Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like the member for La Trobe, I would like to speak on the issue of climate change. This afternoon, the government is receiving the report of the emissions trading task force. What it will allow is a response which will be based on evidence and science and which will be balanced with respect to the economy.

What we need is to see global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to environmentally safe levels. Australia, over the last 10 years, has been working on this, so that the national greenhouse account shows that we will meet our Kyoto target. And a lot of the ratifying countries will not: Canada, Japan, Spain and France are all exceeding the targets that they signed up to in Kyoto 10 years ago, and some are well above.

We have heard the problems with Kyoto. If Kyoto is fully implemented we will see a 40 per cent rise in greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels, compared with a 41 per cent rise without Kyoto. So what we need to look at is: post 2012, how will a new Kyoto look? What it needs to do is to include major emitters like the United States, China and India.

Australia is deeply involved in the UN climate change convention. It co-chairs several important discussions on the post-2012 framework. Our initiative, the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, AP6, includes China, India, Japan, Korea, the United States and Australia, covering 50 per cent of global emissions.

There is a lot going on in terms of technological solutions, looking at clean coal, clean gas, biofuels, and solar. Solar is only used by 25,000 homes in Australia now. But, with the budget incentive, seeing that there will be $8,000 for homes and $12,000 for schools to install solar panels, we should see that continue to grow. There is also wind and geothermal.

There have been a couple of recent initiatives by the government. One that is particularly important is the $200 million Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. The second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions is actually deforestation in the tropical developing world. So we need more sustainable forest practices and more replanting. That is a very practical way to reduce emissions and reduce them now. This is an example of the weaknesses of Kyoto. This was not addressed in Kyoto and yet it is a very effective way of reducing growth in emissions. Carbon sink forests are, again, a very effective way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and combating salinity.

There are a whole lot of things we can do in the area of energy efficiency. Australia has led the world in phasing out incandescent light globes. It has led the world by minimising the power used in electrical appliances in standby. And we are looking at investing in geothermal projects which have the potential to provide emissions-free energy.

Where Labor’s approach differs from the government’s is that they say, ‘We should have ratified Kyoto.’ But, as I said earlier, that will have no practical impact. It will not lead to the reduction of one molecule of carbon dioxide if Kyoto enters into force from Australia’s point of view. They have also said that they will have a 60 per cent reduction by 2050—without knowing what the impact will be. And it is just so far away that it is an impractical approach. The target has not been researched. What it would involve would be reducing the carbon intensity of the Australian economy by more than 80 per cent.

Australia is in a very different position from a lot of other countries. It is a producer of aluminium, steel, coal and natural gas. We need to have a balanced approach which is good for the environment and good for the Australian economy. It would be crazy for any future Australian government to decrease our competitive advantage in the world. We need an Australian solution to a global problem. The emissions trading task force report today does provide a way forward which will be good for the environment and good for the economy.

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

This has been the fortnight of sitting in which the deniers of climate change have become the deniers of their climate change advertising campaign. In the past, the Prime Minister would have managed important political and policy matters much more effectively. The Prime Minister is a clever politician but lately he has not been too clever—cunning perhaps, but certainly not clever. He certainly would not have allowed the embarrassing climate change advertising issue to drag on for a week.

In answers to 16 questions over four days in this parliament, the Prime Minister misled the parliament about this advertising campaign. On Wednesday, 23 May, we asked whether a taxpayer funded, full-colour brochure with a personal covering letter was being sent out. The Prime Minister responded:

No such decision has been made by me or, to my knowledge, by the government.

To the second question, when we asked whether it had been market tested, the Prime Minister said:

I was very careful in the answer I gave. Everything that I have said was absolutely true.

On Thursday, 24 May, we asked whether $176,000 had been allocated for market research by Blue Moon, and the Prime Minister said:

... the government has not decided on any campaign.

We asked whether the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications, which the minister at the table, the Special Minister of State, chairs and on which Tony Nutt sits as his representative, had approved the market research. The Prime Minister said:

I have not, my department has not and my office has not.

We asked again whether a contract had been entered into—yes or no. The Prime Minister just referred to his previous answer.

On Monday we asked about the detail in the ads and whether one of them included an elderly lady talking about practical responses to climate change while she is boiling the kettle. The Prime Minister said:

I can only repeat what I said: no campaign has been approved.

We then asked whether these advertisements had in fact been filmed prior to us asking questions on the previous Wednesday or Thursday. The Prime Minister said:

I direct the Leader of the Opposition to exactly what I said last Wednesday or Thursday, and I stand by it.

We then asked whether the government had signed a contract with a government relations firm. The Prime Minister just referred to other answers. When we asked whether the theme of the campaign was ‘climate clever’, again we got obfuscation from the Prime Minister. Then we asked whether he had misled the parliament. In our sixth question that day, we asked whether taxpayers will have the existence of the campaign confirmed when they receive the letter and start seeing the ads. The Prime Minister did not answer the question.

On Tuesday we asked the Prime Minister to confirm that the theme of the campaign had been changed from ‘climate clever’. The Prime Minister simply spoke about the $741 million of new measures to address climate change. We then asked whether the climate change advertising campaign had not commenced despite the fact that taxpayers’ funds have already been spent. The Prime Minister refused to answer that question. The Leader of the Opposition then asked whether the Prime Minister had said, ‘Until something is approved by a minister, it has not been approved.’ The Prime Minister again obfuscated. We then asked, ‘How much taxpayers’ money had already been spent on the TV advertising campaign in the filming and booking of ads?’ Again, the Prime Minister did not answer. We then asked the Prime Minister whether he had misled the parliament over the last four days. The Prime Minister invited a censure motion. During that censure motion, the Prime Minister said:

Of course the government has set aside money for an information campaign in relation to climate change—

thereby confirming our motion. After four days of the government’s denial of this campaign, this is what Michelle Grattan had to say in the Age yesterday:

It was the day that John Howard looked panicked rather than prime ministerial.

She continued:

Howard had got himself into an absurd and unnecessary position by trying to deny the existence of planned climate change advertising on the ground it does not exist until it gets the ministerial tick. He simply sounds devious, stubborn and slightly crazy. He has, over several parliamentary days, created a bigger problem than he needed to have.

The real problem for the government is that this government, the Bush administration and the government of Kazakhstan are the only governments that are not part of the global effort to tackle climate change through the Kyoto protocol.

We asked the government today whether the polling that was provided to media companies had been the basis of the change in the government’s position in 2006 for their advertising campaign. The Prime Minister said that he would get back to the parliament. But, of course, he has not—and there is only five minutes to go. It is little wonder that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said that, if you do not act on climate change: ‘Your political base will melt away as surely as the polar ice caps.’ (Time expired)