Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister and is again on climate change. Does the Prime Minister accept the connection between climate change and the severity and length of droughts into the future?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think there is some connection. I think the degree of it is a matter of debate and the jury is out on the degree to which there is that connection. It is fair to say that most Australians believe that we have had drought for a very long time. Common sense tells you that the variability of rainfall across this country has been with us for a long time. Every drought eventually ends.

The important thing is to tackle the great challenge this country has. Rather than having a theoretical debate, you actually need to tackle the practical aspects of drought. That is what we are doing. This afternoon is a historic opportunity. It is a moment in the history of this country: the coming together of federal and state governments to do something lasting about water security. The plan I have put forward contains two fundamental propositions. The first proposition is that we should conserve the water that is now lost through seepage and evaporation by lining the channels and piping the irrigation systems of this country. It is estimated that up to 30 per cent—or more in certain areas—is lost through seepage and evaporation. That is the first great element of the plan.

The second great element of the plan is to deal with the problem of overallocation. This is not theoretical. This is not, to use a word beloved of the member for Kingsford Smith, ‘hypothetical’. When he was asked about the impact of his climate change policy on employment in Australia he said, ‘That’s hypothetical.’ I do not think I would get very far in answering a question like that by saying it was hypothetical. Losing your job is not hypothetical. Fixing the water problems of this country is not hypothetical.

This afternoon it lies within the capacity of the Prime Minister of this country and the premiers of the Murray-Darling Basin states to strike a blow for the water security of this nation for generations ahead. This is a great opportunity, because what we have put forward is money made available courtesy of the strength of our national economy. It is over and above what has been offered before. I guarantee all the other programs, and this money is on top of those other programs. All we ask is for a governance arrangement that will end the absurd competition between the states of Australia that has bedevilled the Murray-Darling Basin governance over the last decade. This is an opportunity that must not be passed up. It must not fall victim to any kind of obfuscation and delay. I believe that the people I will talk to this afternoon will come in good faith. I have found on numerous occasions a capacity to deal across the political divide with the premiers, all of whom are Labor. They rise to the occasion. They have risen to the occasion on other issues; the nation wants them to do so on water.

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

My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources. Would the minister update the House on government initiatives to lower Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions in ways that will protect jobs in Australia’s traditional industries, including in my electorate of McMillan?

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for McMillan for his question and for his strong interest in preserving jobs in the coal and power industry in the regions around him and particularly those of the workers he represents in the seat of McMillan. I stand shoulder to shoulder with you to preserve their jobs. Those on this side of the House have long recognised that there is no one silver bullet solution to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. That is why we are investing in a portfolio of practical measures that respond directly to climate change challenges—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ms Bird interjecting

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

The member for Cunningham is warned!

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

without sacrificing the competitive advantage on which our economy in Australia is built. These are measures like the $100 million Renewable Energy Development Initiative, known as REDI; our $75 million Solar Cities initiative; and our $500 million Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, which saw $50 million allocated to a power station in the minister for agriculture’s electorate, close to the member for McMillan’s electorate, to help the power industry in that region lower its emissions and maintain its electricity output. These programs were all defined in this white paper I am holding, which the Prime Minister released in June 2004. The Leader of the Opposition might like to read it.

These are practical measures that bring a range of low-emission technologies into our energy mix, whether they be clean coal or renewable. The white paper does mention nuclear power. As we know, since that paper was released we have progressed to a point where we need to consider nuclear power. This is about not putting all our eggs in one technology basket.

In response to the recent report of the Energy Supply Association, can I say that they have demonstrated in their report why this is so important. They say in their report that the narrower the range of energy technologies used the greater the cost will be to achieve emissions cuts. The report forecasts a 65 per cent increase in electricity demand by 2030. The report also says that meeting that demand while cutting emissions will cost billions. The report goes on to say that if nuclear energy is excluded from the mix it will cost billions more. It just goes to show how serious and credible climate change responses require all possible options to be considered, including nuclear.

We know that the members for Hunter and Batman—

Government Member:

And the member for Grayndler

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

have different views from those of the member for Kingsford Smith—and, yes, so does the member for Grayndler. They even have different views on uranium—and some of them do not mind if that costs jobs, as we heard from the Prime Minister. The Labor Party cannot face—

Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Jenkins interjecting

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

Order! The member for Scullin will come to order.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

the hard political decision because they are split on the issue. The Howard government has a record of making hard decisions—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Order! The minister has the call.

Ian Macfarlane (Groom, Liberal Party, Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to ensure the future of Australia’s economy and Australia’s energy security.