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

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

The Government’s decade long scepticism and inaction on climate change, placing at risk Australia’s economic and environmental future.

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—

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday and today at question time the government was finally in the situation of being able to clarify to the Australian people whether or not it understood the implications of climate change. Today the government released an emissions trading scheme discussion paper of some nine pages.

Opposition Members:

Nine pages!

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition is showing it to us now.

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

I am sure the member for Kingsford Smith does not need any help.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for the Environment and Heritage explained to us what China was doing to deal with its greenhouse gas emissions and made the argument, if I understand him correctly, that Australia’s robust addressing of reducing greenhouse gas emissions needs to be seen in the light of the fact that China—a country much bigger than ours—actually produces more. I notice that the minister for the environment did not mention that China has a very significant mandatory renewable energy target, and it is true, as he said, that they are investing significantly in clean coal. But the final point that the minister for the environment did not make is that China is doing more than Australia.

Interestingly, the electorate of Kingsford Smith, which I represent, includes the University of New South Wales, and that is where Dr Zhengrong Shi completed his PhD in solar energy. His technology was clever and the future looked bright. After all, he was living in a country which receives more radiated solar energy than most other countries. But Dr Shi, unable to get support for his company in Australia, ended up taking his business to China. He is now China’s third- or fourth-richest man. He is not a climate change sceptic; nor is Dr David Mills, as the member for Calare identified in his question. Dr Mills is a world leader in solar research who, after 30 years of research and development in Australia, has to take parts of his company offshore to California because Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger—‘Arnie’—has vowed to cut greenhouse emissions by a massive 80 per cent over the next 45 years. Arnie Schwarzenegger is not a climate change sceptic. As Dr Mills said—

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did he speak to you?

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the quote. He said:

The Australian Federal Government refuses to put in place strict emissions targets, strict legislation to enforce those targets, and reliable long-term market valuations for carbon emissions avoided. We can find all of those things overseas

That is the direct quote from Dr Mills.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Turnbull interjecting

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

The minister is warned!

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is inaction, as identified in the subject of this MPI, by the Howard government. Australian business is being forced to go overseas to continue to produce greenhouse-good technologies. The mums and dads of Australia are realists. They know about climate change. They are educating themselves about its implications and they are feeling concerned and anxious about the future for their kids. And why wouldn’t they, given the time lines and the scale of this issue? But they are not climate change sceptics.

The Prime Minister and his government have had an uneasy and confused period in dealing with climate change. Their position has shifted significantly, but for the last 11 years one consistent theme has emerged from the Howard government: that is, climate change is not a real, present and future danger to the Australian way of life, to our economy, to our ecology and to our society. In the last week, with climate change awareness at an all-time high, we again heard some extraordinary assertions by the Prime Minister and his environment minister on this issue. Last Monday night, four days after the release of the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the Prime Minister was asked, on ABC TV’s Lateline program:

What do you think living in Australia would be like by the end of this century for your own grandchildren if the average mean temperatures around the world do rise by somewhere between four and possibly more than six degrees Celsius?

As we know, the Prime Minister answered by saying, ‘It would be less comfortable than it is now.’ That is something of an understatement. A four to six degree increase in temperature is dismissed by the Prime Minister as potentially uncomfortable. That potential increase carries a burden on future generations to try to manage highly stressed ecosystems, with our natural icons under siege and with health, security and social implications of an order hitherto unseen. The Prime Minister went on to challenge the accuracy of the IPCC report by saying:

I think it is very, very hard for us in 2007 to try, with that kind of mathematical accuracy—with great respect to the scientists—to sort of extrapolate what things might be like.

The nub of the problem lies in the Prime Minister’s own misconceptions about climate change and in his refusal to take responsibility for a decade of inaction by his government. This IPCC report was produced by 600 authors from 40 countries, including 42 scientists from Australia. There were 620 expert reviewers and 113 governments involved. The Prime Minister says that it is very hard for them to try to work out with some kind of mathematical accuracy to ‘sort of extrapolate what things might be like’? They have done exactly that—perhaps not with mathematical accuracy, but with enough accuracy to give prudent governments a clear identification of the nature of risk that lies at the heart of this climate change issue. This is an issue about managing risks, and this is where the policy approach of the Howard government is deficient.

Let us quickly revisit what the report tells us. It tells us that, if there is business as usual, temperature increases are likely to be in the range of two to 4.5 degrees Celsius. It is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 degrees Celsius. We have already had an increase of 0.76 degrees up to now. It tells us that snow cover is projected to contract and that the thawing of the permafrost is expected to deepen. It tells us that it is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy rain events will continue to become more frequent. And it tells us that the number of tropical cyclones may decrease but, at the same time, their intensity will increase. It predicts more rainfall in high latitudes, with decreases in rainfall across subtropical regions by as much as 20 per cent. Importantly, the report also tells us that how we respond, and how quickly we respond, will determine how hot the planet gets. This report makes clear that ‘business as usual’ will see climate change and global warming continue to build over time until the task of managing and mitigating against the impacts will be greater than anyone in this chamber can imagine.

In the House yesterday, the Prime Minister again sought to dismiss the global threat posed by climate change by referring to the opposition as climate change purists and climate change fanatics. What an extraordinary assertion. When it comes to naming climate change purists, perhaps the Prime Minister should also include the Australian Medical Association, who have very great concerns about the impact climate change will have on the nation’s health. He should include companies like Visy, Origin Energy, Westpac, BP and the Australian Insurance Group, who have been demanding that the Prime Minister address this issue with the seriousness it deserves in order to give them some security in their business arrangements as they go forward. The Prime Minister could also include the National Farmers Federation, who argue that climate change is a very real issue for their members. More worryingly, he should also consider including some of Australia’s most eminent security analysts, like Dr Alan Dupont, who suggested that climate change is fast emerging as the security issue of the 21st century.

But what is the government’s response to their concerns and the concerns raised in numerous reports over the last 11 years? It is a discussion paper of nine pages on emissions trading. That is the substance of the response. The 2001 IPCC climate change report warned of temperature rises without precedent over the last 10,000 years. In 2003, the Australian government report Climate Change: An Australian guide to the science and potential impacts warned that temperatures could rise by two degrees and that rainfall in southern Australia could fall by 20 per cent by 2030. In 2005, the Australian government report Climate Change: Risk and vulnerability warned of direct threats to Australia from climate chance, including prolonged drought, a 20 per cent reduction in rainfall in southern Australia, increased high bushfire danger days and more extreme cyclones. Why did the government ignore all these reports? Why did the government ignore all these warnings? Those are the questions that the Australian people want answered, and those are the questions that the Prime Minister has to address.

Finally, while the Prime Minister sneeringly dismisses the Kyoto protocol as totally ten minutes ago—as last year’s fashion—Australian business continues to be locked out of $30 billion in carbon trading, and Australia is, once again, asked to leave the room when the real climate change negotiations start.

Some of us in this chamber have spent a long time campaigning on issues like climate change, and we have watched and witnessed the scientific evidence accumulate which tells us that if we continue to increase the production of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, the likelihood of an ever increasingly-warm world will jeopardise our way of life and will certainly create an additional range of problems, obstacles, hurdles and challenges for our kids to deal with.

I think it is really a question about duty of care, because we owe a duty of care to the people who we serve in this place. The lawyers in the House, including members opposite, will recognise that the definition of duty of care and an understanding of duty of care involves consequences that can be foreseen. We now have the best scientific brains in the world telling us that we can foresee with some degree of certainty—in some instances with a 90 per cent degree of certainty—what the consequences will be. We need to exact a duty of care now, instantly, to recognise the scale of the threat that we face.

No amount of dissembling, spinning or debating and no number of reports, recommendations and the usual business that goes on when we watch the Howard government in action will satisfy the Australian people that they are responding in a fair dinkum way to climate change. I have absolutely no doubt that this issue will preoccupy every member sitting in this House. I have absolutely no doubt that, unless you have a policy suite which recognises the need to urgently and immediately reduce CO and other greenhouse gas emissions now, the task will get harder and harder as we go forward.

Labor are not climate change sceptics. We are not sceptical about climate change. We have looked at the science, we have taken note of the reports and we recognise the need to act. Labor will take action to protect Australian communities from the ravages of climate change and enable Australian businesses to maintain their competitive edge in the international arena. We will ratify the Kyoto protocol to give Australian businesses access to the world’s carbon trading markets and allow them to compete on a level playing field.

We will aim to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas pollution by 60 per cent by 2050 because the best minds in the world tell us that that is what is needed to avert the worst excesses of climate change. We will build a robust renewable energy sector because that is what is needed to draw on our great natural inheritance of sunlight—and with a technology that is not 20 years away, expensive and with a raft of unsolved problems of radioactive waste, exposure to terrorism and management of nuclear proliferation. That is what a Rudd Labor government would do about climate change. It is about having the solutions and being willing to put them into place.

The jury is in and the science is clear: the planet is heating. The time for action is now, and our children and our grandchildren deserve nothing less. The challenge for the Prime Minister and the challenge for the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources is to recognise that the policy suite that we have identified here has virtue and merit. Why debate the business of cuts? Every single person who looks at this issue with any degree of seriousness recognises that you have to cut greenhouse gas emissions. What better way to do it than to say you will and to establish a target and a time line in order to do that?

Why have a paltry two per cent mandatory renewable energy target when renewables are one of the fastest-growing businesses in this world and we can build Australian businesses that produce and provide energy? Why not, as a matter of course, stand up and say, ‘Now that the Australian public is speaking to us about climate change in a way that says they understand the enormity of that issue it is time that the government listened’?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This morning the member for Kingsford Smith was interviewed on the Today show. Karl Stefanovic said to him, ‘If we do everything that Labor is suggesting with regard to the environment and climate change, will that definitively stop global warming?’ The member for Kingsford Smith replied, ‘Karl, it won’t.’ It will not!

The Labor Party’s policy on climate change is to impose a 60 per cent cut in emissions by 2050. That is the core part of their policy, other than ratifying the Kyoto protocol, which we all understand will not reduce Australian emissions to any extent because we are committed to and will meet our Kyoto target. The substance of their climate change policy is a 60 per cent cut in emissions by 2050.

Three times yesterday the member for Kingsford Smith was asked what it would cost. Three times he could not say. At one point he said he did not know what ‘pay more’ meant. The consumers of Australia, the industries of Australia—look at my friend the member for Throsby—and the workers of Australia know what ‘pay more’ means: it means making industries uncompetitive and it means losing jobs. If Labor want to impose a 60 per cent cut in emissions by 2050 then they should at least do the Australian people the courtesy of telling them what it will cost. How can you responsibly embark on any measure of this scale without knowing what the cost is? You cannot.

This demonstrates once again how unfit the Labor Party is for government, how reckless it is; how ideologically driven it is; and how obsessed it is with symbols, slogans and saying things. It is as easy to proclaim your commitment to the environment as it is to proclaim your piety. We judge people’s actions and their beliefs not by what they claim to say or what they plead but by what they do. How can we judge what they will do if they will not tell us what the consequences are?

The Howard government has recognised for more than a decade the consequences of climate change and the risk it poses to Australia. I believe every single one of the reports—with the exception of the fourth assessment report, which, as the member for Kingsford Smith said, was contributed to by Australians—was actually published by the Australian government. They were published because of initiatives by the Australian government to create greater awareness and to engage the community, business and citizens in dealing with climate change.

If they think that is not an important agenda, I would refer the honourable member for Kingsford Smith and those interested in these issues to the Stern report, which recommends as one of the key objectives the removal of barriers to behavioural change, stressing that it is important to foster a shared understanding of the nature of climate change. What has the Greenhouse Office done but that? What has all the work of the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology done but that?

Again and again the facts have been put on the table, and they have been matched with action. Over $2 billion has been invested to tackle climate change, and that is just to tackle mitigation—not adaptation; I will come to that—and to ensure that we are on track to meet our 108 per cent emissions target under the Kyoto protocol. Five projects have been approved under the $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, including a large solar concentrator in regional Victoria, a $420 million project to which the fund is providing $75 million. There is a whole series of projects which, as I said in question time, are designed to promote and advance clean coal technology—technology without which the world will never be able to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The member for Kingsford Smith reminds me of a person who thinks that they do their bit for the environment by putting a bumper sticker on their car or exercising some personal saving or recycling activity in their own home: ‘Don’t worry; I’ve done my bit for the water challenge. I’ve got a water tank.’ Many of us have water tanks. It is all very commendable, and I commend everyone who has a water tank, but it is not going to fix the problem by itself. The member for Kingsford Smith’s solution is to say Australia should impose on itself a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which will have an enormous effect on the Australian economy, the extent of which he either does not know or will not tell. He knows, as we all do, that that self-inflicted restraint will have no effect at all on global warming unless it is matched by a similar reduction around the world.

What will the member for Kingsford Smith do if massive reductions in emissions are imposed on Australia way beyond those of our competitors? What will he do when there are thousands of Australians out of work, when instead of adding two million jobs—as the Howard government has done—two million jobs are swept away and when the cost of energy intensive industries goes through the roof? What will he say when nothing changes, when nothing happens to climate, when it is still getting warmer and still getting drier? Will he say: ‘I console you, you poor, unemployed people. I console you from my pillar of virtue. I console you because you have done the right thing. We have sacrificed you in the interests of our ideology. You, your jobs and your livelihoods have been sacrificed, and, by the way, nothing has been achieved.’ That is the Labor Party philosophy.

Our approach is to mitigate greenhouse gases, to meet our international commitments and to work constructively internationally to ensure that we can achieve what we all know is the only answer to an effective reduction in greenhouse gases: a global agreement. That is the reality. It has to involve China, India and the United States. If we go it alone and clean up our own backyard, as I think the member for Kingsford Smith said the other day, that may be commendable and admirable, but it will have no impact unless it is matched by global action.

We could pay a very heavy price and make a very heavy sacrifice indeed—a sacrifice on the altar of an ideology that has no interest in the livelihoods of Australian workers or in the Australian economy and is prepared to sacrifice the interests of Australia, the competitiveness of Australia and the jobs of Australians for nothing more than an ideological slogan. So intensely do the Labor Party hold this slogan dear that they are not prepared to accept any questions, any doubt; hence we have, as I said yesterday, the new heresy of scepticism. You cannot have a doubt; you cannot question anything; you cannot doubt anything; you have to be a total believer. It is as though we are returning to the Spanish Inquisition. I read that at one point the member for Kingsford Smith said the Prime Minister ‘had been’ a sceptic for many years. Apparently, even if you change your mind that is not good enough; you will still be punished.

Let us consider what some other leaders around the world are saying. I am not just quoting the Prime Minister here. Mr Tony Blair has said that it is:

a completely unrealistic debate to say that you could have a climate change agreement that doesn’t involve China and then America obviously, and of course India which is also a country of over a billion people ...

He pointed to the limitations of the Kyoto protocol and said we have to build towards ‘a more realistic framework—

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Garrett interjecting

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

Order! The member for Kingsford Smith.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that gives us a real chance of being able to reduce emissions’. We need to look to the future now. He said:

There will be no resolution without a clear, disciplined framework for action, with measurable outcomes.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Garrett interjecting

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

The member for Kingsford Smith is warned!

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And if it is doubted that Mr Stern is under any delusions of the kind that afflict the opposition, what did he say? ‘Every country in the world has to get involved,’ he said on ABC radio on 3 November: ‘I don’t think we have to insist on everything being done the same way all around the world. Even if we wanted to we could not do that successfully. Australia is good at technology. They’ve got wind, they’ve got coal and they’ve got uranium. There are so many ways in which Australia could bring so much to the table, we’ve got to get all countries involved.’

That was the message: it is global engagement that will provide the reduction in emissions that we need. But the interesting part about the opposition is that they go on and on about climate change as though we are debating a theological issue: ‘Does he believe in climate change? Does he believe enough? Is he a purist? Is he a sceptic? Is he a believer of whatever gradation?’ And no doubt different punishments will be awarded by the inquisition run by the members for Griffith and Kingsford Smith, depending on the degree of doubts. No credit, apparently, will be given for conversions. But no mention is made of the key consequence of climate change to Australia, and that is water scarcity. And that, as I said yesterday, is a matter where John Howard has been prescient those are not my words; those are Paul Kelly’s words.

The Prime Minister has been prescient on the issue of water. He has provided $2 billion over five years to establish the Australian government water fund, which is promoting research, innovation, recycling projects and sustainable water management. In the Wimmera Mallee, 16,000 kilometres of leaky, open drains are being replaced by 8,000 kilometres of pipes. Over 100 gigalitres of water will be saved, a great benefit for the environment and a great improvement in water security for the people of that region. That is the type of practical measure that we are undertaking all over Australia.

And then, only two weeks ago, the Prime Minister announced his $10 billion 10-point plan to take charge of the Murray-Darling Basin for the first time, to do what everybody has said should be done but was impossible: give the federal government responsibility over the interstate rivers—which, we all know, cannot be managed other than by the national government because the four states involved, whether they have the best will in the world or not, are essentially in competition with each other. This planned proposal, which appears to be receiving a high degree of support from the premiers, to take over the interstate rivers—the Murray-Darling Basin—is revolutionary. It is historic, and it has had the support of the member for Kingsford Smith. As he said only this morning: ‘We have always said we support a national water plan. That is something that was part of Labor policy.’ Well, I would ask the member for Kingsford Smith where in the Labor Party’s policy it says that the Commonwealth government should take control of the Murray-Darling Basin. You know it does not.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You know we have always supported it.

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

The minister will not use the word ‘you’.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call on the member for Kingsford Smith to produce the Labor Party policy document which says the Commonwealth government should take charge of the Murray-Darling Basin. It will be interesting to see whether that is produced.

That plan will revolutionise the management of water in a region which uses most of our water. Most of the water that is consumed in Australia is used in the Murray-Darling Basin. Why? Because that is where 80 per cent of our irrigated agriculture can be found, and irrigated agriculture uses about 70 per cent of all the water that is consumed. That plan will transform the security of irrigators and the security of communities, and it will restore the sustainable balance and sustainable allocations between agriculture on the one hand and the environment on the other. Things that people have been saying must be done but which were frustrated by an antiquated and inappropriate governance structure can now be resolved, and they will be resolved in this climate because of the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown. This is leadership from the coalition. The Labor Party never proposed this. They never canvassed this, and indeed we do not know whether all the Labor Party premiers will yet support it. But it is the answer to the biggest environmental challenge in Australia: the management of water. It is the one that affects most people and most communities. It is the answer to that challenge in our largest area of rivers and groundwater systems, where over three million people depend on the water from that system and about 40 per cent of our agricultural produce is delivered. (Time expired)

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

I will return to some of the comments made by the newly appointed minister, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, but in speaking on this matter of public importance let me just say that denial, scepticism, delay and inaction are the words that best describe the Howard government’s response to the most serious issue confronting humanity—that of climate change and global warming. For the minister’s benefit, I think it is worth reminding him of the level of scepticism that was allowed free rein. I will refer to a couple of quotes from a very senior minister on your benches, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. He had this to say not so long ago:

... carbon dioxide levels go up and down, and global warming comes and goes.

When interviewed by Laurie Oakes, he confessed:

... I am a sceptic of the connection between emissions and climate change.

All this was being said, Minister, at a time when our own scientific reports and global reports were telling us of the enormous consequences of inaction on this most serious issue. This is the same minister who arrogantly dismissed Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth as ‘just entertainment’. This government cannot keep on dismissing the growing concern of our communities about the impact of global warming. They see it and live with it every day.

I picked up our local paper this morning and the editorial screamed ‘PM sniffs the wind’—and doesn’t that say it all? There is an increasing cynicism out there in the electorate about the quick political fixes when this government is under political pressure. To understand that, you only had to talk to the people who saw the graphic description of the impact of global warming in that most memorable movie, An Inconvenient Truth. The release of the most recent UN climate change report tells us all about the grave and serious consequences of increasing temperatures that could rise in the vicinity of three to four degrees Celsius.

The days of denial, Minister, must surely be over. With the PM sniffing the political wind, I was looking forward to a more enlightened approach with your appointment. I have known you for a considerable period of time, and thought that you would bring a more reasoned and rational approach to this very serious issue. I was profoundly disappointed yesterday, because I think that you have a real identity crisis. On the one hand, you are openly supporting a redefinition of the word ‘scepticism’ by implying that scepticism really means just being open-minded. It was not clear whether you were now on the Prime Minister’s track of being a realist on the issue of climate change. So what are you? Are you a sceptic? Are you a realist? Are you open-minded? Are you an environmental purist? Might I suggest, Minister—with due respect—that you sound just like Malcolm in the middle: not sure of where to turn on this very important national and global issue.

Your Prime Minister now describes himself as a climate change realist. There is one simple reality he needs to comprehend, and that is that right now—this very day—the Australian people are feeling the impact of a 0.8 degree temperature rise. We see that with our horrific drought, with water shortages and water rationing, with mega bushfires and with storms of increasing intensity. This has happened on your watch. You and your government are culpable. The seriousness of the situation becomes even more urgent with the latest scientific report from the United Nations, which points to temperatures rising in the order of three to four times more than they have to date. This would be a catastrophe for our economy, our agricultural sector, our environment and our children’s future. There is no justification for inaction.

If, Minister, you wanted to portray this debate as one being led by just environmental purists—people who are only concerned about the environmental impacts and who do not understand anything about the economics or the impact on working people—let me draw your attention to the Stern report, the most compelling analysis of the economic costs of not acting on this issue. The report concluded:

... it is already very clear that the economic risks of inaction are very severe—

and that failure to act would cost between five per cent and 20 per cent of annual global GDP. For someone who professes to understand the workings of the market, Minister, let me say that the Stern report said that climate change was:

...the greatest market failure the world has ever seen ...

The report’s response was not just to argue the importance of technological development—no-one dismisses that; it is critical for the future—but a lot more than that is needed. What is needed is an effective global response on the pricing of carbon, not just the deployment of low-carbon technologies and energy efficiencies. The central issue was the pricing of carbon. The responses recommended in the Stern report are all actions that the Labor Party has long advocated.

I am pleased to see that, even if your identity might be somewhat confused and you are adopting a ‘Malcolm-in-the-middle’ approach, at least your Prime Minister is now saying that he is a realist on this issue. Let me quote from Tony Jones on Lateline. I nearly fell off my chair with what I heard. Tony Jones asked this:

Prime Minister, what do you think living in Australia would be like by the end of this century for your own grandchildren and for the grandchildren of and great grandchildren of others, if the temperatures, the average mean temperatures, around the world do rise by somewhere between four and possibly even more than six degrees celsius?

These are the actual words of John Howard, the Prime Minister of our nation:

Well, it would be less comfortable for some than it is now ...

Prime Minister, it is certainly not a question of some people being less comfortable; it would be an absolute disaster for our communities. Let me refer the Prime Minster and the minister to our own reports undertaken by the CSIRO. A three degree rise in temperature would have grave consequences. Eighty-six per cent of Kakadu wetlands would be lost to sea level rises, our iconic Barrier Reef would be destroyed through coral bleaching and with it its associated tourism industry and jobs, there would be up to a 70 per cent increase in the number of very high fire danger days in the south east, there would be a southward spread of malaria receptive zones, there would be up to 5,000 heatwave deaths a year, there would be more severe cyclones and higher incidence of flooding from king tides and storm surges, and developed coastal areas would be at risk of inundation. And the Prime Minister tells us that some people would be less comfortable. We expected a far more judicious response from the leader of this nation to the most serious and critical issue facing the planet.

In sorting out the position of the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources on these very important issues, let me just say that his own words reveal him to be a sceptic, absolutely, about the issue of rising sea levels. Let me quote again from his comments on the AM program—and I quote in context. He said:

There’s a lot of very exaggerated claims, and you have to bear in mind that most of our coastal population lives on the east coast of Australia, and because of the geology or the topography of the east coast, that isn’t ... you know, much of that is adequately elevated to deal with a 1 metre sea rise.

With due respect, Minister, it seems that you have completely missed the point. Using a range of projected sea-level rises of between nine and 88 centimetres—let alone a metre—scientific modelling at the University of Sydney, not far from your electorate, already shows that, by 2050, the beach at Narrabeen could disappear; within 100 years, the harbour could advance by as much as 43 metres from the eastern side of the Spit, covering the southern approach to the bridge; there is a 50 per cent chance of the beach at Manly Wharf eroding 11 metres, cutting off access to the ferry terminal; and erosion at Nielson Park—very close to home—would threaten the foundations of the pavilion there, a heritage listed building. And the minister at least confessed today that, for every one-centimetre rise in sea level, you get one metre of coastal erosion. Just go and visit Belongil Beach. Have a look at Clifton Beach in North Queensland. That will show you graphically the impact of coastal erosion and the totally inadequate response by all levels of government to these very serious issues. (Time expired)

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

This debate is not, as it has been presented by the opposition, a debate about a choice between action and inaction; it is about a choice between policies, and it is a choice between the right way to deal with this, the right way to deal with a real and genuine issue, and the wrong way. The wrong way encompasses saying no to any serious attempts to clean up power stations, because of a theological opposition to coal and gas; no to dealing with 16 per cent of the world’s energy through nuclear energy, because of a theological opposition within the party that would aspire to governance; and no to further renewable power through hydro energy—or do you suddenly support new dams? In reality, they say, ‘We want decreased emissions’—that is what they want—but the practice is to say no to the three things which, globally, will make the greatest difference: no to the big renewables, in terms of hydro; no to nuclear, even though that would be saving 16 per cent of the world’s emissions through providing that amount of energy; and no to seriously cleaning up coal and looking at that as we go around the world.

What are they saying yes to? They are saying yes to a petrol tax for families and low-income earners. They are saying yes to a heating tax on pensioners and low-income families. Here is the chance the member for Kingsford Smith has to turn around and say: ‘We are going to rule out a petrol tax. We are going to rule out a pensioners’ heating tax.’ If you want to say that you have policies here, you had better stand up and define what they are. Do you rule out a petrol tax? Do you rule out a pensioners’ heating tax? Do you rule out a heating tax which is going to strike at low-income families, which is going to strike at farmers, which is going to strike at those who are least able to deal with it? You talked about intergenerational equity, and this debate, in real terms of intergenerational equity, is about making sure that we do not sell out the present as well as making sure that we do not sell out the future. That means that you have to be able to look motorists, pensioners and farmers in the eye and say to them, ‘Yes, I am going to slug you with a petrol tax; yes, I am going to slug you with a pensioners’ heating tax,’ or rule those out. You are right here on the floor of the House. You can pretend you do not hear, but you know the challenge is before you right now. That is the question.

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

The member for Flinders will refrain from using the words ‘you’ and ‘your’.

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

On the alternative side, we say that there is a right way to deal with this, and that is from the people who brought the world the first greenhouse office and who brought the world $2 billion worth of real and practical technological initiatives, not just in clean coal, not just in clean gas, but also in renewables—the world’s biggest solar power plant, potentially, that we are investing in. We are not afraid to look at all of the different forms. All of these things are needed. You say the solution is so important, but you rule out some of the key elements. If you are serious, and I think that there is a seriousness on one level, then drop the theology and deal with all of the elements. That is the challenge. Also, make a pledge to the pensioners and the motorists that you are not going to sell out the current generation for some utopian impact on future generations. That is the real stuff of policy. This challenge is with you right now. You can talk about it—

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

The member for Flinders will refrain from using the words ‘you’ and ‘your’.

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

but my challenge to the member for Kingsford Smith is to spell out the real impact on pensioners, motorists, farmers and low-income families. If the opposition are willing to do that then I respect it, but there has been a curious silence on real impacts on real people today. We make no apologies for caring about and fighting for battlers, for workers, for people with jobs and, at the same time, trying to invest in the long term.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Snowdon interjecting

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

If the member for Lingiari is asleep, he can leave the chamber.

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

Let me deal now with this debate on three levels: firstly, the reality here, to deal with this notion of denial and scepticism; secondly, to deal with the international situation; and, thirdly, to deal with a couple of the points that my learned leader has asked me to make in relation to the domestic situation. In relation to the reality, I have a very simple proposition, which is to find what we have done as a government. Climate change is real. It is important. It is significant. That is the position. That is why we have invested $2 billion. That is why we have taken concrete, practical steps.

What does that mean, though? Where does Australia fit? We represent 1.4 per cent of global emissions. We represent about 560 million tonnes of 40 billion tonnes of global emissions. Where were we in 1990? We were at 550 million tonnes. So we have seen an increase of about two per cent over the last 16 years. We have seen an increase in our energy efficiency intensity of about 45 per cent. There are a series of causes for that—I do not deny it. I am pleased that the changes in practice in land clearing have been an important part of that. I would also note that the specific policies that this government has put in place have, on the estimates of the Australian Greenhouse Office, saved about 87 million tonnes per annum of abatement than would otherwise have been the case.

So, by comparison with the rest of the world, what does that mean? We are one of the only four developed world countries that happen to be on track to meeting our targets. There are a lot of countries which made the promise, but there are very few that have delivered. So here is the question about morality: do you give the moral tick to the person who makes the promise but never delivers or to the person who never makes a false promise but does deliver? We have a real and powerful story to tell that Australia, almost alone amongst the countries of the developed world, is on track to meet its targets. We will get there because there is more action that we are going to take—there is more action that the minister himself has already embarked upon.

Where does this 40 billion tonnes sit in terms of the international situation? What does that mean? Internationally we have four planks to what we are doing, and we take this very seriously. The first is the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. This has been derided by the opposition. Yet we see from the work of ABARE that we are likely to save the world about 90 billion tonnes of CO emissions, over and above what would already have been the case, through the Asia-Pacific partnership process between now and 2050. That is about two years of global emissions. That is because we have brought in China, India and the United States—none of which have committed to targets under the Kyoto process. So they are willing to take real action under something that the Prime Minister, the foreign minister and the Australian environment department and its successive ministers have brought together. This is something that is real, tangible and cogent.

But we have moved beyond the Asia-Pacific partnership in the help we are giving in the form of clean coal technologies, renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency technologies to China and India. That is probably the single most important thing we can do globally. Why? Because China’s coal emissions alone account for 10 times Australia’s total emissions. That is real. If you want to find out where global emissions are coming from, you should look to the increase in China’s coal emissions. If we can have a 10 per cent decrease in China’s emissions in any one year, it is the equivalent of Australia saving every single kilogram of our own emissions.

The second thing that we are doing is that the Prime Minister has set out personally to pursue a new model for Kyoto, a new international agreement which is comprehensive and real. We make no apologies for that. What is wrong with the old system? The old system has three flaws. Firstly, it is inadequate. For all of the talk, it has had a one per cent impact over the last 16 years on our emissions. We would have had 141 per cent of a 1990 emissions by 2012—now we are going to have 140 per cent. Secondly, it has perverse outcomes. This is what I call the ‘Bhopal effect’. Essentially it is driving emissions offshore from developed world countries to developing world countries. It is not doing what it should do. Thirdly, there are numerous countries that have failed to meet their targets.

We are not only unashamedly driving up the take-up of clean energy through clean coal but also through the sale of uranium—which the Leader of the Opposition supports but the member for Kingsford Smith opposes. Why do we do that? Because it is real and it is tangible. I think I have covered the domestic points, but the last thing I want to say about the international front is that we also support reforestation. Even today I had discussions with a leading scientist about the role of reforestation in the developing world and the things that we can do there to act as global carbon sinks. We are talking about real savings of carbon having a real impact on natural systems. At the end of the day, this is not a debate about action versus inaction—no country has taken more action than Australia—it is a debate about the right way versus the wrong way. (Time expired)

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

I listened with interest to the member for Flinders. I thought he finished up on quite an odd note actually. He was talking about reforestation as a way of having an actual carbon sink.

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

It’s true.

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

Well, it is true. But there are a couple of points to make here. The Commonwealth government has recently put in place a carbon trading task force to look at emissions trading et cetera. Agriculture was not included. Another natural carbon sink is organic matter and humus in our soils, some of which trees grow on. In terms of the short to medium term, the potential for carbon to be sequestered in soils in organic matter and humus is enormous—that is not to suggest that it does not get released at another time further down the track. In fact in parts of the United States carbon trades are actually taking place. I am sure the deputy speaker would be aware of the practice of no-till agriculture where the plant residues are left on the surface of the soil. That not only reduces erosion and run-off but also increases infiltration of moisture. Under the Howard 10-point plan that might even be considered a diversion of water if we are talking about trees. The Howard 10-point plan actually says that they are going to have to review the Murray-Darling catchment cap based on how many trees are there because that could be having an impact on the amount of water that can enter the system. That is slightly different to what was being said six years ago.

The new minister makes great play of his statement that they have been progressing this agenda for quite some time. Six or seven years ago the issue was salinity and we were being encouraged to plant trees so that we actually took water up and the watertable would go down so the salt would not come to the surface. Now in some of the fine print of the new plan we are actually going to revisit the impact that trees have on run-off. I think there are a number of mixed messages here, and I compliment the member for Flinders for talking about trees, because they do have a positive effect in terms of carbon absorption. But under the Prime Minister’s plan they may well have a negative impact in terms of water being allowed to enter our river systems. I would hate to see a circumstance where that other natural sink, soil humus and organic matter, and progressive farming practice is scorned upon because it actually takes more water. It allows less water to run off than traditional farming techniques. In fact, on the black soil plains, which the member for Flinders would not be aware of, I am told that that could have an impact of up to six to eight inches of additional moisture.

We heard in question time today that China is building one coal-fired power plant every five days. I will tell you what America—that country that we follow in almost everything—is doing. It is building an ethanol plant every 11 days. One country, fossil fuel fired, carbon dangerous; and another country—America, one of the worst in the world in terms of consumption et cetera—is actually starting to address the problems with transport fuel with a renewable energy source for transport fuel. They are moving at an enormous rate—one plant is being opened every 11 days. I know the member for Kennedy was recently in the United States looking at those plants—

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They let him in?

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

Yes, they apparently let him in. He must have got in through Mexico!

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They tried to not let me out.

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

And I had paid money to have him kept there. But, anyway, the Brazilians tried and they failed!

All this highlights the inactivity that has been going on in our nation. I do not think the Labor Party are completely scot-free on this either. Because of the Dick Honan and Prime Minister golf game and teapot, they have been very slack on progressing the renewable energy debate. They will talk solar and they will talk wind, but they do not talk very much on ethanol, biodiesel or biofuels—renewable energy sources that not only could have an enormous impact in terms of the health repercussions in our major cities but also could have an enormous impact on our regional economies. You can see what is happening with the corn price in the United States now—purely driven by biofuels. You can see what is happening in Europe with the canola and vegetable oil price—purely driven by biofuels. You can see what is happening in Brazil—and we are getting a bit of a spin-off from that with the sugar industry, mainly driven from Brazil. It is increasing its ethanol production at the rate of one Australian sugar industry a year. And we are doing nothing. We are standing here letting the market take its course. There is all this talk about what we are going to be doing about climate change—because it has suddenly become an issue since October—but there is nothing really happening in terms of real policy to drive some of these energy targets and to look at a mandate on the usage of fuel.

Another issue is water. I will not go back to the issue I raised yesterday and this morning but, to have any credibility with respect to the future of the Murray-Darling system and the overallocation problems, the government really has to address the issue of tax on the compensation paid for the loss of water entitlement that groundwater users in New South Wales, in particular, have faced. They entered into the arrangement voluntarily and the state and the Commonwealth came together. It is jointly funded. The money is on the table, as the Prime Minister was talking about in his plan. They worked with the irrigators and they reached a sustainable target. Compensation was arranged and, all of a sudden, after the deal was done, someone said, ‘By the way, we’re going to tax you on that.’ So 47 per cent of it could be taken by the Treasurer.

Another issue that I will raise while the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources and the member for Flinders are here is the issue of Lake Alexandrina—right at the end of the Murray. I believe the Prime Minister was there last week. Lake Alexandrina is an absolute disgrace. It is 20 times the size of the electorate of Wentworth. It is artificial. Through the rising water level, it has destroyed vast areas around it. It has banked water up the Murray about 100 kilometres and it has had an enormous impact on the ecosystems—and Adelaide are saying that they do not have any water. The evaporation alone that takes place on Lake Alexandrina is half what the New South Wales cotton industry uses in a year—and the cotton industry has been demonised by all and sundry as the enormous slurper of water in the Murray-Darling system. And what are we doing about the Menindee Lakes? There is mention of it in the Prime Minister’s plan. Where is that water going to be allocated?

I congratulate those members of the government who have actually started to look at Lake Alexandrina, because it is a tragedy. For people in Australia to believe that the Murray-Darling system is not allowing any water into the Murray mouth is just a deception. Lake Alexandrina, this lake at the end of the Murray, is 20 times the size of the electorate of Wentworth, the minister’s seat. You could throw a rock into the ocean from Lake Alexandrina across the Murray mouth. They have built what they call artificial barrages—an artificial structure—at the end to dam it up. As I said, for hundreds of kilometres around it, the salt levels have risen through man’s intervention. So, if we are serious about the Murray-Darling, rather than everybody saying, ‘Let’s start at the top and work down,’ I think there are some things that should be done at the bottom as well. As I said, half the water that the cotton industry in New South Wales uses is actually evaporated away on this vast lake at the end of the Murray-Darling system.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the minister at the table, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, you would be well aware that one of the great failings of this parliament, when compared with the state houses—and why the state houses are much closer to the people—is that ministers do not sit in this House and listen to the speeches. This is one of the first times that I have seen a minister come into the House and listen to the opposition’s arguments and his own party’s arguments—and listen seriously.

Joe Hockey (North Sydney, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are two ministers here.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are a primary producer, so you have a vested interest. But the honourable minister does have some interest in my electorate. When these people come in here and talk about climate change and people down here being without water, he would realise that we are inundated at the present moment. I am ringing up almost half-hourly not only Tully and Innisfail but also Burketown, Mornington Island, Normanton and the like about flooding. We, in fact, have enjoyed good seasons over the last 10 years—and, unfortunately, in the super wet belt, we have had an excess of water.

I do not know whether people in this place have read Al Gore’s book, but if you look at the increase and decrease in rainfall shown there you will see that there is no pattern. One offsets the other, which is the experience in Australia. Quite frankly, the wet areas are getting a bit wetter and the drier areas might be getting a bit drier, if you go on the figures from the last 10 years. But we people who are close to the land know that it is absolutely ridiculous to look at a 10-year cycle. If you look at the rainfall pattern for Australia—a magnificent map done by the DPI in Queensland—you will realise that these years are not too bad as far as seasons go in the overall picture of Australia.

I want to commend the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources for being here. I think this place would be a much more effective reflection of the Australian people if ministers did what he has done and came into this place. I also commend the other minister at the table, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, and my colleague here, the member for New England, a very wise investor in the electorates of North Queensland.

I want to give the ALP a little bit of gratuitous political advice: if you want to win the next election, you have to win the seats of Flynn, Bundaberg and Herbert. They are marginal seats. You have to win those seats. Those seats are coalmining seats.

Don’t you realise what you are kissing goodbye? This nation has one single source of income now, and that is coal. It is 20 per cent of the nation’s entire export earnings. And guess what the No. 2 earner is? Aluminium. Guess what aluminium needs? Cheap power! No cheap power, no aluminium industry. You can only get cheap power with coal.

Let me be very specific. The ALP has come in with some vague, airy-fairy notions. For heaven’s sake! Put up solutions. Do your research. But, for the sake of the ALP, I will help them out. If you want to have wind generation or hydro generation, let me give you the figures. It is $35 a megawatt for coal-fired power. Gas is $60 a megawatt. I know because I was the minister; I am intimately familiar with these figures. It is $60 to $80 a megawatt for nuclear. So forget about nuclear. No-one is going to pay $60 a megawatt for nuclear. But hydro is $140 a megawatt. Are you going to pay $140 a megawatt for electricity? For heaven’s sake! Think of the poor people who are struggling to make ends meet out there, paying the huge debt on their houses because of the way we have run things in Australia. How the hell are they going to pay a 300 per cent increase in their electricity charges? But that is hydro. I have not got to wind yet. Wind is about $135 a megawatt. Solar is higher than that—maybe $240 a megawatt.

Are you seriously saying that we are going to close down the Australian aluminium industry and the Australian coal industry—which are bringing in about 20 to 30 per cent of the nation’s entire export earnings? Is that seriously what you are proposing here? What about your own unions, the people who pay the money to fight your campaigns for you? Who are they? They are the miners of Australia. Look at the mining seats in Queensland. You people got absolutely annihilated in the mining towns. These people are not stupid. The miners of Australia are not fools.

Let me just zero in. I do not think anyone here, on either side of the House, is questioning the increase in CO—at least, I hope not. There has been a huge increase and that increase has been man-made. I do not question that. If you jump to stage 2 and say that therefore that increase is causing climate change, I think you are on very shaky ground. If you look at the evidence that is coming forward, you will see that it is very equivocal. I do not hesitate for a moment to say that we should be doing something about it, but you cannot possibly be seriously proposing that we close down the coalmining industry. The world will laugh at you but the people of Australia will crucify you—and justifiably so. I will do my part to ensure that they do, I can assure you.

But what have we got? Look at the world authorities. Speaker after speaker for the opposition has got up and quoted Al Gore. Look at his solutions. What is his first solution? His first solution, as I said yesterday, is ethanol. Look at Newsweek magazine, a most intellectually accredited magazine. It is Time and Newsweek but Newsweek is the more intellectual one. The first solution it puts forward is ethanol. In his state of the union speech last year and again this year, President Bush, who you would expect to be on the other side of the argument, said ethanol is the answer. Are all the people who live in the Americas idiots? Are the people of Canada, the United States and Brazil fools? The US and Brazil have mandated ethanol and it is in the process of being passed in Canada.

As my worthy colleague from New England has said, there is an ethanol plant being built every 11 days in the US. We build one every 3,600 days in Australia. We have only built one in the last 3,600 days. One plant was built during the Second World War, at Sarina. The other plant, Honan’s plant, is the only plant that has been built since 1945. One plant! Another one is being built, and let me state to the House that the people at Macquarie Bank are not fools. It was a little bank that opened up with $300 million. It is now one of the major banks in the world. Macquarie Bank is an equity investor in the new plant going ahead at Dalby. So the smart money is going on ethanol.

The dumb governments are not doing that. So I ask the minister to reflect upon the fact that the United States, the greatest economy on earth, is building a plant every 11 days. Brazil, the 12th biggest economy on earth and the fourth biggest country in population, is building a plant every 14 days. Australia has built one plant in nearly 60 years. Please! We have the water and we have the land in Northern Australia.

The minister, who is in the House, has raised great hopes throughout this nation. This is a nation that reveres the building of our own motorcars. This is a nation that reveres the building of the Snowy Mountains scheme. We have done great things in this country. The minister and the Prime Minister have raised very great hopes. And, quite frankly, I praise the Leader of the Opposition as well on this insofar as he has restrained himself from attacking it. With the Snowy Mountains scheme, to his detriment, Mr Menzies attacked the idea. But, of course, when he became Prime Minister he embraced it as his own creation—and God bless him for doing that. He was very proud as an Australian of what his country had achieved in the Snowy.

I say that the answers are there. In the case of ethanol, every hectare that you put under sugar cane takes 72 tonnes of CO out of the atmosphere every year. It produces 8,000 litres of ethanol, which puts back into the atmosphere—I cannot give an exact figure but I will track one down over the next couple of days—about 21 tonnes. So it takes 72 tonnes out and puts 10 tonnes back. There is the answer. That is why Mr Bush, Mr Al Gore and Brazil, Canada and every nation on earth are going down this pathway—

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

The Japanese and the Chinese.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Japanese, the Chinese and the Indians are building plants. Everyone is doing it. So there is the answer. I am in the unique position to also say that 40 per cent of domestic water usage is in heating water. If you solar heated Australia, one country, that will be CO neutral—(Time expired)