic research.

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

Member for Grayndler, you know that I kept the member for Flinders quiet; I expect you to be quiet.

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

Let me deal with this debate in three stages. I want to put it in the context of, firstly, what is real and, secondly, how their way is the wrong way. If you focus on a demand management process which is utterly artificial and is aimed at driving down emissions by slashing demand for petrol and energy, then what you will do is very simple. You will only do this because they are inelastic goods or because people will not cut their consumption easily. (Quorum formed) This debate is about, on the one hand, targeting polluters and, on the other hand, punishing pensioners. That is what will come from Labor’s approach, and it will come very clearly, because inevitably their actions will lead to a direct impact on prices for heating, energy and petrol in a dramatic way. Let us never forget that their chosen tool and approach will be a means which attacks demand in order to drive down emissions. It relies on driving down the demand and, in order to drive down the demand, because they are inelastic goods, they are going to have to ratchet up these prices and hurt the people who are most vulnerable in our society—farmers, low-income earners, families and pensioners. We compare that—

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

The member for Grayndler has been warned. I will not warn you again.

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

with an approach which deals directly with emissions at source. That is what we have done over recent days. The context for this debate is very clear. Firstly, it is a real issue. I wrote about it in 1990 as a given fact and I have treated it as such ever since. But let us put this even more into context. Australia’s 1990 emissions were 550 million tonnes of CO or equivalent gases; Australia’s 2006 emissions were 560 million tonnes. That is a fact. The second fact is that Australia’s contribution to total global CO emissions is about 1.4 per cent; the United States is at almost 25 per cent; China is at almost 15 per cent, rising over time to 25 per cent; India is at five per cent and is also rising significantly; and the EU is at about 14 per cent. In that context, it is absolutely transparent that nothing will occur unless—precisely as the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage and the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources have said—we deal with the major emitters. To pretend that we do not need to do so, and to pretend that simply signing a sheet promising to do what we are doing in any event is going to make a difference, is a dishonesty and a fraud—and it is something which I say is a contempt of the Australian people.

So, against that background, it is important to remember, as well, that we have dealt with major problems before, whether it was the collapse through cholera and typhoid of much of London society 150 years ago—we dealt with that through dealing with technology straight-up—or acid rain and problems of the ozone hole. We have dealt with all those directly. Against that, what about the opposition’s wrong way? On the domestic side, what they are proposing is a demand management system, and this demand management is based precisely on a petrol tax and a pensioners’ heating tax. Those are the fundamental elements. Our friend will say, ‘We’re going to cap it and trade it,’ but what that means if we do it unilaterally—

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

The member for Grayndler will remove himself from the House 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

Mr Albanese interjecting

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

I do not have to have one.

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

as the member for Grayndler makes his way out of this House—is very—

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

I name the honourable member for Grayndler.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the member for Grayndler be suspended from the service of the House.

Question put.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the House for the opportunity to talk on this matter of public importance on the need for strong government leadership to address the real and present threat posed to Australia’s economy and environment by dangerous climate change. I must admit, though, I am struggling still to get my head around the logic of the previous speaker, the member for Flinders, although I thought it was very telling that he stood up and said that he was happy to outline the initiatives that the Howard government has taken over the last couple of days. What is telling about that is that it highlights the lack of action that the Howard government has taken over the last decade. That is something that we know on this side of the House and the Australian community also knows that very well.

I have risen to speak on the issue of climate change in this House on a number of previous occasions and again today I welcome the release of the British government’s Stern report, which reaffirms in stark detail what we on this side of the House have been warning for some time. I absolutely believe in the need for strong government leadership on this issue. I speak today not just of my own absolute belief that this government has let people down but to represent the people of my electorate of Adelaide, who regularly inundate my office with letters and calls of despair at the lack of action by this Howard government.

I have just a couple of examples of these sorts of sentiments from my own constituents, which I would like to take this opportunity to share with the House. One wrote to me saying:

Dear Kate,

Thanks for the letter of 22 March responding to an email I sent you. I read the ALP climate change policy presented by Kim Beazley and it was excellent, combining the necessary warnings with constructive solutions.

He went on to say:

Personally, I think John Howard will be cursed by future generations for wasting his golden opportunity to act, but he’ll be long gone by then.

Another wrote to me saying:

Dear Ms Ellis,

Thank you for showing that movie the Inconvenient Truth to us free of charge. That really opened my eyes to the effect that we are having in this planet. Before I saw that movie I thought the extreme weather was just natural and that the planet just goes through these cycles. But now I believe that we are the ones causing it. I don’t even want a V8 anymore. I think that I’ll make do with my own Corolla. When that guy said on the movie that America and Australia were the only developed countries that hadn’t signed the Kyoto protocol I felt really embarrassed.

That is a sentiment that is shared by millions of people around this country and by many of us in this House today, who think it is an absolute tragedy that the government have so massively failed the Australian people.

Whilst it is a tragedy, I actually do not think that it is really a surprise. It is no surprise, because the absolute first principle in tackling climate change is admitting the problem. The Stern report accepts the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is a man-made global threat to the sustainability of life on earth, yet the truth is that the Howard government still does not accept this. We see evidence of this in the comments from the government’s own Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, who has consistently criticised the Kyoto protocol and who, as recently as just two months ago, admitted that while he acknowledged the climate was changing he was sceptical that the cause was greenhouse gas emissions. As was reported on 5AA in my home state of South Australia yesterday—and a fine radio station it is, I might add—the minister went on to say that the federal government is ‘already doing enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions’ and that it is other countries that need to step up and do something.

We see evidence of this head-in-the-sand approach all throughout the Howard government—in the comments from the coalition Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, De-Anne Kelly, who likened the scientific warnings on climate change to 19th century warnings on horse manure, arguing this week that, ‘At the turn of the century economists in the US predicted horsedrawn carriages would lead to the country being covered in horse “you-know-what”.’

We saw evidence of this again yesterday with the comments by the Liberal MP and scientist Dr Jensen, when he restated his scepticism about global warming. In comments reported by the AAP, he stated, ‘I am somewhat sceptical about global warming.’ He went on and argued that, ‘Too much has been seen in a short-term trend and to me there’s too much conflicting evidence as well, so for me the jury is still out.’ This is from the Howard government’s own scientist! The jury should be in no doubt about where the Australian Liberal Party and the Howard government stand on climate change. They simply do not accept, as the rest of Australia and indeed the people of the 165 countries who have ratified Kyoto accept, that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of climate change, a phenomenon which threatens our global environment, our global economies and our very existence on this planet.

But you may ask, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether it really matters if the government actually believe it. Does it matter if they actually believe how serious this issue is or whether they just act and introduce some policies because the Australian people demand it? I would absolutely stand here and say it matters—it matters because it is the difference between showing bold leadership and vision on the issue and just offering one-off, piecemeal policies to try and settle down the Australian public and show that you are actually doing something.

This is why the Howard government’s approach on climate change has been so inconsistent and reactive. The inconsistencies do not take long to pick up, and I fear that I will not have time to outline all of the massive inconsistencies in the Howard government’s policy on this. We had the Howard government, which has consistently refused to participate in an international carbon-trading scheme, yesterday announcing that it would participate in a scheme only if all other countries did so first. The logic in this simply beggars belief. It is actually an embarrassment to this country. The simple response is: what happens if one other prime minister or one other president shares that sort of logic? The answer is: it does not go ahead. At the very heart of it all we have heard the Howard government’s adamant refusal to sign on to Kyoto because they believe it would cost Australia jobs—but, of course, they also argue that Australia will most likely reach the targets in the protocol anyway, so there is no need to sign it, but that reaching these targets will not cost us jobs. So figure out how those two policies are not completely inconsistent.

We also know that the government have completely changed their tune since their original decision in 1997 to sign on to the protocol at a time when the Prime Minister said that it was a win for the environment and a win for Australian jobs. While the government today masquerade as a believer in climate change, the reality is that they do not accept it. They are fools, because they are intent on clinging to their outdated views on climate change and now, as community understanding of these issues has so completely accelerated, the government are finally being exposed for their neglectful approach.

The list of Howard government failures and inconsistencies goes on. We have the federal government’s Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, which depends upon market based renewable energy targets which have been established by our state governments—a policy that the Howard government has explicitly rejected. We have the $550 million worth of renewable energy projects that have had to be abandoned in my state of South Australia and in Tasmania because the Howard government has not increased the mandatory renewable energy target. We have the Howard government’s embarrassing about-face this month on its nonsensical decision to end the solar rebate program after sustained community pressure for them to do so.

And in my electorate we are also seeing the consequence of the Howard government’s backward thinking and lack of practical measures to address climate change in a scandal that is currently unfolding involving a very cute electric car known as the Reva. I am proud that it is a company in my electorate of Adelaide, the Solar Shop, that last year imported an all-electric car into this country in the hope of offering Australians an alternative to a petrol car that would slash their motoring expenses and significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But this government have refused to allow the car onto Australian roads just because they do not have a category that would allow the car to be imported and driven in this country.

Unlike in the UK, where this car is winning awards for innovation and is being trumpeted by both sides of politics for its environmental credentials, in Australia the government will order this Sunday that the one Reva electric vehicle in the Solar Shop in Adelaide must be crushed. I think this is an absolute disgrace, but it is a pretty good illustration of where the Howard government stands on practical measures. Rather than encouraging families who want to adopt a greener vehicle, it is demanding that this vehicle be crushed. I think this an absolute disgrace.

In contrast, we on this side of the House actually have policies and practical measures. We have argued that we would ratify Kyoto. We would increase the mandatory renewable energy target; we would establish a national carbon-trading scheme; we would make Australia’s 10,000 schools solar powered schools; we would help Australia to have 1.5 million solar powered homes by 2015; and there are many other measures that we will continue to push to the Australian people. (Time expired)

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad to address the MPI put forward by the Labor Party asking that the government show leadership. Leadership is about actions, not words. Leadership is investing money in our economy that will address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions. Australia is on track for its 108 per cent target, as set down by Kyoto, by 2012. By way of contrast, Canada’s target was 94 per cent, but it will be 116 per cent, an increase of 22 per cent over the target. Norway’s target was 101 per cent; it will be 22 per cent over target. France’s target was 100 per cent; it will be nine per cent over target. Ireland will be 20 per cent over the target—and the numbers go on.

Another thing the member for Grayndler ridiculed is the new Kyoto concept. He said he could only find one hit when he went on Google. I have a search page for Google, and it got more than 24 million hits, a lot of them relating to the new Kyoto type of policy. The only new Kyoto the Labor Party are interested in is the ‘Sleepy Hollow Hotel’, where perhaps they go.

Graham Edwards (Cowan, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary (Defence and Veterans' Affairs)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House.

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

A quorum is required. Ring the bells.

The bells being rung

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the time at which the member for Cowan was ejected from the House.

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

I think he has served his hour.

(Quorum formed)

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government is investing in technologies that will reduce greenhouse gases. In fact, we have already allocated some $2 billion, including $500 million for the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, $100 million for the Renewable Energy Development Initiative, $75 million for Solar Cities initiatives and $100 million for the energy fund announced as part of the Asia-Pacific partnership, 25 per cent of which is dedicated to renewable energy development.

While I am talking about the AP6, I have some figures from the IEA’s Key World Energy Statistics 2006 that relate to fuel-combustion-generated CO emissions. I point out that the USA generates 5.8 billion tonnes of CO; Japan generates 1.2 billion tonnes; China generates 4.7 billion tonnes; India generates 1.1 billion tonnes; Korea generates 0.4 billion tonnes; and Australia generates 0.35 million tonnes. About 50 per cent of world emissions come from that AP6 group.

It is what you do that is important, not what you say. The members opposite believe that, by signing Kyoto, tomorrow it will rain and the drought will end. The members opposite believe that, by signing a piece of paper, the increased sea temperatures will go back to their normal levels. There is argument about cyclic effect and researching the ice cores of glaciers and the North Pole. But it is actions that count, and this government is investing money in new technologies to address climate change. We Australians account for about 1.4 per cent of total world greenhouse gas emissions, but the way the opposition speaks it is as though we contributed some 98.6 per cent of emissions. (Quorum formed)

The member for Hunter and I do not usually agree on too much, but both of us would agree that coal exports out of the Hunter are worth about $5 billion per year for 80 million tonnes of coal—about 95 per cent of our region’s total exports—and we would both agree that the Hunter produces some 40 per cent of Australia’s aluminium and that we have four power generation systems powered by coal, which generate some 80 per cent of the state’s electricity. The other thing that the member for Hunter and I both agree on is his statement earlier that Kyoto is basically a European model, and it is true that it is flawed, it is not without its difficulties and it is pretty much dead in the water. We agree on that, because we believe in the jobs of Australian people, the opportunity to work without fear. Fear is placed upon them by the Labor opposition, who, as I said before, believe that, if you sign the Kyoto agreement today, it will rain tomorrow. The reality is that it will not. Australia can punch well above its weight, like it does in most forums, by investing in new and emerging technologies which will address greenhouse gas emissions—technologies that we can take forward into other countries to help them reduce their emissions.

I have been to China and India: there is visual pollution, predominantly caused by home cooking fuels, by people burning coal or other fossil fuels to generate heat for cooking and warmth in winter. By having clean-coal technologies to generate electrical power, we as a country can help to reduce international greenhouse gas emissions.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make a contribution to this matter of public importance. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, there is a lot of debate on climate change; you participated in a debate last week on rural policy which touched on the drought and water policy and also on supposed linkages to climate change. Irrespective of who is right in this debate—and the judgement as to who got it right in terms of the way to manage the debate will probably be cast in some decades time—most people would now agree that what we are doing in relation to greenhouse emissions is not the right thing to do for the longevity of the earth on which we live and the health of those people who live upon it.

There has been a lot of talk about coal, carbon credits, greenhouse gas emissions et cetera, but I would like to bring the House back to the renewable energy debate that was going on quite strongly while oil prices were rising some months ago—debate has calmed down in this country; it has not in others—particularly in relation to renewable fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel. I draw to the House’s attention that in the United States and Europe and other parts of the developed world where there is a high usage of petrol engines and diesel engines there has been a concerted move to clean the fuels up. I know we are doing it with sulfur and diesel and we have done it with lead in petrol et cetera, so certain mandates have been issued by this government as to what we can and cannot have within our various fuels. In other parts of the world, particularly in the United States, the debate has been driven by concern about the health of people in communities.

In Minnesota, for instance, they were very concerned about the fine-particle emissions from unleaded petrol and very concerned about the emissions from diesel motors. They actually mandated a 10 per cent level, not to help the farming community—obviously it did do that—but mainly to assist with health issues.

I heard the Minister for Trade, Warren Truss, saying a couple of weeks ago that if we mandated 10 per cent we could not bring it in anyway because we could not deliver; we would have to import the fuel. That sort of argument is a nonsense. I think that is where the government is struggling a bit in this debate. It is really not leading the debate; it is responding, mostly in negatives. It is not like the Prime Minister to be responding in that sense. Normally he has a logical argument that people can understand. In a number of these arguments the issues fall apart.

In the United States this health issue was the main driver behind introducing a mandate for ethanol and biodiesel. It was introduced over a period of years. It was phased in in major cities first, because they were the great concern with fine-particle emissions, then in the outer suburbs of the major cities and then, over a couple of years, in country towns as well. That seems to be a reasonable way of doing it. That has happened in a number of other countries in the world.

The Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources has been fairly prominent in this debate. He has shifted his position quite considerably, from being very negative about Al Gore’s visit—portraying it as being some sort of sideshow at the zoo—to having some degree of concern about what we are doing to the globe, within a few weeks. And I think that highlights the lack of leadership that is being displayed at a government level. But the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources keeps making these comments that Labor’s agenda—of having carbon taxes, other taxes and treaties and Kyoto accords et cetera—is not the way to go. I think there is a glaring anomaly in the policy base that the government has adopted.

If the industry minister actually believes that, why are the government going to impose a tax on renewable fuels in 2011? Why do they have a policy mix which, when it is delivered, is anti the introduction of renewable energy, renewable fuels—ethanol, biodiesels and a number of others? Why are they imposing a tax on something that they say the government are working towards in a practical way? And I think that is something that the government really do need to look at. It is hypocritical to blame the opposition: on one hand, to say, ‘Ah well, it is all about carbon taxes and you can’t do that without the Chinese and the Indians and others coming on board’, and then, on the other hand, to have a system where they say, ‘We’re encouraging the fuel companies, through the Prime Minister having a cup of coffee with the fuel companies last year, to try and achieve targets.’

That is the other thing the industry minister says: ‘Targets and taxes? No, you can’t go there! Targets, taxes and treaties—that is the Labor way. You can’t go there.’ Why have they put in place a mandatory renewable energy target of 360 megalitres of biofuels by 2010? Why has that been put in place? It is actually running at 28 megalitres at the moment, so it has a long way to go, and it is obvious, in the first year of that cup-of-coffee treaty that was put in place between the Prime Minister and the fuel companies, that it is not working very successfully.

Looking at the logic in this debate, why are they saying that a target is acceptable if they put it in place, but it is not acceptable if other global communities put it in place—that it is some sort of retrograde step and a form of compulsion and that there are other ways of achieving the outcome? Yes, there are other ways of achieving the outcome, but why have they got MRETs in place in a number of areas? Why are they debating that they should be so low for wind and solar et cetera?

The industry minister particularly keeps saying that taxing is not the way to drive the renewable energy debate. Well, I would agree with that. But he is going to impose a tax on a system where they are encouraging at the moment, through cup-of-coffee diplomacy, an MRET of 360 megalitres of biofuels, a tax on those people who move towards the production of those biofuels. That does not sound a very practical policy initiative to me, and I think it encapsulates the dilemma the government is in in relation to this.

There is nothing wrong with being behind on an issue. And normally the Prime Minister is very smart in addressing an issue, realising that the government is in the wrong part of the paddock and should move to a more acceptable place, recognising new information et cetera. But on this issue he seems to be staggering, and his minister, who is in charge of this debate, seems to be quite at sea in terms of the policy messages that we are being sent.

I think it is very important that the government actually makes up its mind. Are we going to use renewable energy as a tax cow? Is that going to go on into the future forever? Are we going to encourage people to move towards these things? Or, when we get there, when they start to do it, do we see it as a source of income—like we did with superannuation?

I think the Labor Party really has to make up its mind on some of these issues as well. It is tending to play the climate change game at the moment, and I think it is probably scoring some points there. But where is its policy on taxation of renewable fuels for our motorcars from 2011? It is sort of in this ‘me too’ range at the moment. I think there is a degree of hypocrisy in its long-term approach to renewable fuels that its policymakers need to address as well.

So I make those suggestions in the hope that the government and the opposition can actually work through this, because I think the climate in which we live is a very precious thing and should be addressed in a united fashion, not in one of conflict. (Time expired)

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

Order! The discussion is now concluded.