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 systematic failure, over eleven years, to address the challenge of climate change and position the Australian economy for a low-carbon 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

We started this session in the parliament with questions to the government about climate change. There were questions to the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources about whether he would increase the renewable energy target. Those questions were never answered. There were questions to the Prime Minister about whether he understood the consequences of climate change, and he allowed in those answers that perhaps a four- to six-degree increase in temperature might mean that things would be a little bit uncomfortable. We have the best possible evidence on climate change, and the Prime Minister and this government do not get it. Today, the Prime Minister answered the last question in the session before we go to a winter recess by speaking about industrial relations. He did not address the subject of the question at all.

That is the summary of the Howard government’s approach on climate change. We started the session by asking them questions that they could not answer and we end the session by asking the Prime Minister a question which he completely failed to answer. Anybody sitting in their homes or in their cars, worrying about the impact of climate change on their communities, on their coastline or on their farmlands, will now have heard clearly—for once and for all—that when it comes to the dangerous threats posed by climate change to this country, the Prime Minister just does not get it. In 11 years we have had denial, delay and scepticism. We have had occasional grudging acceptance, but mainly we have had inaction. And the great tragedy of the Howard government’s inaction is that it leaves us poorly equipped to deal with the challenges that climate change represents—critically by staying out of Kyoto and by delaying all efforts to allow the market economy to do its work. Australian business has been let down, the Australian community has been let down, and the only way that that will change is for a leader like Kevin Rudd—who understands climate change, commits to addressing climate change and recognises the great moral, economic and environmental challenge that climate change poses for us—to be able to effect policies in this House.

More than two years ago, I talked with the then Sydney Futures Exchange—now part of the ASX—about their strong desire for a national carbon trading scheme and the need for such a scheme. That was after nine years of failure to act by this government. Remember, the Sydney Futures Exchange had taken major steps to establish itself as a regional hub for emissions trading. Not unreasonably, it saw the inevitability of emissions trading in Australia and then waited for government action—and it waited, and it waited, and it waited. While the community waits and while the business community waits, what is the government’s response? Let’s examine it. For those who call for profound action on climate change, there is abuse, ridicule and denigration. For those who believe that it is important to support Kyoto, there is abuse and denigration of the protocol process.

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

What? No ridicule?

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

‘What? No ridicule?’ says the minister, an expert in ridicule. I am sure there will be some coming from your side, Minister, but you will have your chance, don’t worry. When it comes to the most important issue for Australians who want to see positive action in developing clean and renewable energies, there is no response and no action. No wonder there is a mood for change in Australia. Australians know that the Howard government just does not get it on climate change. Look at what Andrew Richards, Chief Executive Officer of Pacific Hydro said. He said it simply:

… if Federal and State renewable energy targets were abolished … We would probably take that $1.5 to $2 billion investment and take it offshore to places like Chile and Brazil and places like certain jurisdictions in North America like California and make those investments in those countries instead of Australia.

That is already happening under the Howard government. Whether it is Roaring Forties or whether it is Global Renewables, Australian industries and Australian businesses who want to produce solutions—and who have produced solutions and technology for climate change—are actually going offshore and setting up their businesses in other countries, because the Howard government has failed to provide the right framework for them to invest here in Australia.

For this government, when it comes to the climate change debate, it is all about myths and straw men. It is a myth that the government is already acting. It is a fact that the government has underspent on climate change programs by an average of more than 30 per cent over the last 11 years. The government’s plan to deal with emissions trading now is to dot nuclear reactors around the country, which will be up and running in 15, 20 or 25 years. That is the government plan. Critically, our greenhouse gas emissions are set to rise to 127 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020. That is government action. In an opinion piece in April this year, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources said:

Our leadership in forums such as the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate and the UN climate change framework are further examples of our active international engagement.

I put it to the minister that nothing could be further from the truth. I put it to the minister that now, 18 months after the announcement of AP6, where we had a promise of some $360 million from the Bush administration and the Howard government over a period of five years, Australia has spent just $2.1 million and the Bush administration has allocated just $27 million towards this initiative—$26 million which went to the State Department and $1 million which went to the US EPA.

Additionally, we learnt quite recently that the government’s key climate change advisers, the Australian Greenhouse Office, have admitted that they have no significant involvement in the climate change side at APEC. In a speech to the Asia Society, the Prime Minister said:

The Sydney Summit will be one of the most important international gatherings of leaders to discuss climate change since the 1992 Rio Conference.

But how many of our officials are now working on this particular meeting? Very, very few. If the government’s key climate change advisers are not providing climate change advice then who is? The answer to that question in part lies in our refusal to sign Kyoto. As every Australian knows, Australia was going to sign Kyoto. The Prime Minister was in favour of it, the foreign minister was in favour of it and the environment minister at the time was in favour of Kyoto. But then, once the Americans had decided which way they were going to go, we followed the Republican administration on climate change policy and we did not follow the original decision taken by the Howard government—and, frankly, a decision that should have been taken a long time ago.

Another one of the government’s myths is that we should not do anything about our emissions because our emissions are too small, and it is now up to China and India—these developing countries that are emitting a lot of greenhouse gases. This ignores the primary fact that it is up to every country to take responsibility for its emissions. Everyone has to play their part. Everybody has to do some heavy lifting. Australians want to do that. We are team players. We recognise that we need to make that kind of effort and take that kind of action. We realise that our emissions are not insignificant at all. They are significant emissions, particularly in terms of where they are going under the Howard government policies, with an increase of 127 per cent over 1990 levels by 2020.

The government likes to point the finger at China and India, but the truth is we are in this together. Some 70 per cent of human greenhouse gas in the atmosphere has been put there by developed nations. It has already been put there by us and by our developed nation partners. We represent some 20 per cent of the people on earth and we have a responsibility to ensure that we act here in our own home to reduce emissions. I think one of the most significant things that have happened in the last three weeks was the decision by the G8 when it said:

We have agreed that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change.

It was at this point that the fig leaf the Howard government had erected around itself to claim that by being an observer at international agreements it was supporting the UN framework completely fell away. Why is that? Because the government has always argued that other initiatives, multilateral initiatives, are going to be as significant as Kyoto. It has denigrated Kyoto. It has talked about new Kyotos and post Kyotos, yet the G8 itself specifically said:

We have agreed that the UN climate process is the appropriate forum for negotiating future global action on climate change.

Let me say to the House and to the Australian people: that is Labor Party policy. That is what we have been saying in this House ever since this parliament first sat. That is policy that has been part of the Labor approach to climate change since the climate change blueprint was first developed. Yet the government refuses here and now to join in and still continues to denigrate Kyoto.

The next myth that is put about by the government is that renewable energy in particular cannot make a significant contribution to meeting our energy needs and reduce emissions. The Prime Minister said it clearly on 18 May. He said:

The greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power are zilch, nothing, zero virtually, and just as good, if not better than solar and wind.

He said:

Now solar and wind are fantastic on the margins but you can’t run a power station on solar power, you’d have to have a lot of those panels wouldn’t you, they’d cover the whole of Queensland and the Northern Territory, I mean it’d be enormous. We can’t rule out nuclear.

The Prime Minister is wrong about baseload issues generally in terms of what can be provided for baseload in this country, and a number of experts have pointed that out. More importantly, this is an irrational objection to the contribution that renewable energy can make to meet our energy needs. Instead, we get a plan for 25 nuclear reactors—not only nuclear reactors but, now it seems, following the comments from Mr Macfarlane, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, nuclear reactors which will also serve as nuclear waste dumps.

For all those Australians living anywhere from Port Phillip Bay up the New South Wales coast past Jervis Bay up towards south-east Queensland, where nuclear reactors could be located, they are also going to get a nuclear waste dump. For the 25 or 30 years that they have a nuclear waste dump in their backyard—the term of the reactors that the Howard government plans to put in place in this country to deal with climate change—we will see the creation of some 40,000 tonnes of the most toxic substance that humanity produces: radioactive waste. Is this a climate change solution for Australia? No, it is not.

I was very interested to read in the just released Trends in sustainable development annual review report that global investment last year in sustainable energy was $70.9 billion. This UN report concluded that clean energy could provide almost a quarter of the world’s electricity by 2030. Whilst sustainable energy only accounts for two per cent of the world’s total now—and I know the minister will make this point—the report shows that 18 per cent of all power plants under construction are in this sector and that figure continues to grow. This is the future for dealing with climate change. Australians know we have abundant supplies of solar energy in the amount of sunlight that hits our continent, and that we have fantastic solar scientists who lead the world in technology and innovation. Why haven’t we got the best solar industry in the world? Why aren’t we now starting to produce power from solar energy, power that goes into the grid? Why haven’t Australians got solar panels on the roofs of their homes and their schools storing that clean power, that renewable energy? If they did that, they would be making a contribution to climate change.

The reason we are not able to do that, the reason we are not a solar nation and we are on the way to becoming a nuclear nation, is the Howard government. The Howard government just does not get it on renewables. The Howard government just does not get it at all. The Prime Minister insists that the only solution to climate change is to build nuclear reactors that produce radioactive waste. The Liberal Party has more plans than that. It just does not stop there. At the Liberal Party Federal Council that was held recently, an interesting recommendation was adopted and passed unanimously. It said that Australia should look at going further, that we should look at nuclear enrichment and at being a worldwide repository for radioactive waste.

I want to hear from the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources as to what the Howard government’s plans are about Australia being a worldwide repository for radioactive waste. At the same time as climate change continues to impact upon us and we do nothing about renewable and clean energy, they are advancing a plan for Australia to be the world’s repository for radioactive nuclear waste. That is the question that the minister has to answer.

It was interesting when we had a debate in the parliament quite recently. I think that one of the remarks that the minister made was that the member for Kingsford Smith despises scientists. I just want to put it on the record that I actually do not despise scientists at all. In fact, the target that the Labor Party has set, of some 60 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, is a science based target. That is clearly acknowledged and well understood. I note the comments of Dr Jim Hansen, who has contributed to the IPCC reports and is probably one of the world’s leading climate experts. He is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and won the Duke of Edinburgh Conservation Medal last year. He and five other prominent US scientists recently concluded that ‘greenhouse gas emissions place the Earth perilously close to dramatic climate change that could run out of control, with great dangers for humans and other creatures.’ When scientists bring us those reports, we understand how urgent and necessary it is for real action on climate change—not speeches but real action—and we have not had real action from the Howard government. (Time expired)

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

I thank the honourable member for Kingsford Smith for reminding me of James Hansen’s recent paper on climate change—

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 was not interjected on at all and I will not tolerate an interjection from him.

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

Dr Hansen has produced a paper which argues that the consequences of climate change will be more extreme than the forecasts set out in the most recent IPCC report. The IPCC is the leading body that addresses climate change. It is a consensus process that involves many, if not most, of the world’s leading climate scientists, including many from Australia. Obviously everybody is entitled to a point of view, but the IPCC represents the most solid and reliable basis upon which to form government policies, planning decisions and so forth. It is very interesting that the member for Kingsford Smith embraced Dr Hansen’s paper so enthusiastically, because one of the things that Dr Hansen said, when his paper was released, was that the world has to stop burning coal. That reminds me, of course, of the member for Kingsford Smith, who said that there can be no certainty about the future of the coal industry. I think he was referring particularly to the Hunter Valley. Ultimately, where the member for Kingsford Smith is coming from is essentially a position that deeply dislikes and distrusts a modern and growing society with strong economic growth, such as we have in Australia. It is quite interesting. He tries to change his spots all the time. He ducks and weaves. He has abandoned almost all of the positions he has had in his life—or has purported to abandon them.

I noticed that the other day, on 14 June, in responding to the emissions trading task group report—which, of course, has stressed the gravity of the economic consequences of climate change and how careful we have to be in calibrating our response to it; all perfectly rational and sensible comments and insights that any businesslike person, any non-fanatical person, would take—that the member for Kingsford Smith said to CEDA:

... the Coalition is falling back on the outdated notion that you can either have a healthy economy or a healthy environment; but that you can’t have both.

We have a healthy environment and a healthy economy in Australia. The fact is that our environment would not be as healthy as it is if it were not for the healthy economy. We would not have been able to spend $20 billion on environmental endeavours in the last 11 years without a strong economy, without the surpluses that the strong economic management of the Howard government has delivered. We would not have $10 billion to invest in the National Plan for Water Security, let alone $2 billion in the Australian Government Water Fund, without a strong economy. So, quite plainly, our position and our track record demonstrate that we believe that a healthy economy can support a healthy environment, because you need to have the wherewithal for the measures to be able to afford the investments to protect the environment.

The member for Kingsford Smith was in fact criticising himself. It was only a few years ago—three years and one month ago—in May 2004, when he said in the Herald Sun:

... economic growth is almost always accompanied by a commensurate increase in environmental degradation.

That is really the key to the member for Kingsford Smith. He does not like economic growth. He is determined to be pure by his fanatical lights. He has no regard for the economic consequences of the policies he argues for. He argues from his own self-imagined moral position. He does not care how poor we have to be in order to become pure.

The member for Kingsford Smith and the Leader of the Opposition have no understanding of the environmental realities of climate change or the economic consequences of dealing with it. Firstly, Labor do not recognise the global nature of climate change. It is called global warming for a reason. A tonne of CO₂ that goes into the atmosphere has the same impact on the world’s temperature, regardless of where it comes from—whether it is emitted in Australia, Europe, China or the United States. So an effective global response is vital. Labor is wedded to the Kyoto protocol. They see it as a sacrament. Again, that is a key to Labor’s response. It is all about symbols and it all comes from the heart; there is no head or clear thinking.

Think about this: the first phase of the Kyoto protocol, or the first commitment period as it is called, has comprehensively failed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. How do I know that? Because we know that the consequence of the measures encompassed in the first phase of the protocol will be a reduction in the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by one per cent. That is nothing. That is so far away from what the world needs to achieve by mid-century. It is a failure. Why did it fail? It failed because of attitudes that are personified by the member for Kingsford Smith. It is a fantasy that developed countries, riven with the sort of middle-class guilt that the member for Kingsford Smith manifests, should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions unilaterally and there should be no obligations on the fastest growing economies.

The lack of a pathway for the fastest growing economies in the developing world, particularly China and India—and China is an industrial giant the like of which we have never seen before in the world’s history—to reduce their emissions is the key to understanding what is wrong with Kyoto. That is why the United States Senate refused to ratify it. It is why President Clinton and Vice President Gore never submitted it to the Senate, any more than their successor, President Bush, did. And it is the reason that Australia did not ratify it. That failure in Kyoto, that flaw, is contained in a clause of the treaty—the treaty which at this juncture the Labor Party believes we should ratify. Article 3.9 says that in the subsequent commitment period—and the next commitment period is what we are discussing now because the first commitment period begins next year and ends in 2012—obligations to cut emissions should only be imposed on countries in annex 1—that is, developed countries. That does not include China or India. China and India’s negotiating position is, ‘That’s it! You in the developed world keep making cuts.’

The problem is that if the world is to achieve a massive cut in global emissions by mid-century—whether it is 40 per cent, 50 per cent or 60 per cent; whatever it may be it is a big number so take your pick—it cannot achieve that without substantial action from the developed world. In fact, as the emissions trading task group sets out, if the developed world were to cut its emissions by 2050 to 50 per cent of 1990 levels and there was business as usual in the developing world we would still be way over 1990 levels in 2050. Even to keep ourselves at the existing level—that is, no increases from today—the developing world has to make a substantial cut in emissions. What is happening in the developing world? Some interesting statistics have come out from the Dutch government, which show that China’s emissions from fossil fuels have now overtaken those of the United States. They grew last year by nine per cent while the United State’s emissions were minus one per cent.

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

What about per capita?

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

That is a very good intervention from the member from Kingsford Smith. He said, ‘What about per capita?’ This again is where the Labor Party’s position on climate change fundamentally betrays Australia’s national interest. The member for Batman knows I am dead right. Because if you buy the argument that we should wait until China has the same per capita levels of emissions as Australia, emissions will be at a level not even imagined by the most dire scenarios. This of course is what I suspect the member for Kingsford Smith would like, because he cannot wait to get that hairshirt on and to suffer a bit—or at least get others to suffer. If we were to reduce our emissions to the per capita level of China’s it would devastate our economy. The fact is that the problem with Labor’s climate change policy—there are two main planks—is, firstly, the Kyoto protocol, as it stands, is a mechanism that has failed. By the way, everybody now recognises that except for the Australian Labor Party. At the G8 summit, which the member for Kingsford Smith referred to, the largest developed nations of the world endorsed a new approach and it is exactly the same approach that the Australian government has been pursuing bilaterally and multilaterally through the AP6—that is, a process of engaging the developing countries and recognising that they need to be part of the solution because we have to get global reductions. The communique said:

We recognise, however, that the efforts of developed economies will not be sufficient and that new approaches for contributions by other countries are needed.

Again, Labor do not understand that. They think they can continue with the same old failed approach because it is a sacrament. It is like putting a ‘Save the whales’ sticker on your car and not being prepared to do anything about it. It is empty symbolism, but it is very expensive symbolism.

If we as a nation were to follow Labor’s policy and commit ourselves to a very large cut in emissions by 2050 unilaterally and unequivocally—and that is what Labor proposes—then that would mean we would be putting a substantial cost on our carbon and energy intensive industries. Remember that thousands of Australian workers have jobs—many of them belonging to members of trade unions who pay for the advertising of the Labor Party—that depend on low-cost energy from coal. If we impose an additional cost on those industries which is not matched by the countries with which they compete, all that will happen is that the industries will move offshore with the emissions, so the world will be no better off, and we lose the jobs. The phenomenon of carbon leakage is a fundamental economic factor that the member for Kingsford Smith simply does not understand.

If you look at the industrial growth in China, you will see that in the last five or six years China has become the producer of nearly half the world’s cement, nearly half the world’s flat glass, 35 per cent of its steel and 30 per cent of its aluminium. What has been happening is that developed countries, particularly in Europe, have been deindustrialising, thereby reducing their emissions, and, instead of making the cement themselves and having the emissions go up into the atmosphere from their own countries, importing it from China. Now, the world is no better off. The men and women that worked in the cement plant have lost their jobs, but the world is no better off from a climate point of view because the emissions have still gone up into the air.

That failure to recognise the global reality of climate change and the dire economic consequences Labor’s policy could impose on Australia is again a reminder of how you cannot trust the Labor Party with economic management—because climate change is an enormous challenge and probably the biggest one our country faces, the world faces, at the moment.

By contrast, the government’s emissions trading task force in its report says that the targets must be set after careful economic analysis. And, while a long-term aspirational target can be set—and that will be informed in the course of the next year by the G8 discussions and the discussions that are going to happen between the 15 largest greenhouse-gas-emitting economies, including Australia and led by the United States, at the meeting in Bali—every target along that time line has to be reset and calibrated in light of the cost of technology, the economic consequences of setting it and the reactions and attitudes of other countries. In other words, meet the challenge, reduce our emissions, but do so in a way that ensures we do not indulge in a futile, self-destructive exercise in moralising, which is what the Labor Party’s policy is all about. It is all about sacrificing Australian jobs, sacrificing the Australian economy, in an effort to be pure by the member for Kingsford Smith’s lights, regardless of how poor we must become to do so.

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter of public importance: the government’s absolute failure to address the challenges that climate change poses to the Australian economy. I particularly welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the minister’s points during his 15 minutes of trying to justify this government spending the last 11 years doing nothing to seriously tackle dangerous climate change. After 11 long years of neglect, this government is now trying to play catch-up in the climate change stakes, but its efforts are transparent and clearly politically motivated.

In order to effectively tackle climate change we need three essential ingredients: acknowledgement, initiative and leadership. Sadly, this government has demonstrated time and again that it is lacking on all of these fronts. For the past 11 years, we on this side have consistently called for an earnest acknowledgement that climate change is the biggest environmental crisis that we face; comprehensive and holistic policy initiatives; and a government that is prepared to show leadership, not just to its constituents but to the world. The Howard government, over the last 11 years, has shown just how comprehensively it lacks all three of those ingredients.

By contrast, federal Labor has taken the initiative in bringing the issue of climate change into the political spotlight, and now the government is doing nothing more than playing catch-up. But I am afraid that, after 11 long years of neglect, it is simply too late for the government to pretend it is engaged with the climate change challenge.

Recently, the issue of climate change has become heavily politicised, but tackling this threat requires more than poll driven motivation: it requires honest and earnest leadership. While the government today masquerade as believers in climate change, the reality, as we all know, is that they do not accept it.

The government’s track record on climate change says it all. A report released in the first half of 2007 by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change revealed that the Howard government has known about the very real dangers of climate change and its environmental, social and economic impacts since it was elected in 1996. What an absolute disgrace it is that the Howard government has known for 11 years about the threat that climate change poses to our way of life and to the quality of life facing future generations, yet it has maintained a position of ‘climate change scepticism’—or, more accurately, climate change denial.

The government’s inaction is so evidently seen through its failure to commission economic modelling on climate change so that we can more thoroughly analyse its economic impact and the risks of inaction. In stark contrast to the government’s approach, the Leader of the Opposition and the state governments have commissioned Professor Ross Garnaut to review the economic costs of climate change inaction by reviewing its impacts and costs. The government has had 11 long years to commission such research, but once again the initiative was left to the Australian Labor Party.

The government’s assertions that nuclear power is our only answer to climate change woes is, put simply, ridiculous, as well as misleading. As the member for Kingsford Smith pointed out, even the optimists among the government who are pushing this particular policy say that it will be possible in 10 to 15 to 25 years. I say to this parliament that we do not have 10 to 15 to 25 years to get serious about addressing climate change; we must do so now. This response by the government is reckless, and it will produce a greater environmental burden than it will relieve.

The past 11 years have seen huge underinvestment in the climate change challenge and transparent rhetoric designed to polarise the debate between sceptics and radicals. The reality is that the Australian public’s concern about climate change is not a radical position; it is a mainstream one—and that is the only reason the government are now attempting to appear like they are responding to it.

Within my electorate of Adelaide, the issue of climate change is weighing heavily on the minds of the constituents that I come here to represent. One concerned constituent recently wrote to me outlining her exasperation about the sheer number of problems that climate change poses. She wrote:

Climate change is real and I am very concerned for the future of my children and all future generations. Higher temperatures, reduced rainfall, huge changes to the ecosystems on which our lives, all lives, depend, sea-level rises, alpine area decrease, Great Barrier Reef loss … the list goes on …

This is a common feeling throughout my electorate and indeed right across Australia. But, in addition to these environmental and social impacts, climate change poses a severe threat to the Australian economy. Australia’s future prosperity relies on a commitment to tackling climate change and an emissions reduction framework within which businesses and industry can work. The costs of action are real, but the costs of inaction are huge, particularly for our agricultural and tourism industries. Modelling released by both the Business Roundtable on Climate Change and the Stern report has confirmed this.

On this side of the House, Labor has committed to a reduction in greenhouse pollution of 60 per cent on 2000 levels by the year 2050 and to establishing an emissions trading scheme by 2010. It is widely recognised that both of these initiatives are required to tackle the environmental and economic threats posed by climate change.

The Business Roundtable on Climate Change, which includes leading Australian companies such as BP, Westpac and IAG, has lent its support to this initiative, expressing unequivocally that climate change poses a severe threat to business and requires immediate action. The roundtable’s research found that delays in setting a carbon price signal through an emissions trading scheme would ultimately double the cost of such a target and see the cost of electricity rise and the destruction of 250,000 jobs. Labor will uphold its longstanding commitment to significantly increase the mandatory renewable energy target and provide support for the renewable energy industry. Australia is one of the best placed countries in the world to establish a viable renewable energy industry, but some of our first-class scientists and technicians have been forced to take their research offshore, particularly in the field of solar energy research.

A holistic approach to overcoming this challenge requires policy action at an international and federal level as well as at a grassroots level. A lot of the constituents that I represent often say to me, ‘What can I do to do my bit, even if my federal government aren’t doing theirs?’ There are many Australians keen to green their homes, but they are held back by the financial constraints of taking such action. The up-front costs of greening the average family home can be significant, even though greener energy is likely to save that household money in the long term. That is why Labor has committed to providing low-interest loans of $10,000 for Australian households to implement energy and water savings and provide rebates for rooftop solar power panels. Australian households need help up front to green their homes and we on this side of the House are prepared to offer this to help the community.

Furthermore, any government serious about climate change must ratify the Kyoto protocol. The Minister for the Environment and Water Resources spoke about how we need to recognise that global warming has a global nature. We on this side of the House recognise that, and that is why we think we need a global solution. Labor would take immediate action to ratify the Kyoto protocol and further strengthen such action through diplomatic initiatives with China. Kyoto holds the best hope of tackling climate change at a global level and offers a world of opportunities that have so far been missed. Importantly, it also offers Australia the opportunity to have a seat at the table as the rules are developed for the international market beyond 2012. If every other country followed the rationale that the minister outlined in this House and said, ‘We will not act until they do,’ where on earth would we be? We would be in a position of there being absolutely no action while everyone sat back desperately waiting for someone to show leadership. It is the role of the Australian government to show leadership and act.

The Howard government has systematically failed over the past 11 years to address the challenge of climate change and to position the Australian economy for a low-carbon future. The government has failed to step up and show global leadership in tackling the climate change burden. Instead, it has undermined global initiatives by refusing to ratify the Kyoto protocol. On this side of the House, we take the threat of climate change seriously and we will address it in government with the energy and urgency it deserves. Economically, climate change poses a severe threat but also provides a number of opportunities. Morally, it is all about obligations to urgently act. We on this side of the House will tackle the challenges of climate change head-on and embrace the opportunities with open arms. (Time expired)

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

I will come to the issue of the action the federal government has taken, and that may enlighten the member for Adelaide. However, I put to you that a leopard never changes its spots, will not change its spots and cannot change its spots. I refer to the member for Kingsford Smith—a nice guy, a good bloke—who is affable and friendly and has shown himself to be highly talented inside and outside this building. However, as the member for Adelaide said, ‘given power’ will he not remember his roots? Will he not remember the previous positions he has taken on matters of the environment? Will he not remember his documented attitudes? Will he not remember the zeal he had for the environment? Will he not remember that from those positions he is currently at odds with his own party? Will he not remember those things if he ever deigns to become the minister for the environment in a new government?

I raise that because my constituents in McMillan and the constituents of Gippsland are concerned about exactly those issues: with his close relationship with the Greens and their policies, what will happen if the member for Kingsford Smith becomes the minister for the environment? People in Gippsland may not all work in a power station, but every one of them knows somebody who does. They know that they are the generations of people who have supplied the baseload power for Victoria and now for Australia. They feel threatened by the member for Kingsford Smith’s previous attitudes and his attitudes today. When you set a target you need to know the consequences of that target for the nation, for the nation builders of Gippsland and for the generations not only of the past but into the future. The Greens keep saying, ‘The dirty coal power station at Hazelwood,’ but it is the only power station at the moment that is recycling all its water out of the Hazelwood pond.

Let us start looking after and appreciating the assets that we have. The assets are those workers who are connected to the Gippsland Trades and Labour Council, and I know some of you will be listening today and if you are not listening, because you are about to do your shift, your wife, your friend, your daughter or your son will be listening. The banner holder for the Australian Labor Party is the member for Kingsford Smith, Peter Garrett. I tell you the workers shake in their shoes because they know that the Labor Party and the Greens have a mind-set to close down Hazelwood power station, put restrictions on Loy Yang and rely on the gas-fired power station that is running practically full time now because of a lack of water in the Latrobe River.

The Labor Party, under the member for Kingsford Smith, would be zealots and the workers know it and they are concerned about it. When the workers come to vote they will let the Labor Party know in no uncertain terms that they see what was their own constituency, what is their natural voting pattern, as an actual threat to their jobs, because the Labor Party has set a target without heeding the consequences of what it would mean to the power industry in Victoria, in the Hunter or at Collie in Western Australia.

These workers know and their management knows that their jobs are on the line on this issue and we have to have regard for that. This economy, as the member for Wentworth, the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, said, has to be managed. It does not just happen; it has to be managed. A major part of the growth of the economy in Australia has been the relative access to reasonably priced electricity for every household. There is a lot we can do. There is always more to do as a nation in reducing our consumption of power and resources. I am sure that not only has the government has done a lot already but it will be doing more into the future.

But I am going to support the people in the Gippsland Trades and Labour Council and they are going to know that they have somebody who is standing in this place who has recognised that their interests are important and who is not acting just for the sake of opportunistic political zealotry and just for the sake of the green votes in the cities. We have an important role to play as parliamentarians to protect our own constituency and to make sure that they have jobs and futures. You say: ‘But the minister has said climate change is a real issue. The member for Adelaide has said we need immediate action.’ Here is the immediate action. We have taken not only immediate action but past action and you have to ask: would the Labor Party have done any better? Would the Labor Party have done anything different to that which the Howard government has achieved? I put to you that the answer is no. I know, as the Prime Minister read out the other day, that we have done all of these things. Do I need to go through them again?

The Renewable Remote Power Generation Program has been established. A further $123 million was announced on 14 August last year, bringing total funding for the program to $328 million. In 1999 the Photovoltaic Rebate Program was introduced. A further $150 million was announced bringing the total funding to $202 million. In 2004 there was the energy white paper, which was so important to the seats of Gippsland and McMillan, and which was very important in giving the power industry and those who work within that industry a guide to the future. In that white paper, the government announced that $75 million had been provided for the Solar Cities trials. Adelaide was announced as the first solar city in August 2006; then Townsville, on 26 September; Blacktown, on 13 November; and Alice Springs, on 16 April 2007. In October 2006, $75 million was allocated to a large-scale solar concentrator in north-west Victoria under the $500 million low emissions technology development initiative. On 1 November 2006—the member for Adelaide might like to note—$14.5 million was allocated to solar energy projects under the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate.

The Australian government have provided industry grants of over $28 million for geothermal energy projects and recently announced the Geothermal Industry Development Framework. These grants include the following. In 2007 we gave $5 million to Petratherm Ltd to further develop its groundbreaking approach of using geothermal energy at its site in the Flinders Ranges. The government awarded $1.2 million to Proactive Energy Developments Ltd for a project that aims to develop an innovative regenerator for the production of low-cost, zero-emission electricity from geothermal reserves. In 2006 we gave $2.4 million to Geothermal Resources Ltd for a project in South Australia to map granites to assess geothermal energy potential. In 2005 the government gave $3.9 million to Scope Energy Ltd for a proof of concept project.

I can go on and on. All of these things have been so important in the climate change debate. We were already in there, we were already acting, we were already looking forwards to what we would do with these issues. While the government have been acting, all the state Labor government have done is carp about and criticise what we were doing. Geodynamics Ltd in 2002 got $6.8 million to develop a deep underground heat exchanger to harness hot, dry rock geothermal energy. In 2000 the government granted $790,000 for exploration of hot, dry rock resources in the Hunter Valley. It just does not stop. The Howard government has a proud record and this motion obviously was not sensibly based.

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the very short time remaining I want to comment on the fact that this government’s inaction when it comes to the environment has been disgraceful and that not taking any action in relation to the environment will be its legacy. I want to raise one particular issue of grave concern in my electorate and that is this government’s plan to build a dam right in the middle of the electorate, right next to the village of Tyalgum.

It really is a disgrace that the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources will not go and actually speak to the locals about their concerns. Many invitations have been issued to him, and I again invite him to come to Tyalgum and listen firsthand to people’s concerns about the devastation that this dam would cause to the rural village of Tyalgum and also about the detriment to our rivers as well. I call on the environment minister to rule out this dam near the village of Tyalgum. He needs to speak firsthand to people. He cannot keep running away from this issue. It is a major concern and it will cause major damage to our rivers, to our communities and to the town of Tyalgum.

Debate interrupted.