Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Five years ago this month I spoke on the issue historically at the core of the climate change debate that has become more important and more visible in the intervening period, and that is the issue of Australia’s participation in the Kyoto accord. Speaking of milestones, it is now a decade since the treaty was first negotiated, and Australia, under this government, remains one of the few hold-outs on this vital initial framework designed to combat climate change. Regardless of the Howard government’s climate change scepticism, it is fair to say that the climate change debate is bigger than just Kyoto and this government’s failure to ratify the protocol.

That a Rudd Labor government would immediately ratify the Kyoto protocol is not the point; Labor’s approach under the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Kingsford Smith has been decisive and clear and has demonstrated that we are willing and able to approach the problem from different angles. The first national climate change summit, held on 31 March this year, was initiated by the member for Griffith, the Leader of the Opposition. Early in his tenure as federal Labor leader, and in an election year, he made a concerted effort to bring together stakeholders concerned over the government’s inaction in failing to address climate change, with business and community groups as well as state and territory governments taking part.

The Liberals’ hollow refrain that an overlap of Labor governments is an obstacle to solving problems of national significance contrasts with Labor’s collaborative approach to addressing this key issue of climate change. A Rudd Labor government would be in a unique position to effect real results through working with state Labor governments to address common problems, rather than playing the blame game where private political polling deems it expedient, as the Prime Minister has done, as outlined in their leaked polling to that effect. Climate change was a key issue for the ALP well before it became an issue that mattered to the government—and even then only because it came up in polling. I have viewed it as a vital issue for many years and have spoken repeatedly in this House on the need for more practical and far-reaching approaches to reducing emissions than the weak stop-gap alternatives put forward by those opposite. In my electorate of Melbourne Ports, there exists a widespread concern over the failure of the government to act and, equally, a concern about how to reduce emissions while protecting the livelihoods of working families.

Labor’s long-term goal for reducing emissions is pragmatic and achievable. The 60 per cent reduction on the 2000 carbon emissions by 2050 to be made on the election of a Labor government is based on CSIRO figures on what needs to be done to avoid devastating environmental consequences. The time frame for the reduction also ensures that any hardship for Australian businesses and equally for their employees will be kept to an absolute minimum. Economic modelling undertaken by the Business Roundtable on Climate Change demonstrates that this target can be achieved alongside strong economic growth. A widely supported national emissions-trading scheme is also required to achieve this, an initiative fully supported by Labor.

Labor’s commitment to research and development of Australian renewable energy technology—over $100 million to be spent on the development of solar and geothermal energy—is part of the progressive approach that our party has adopted on all levels through the increasing use of renewable energy resources by the states. Labor’s support of research and development of clean coal technology symbolises our readiness to explore all the alternatives. We are anything but climate sceptics, unlike the current Prime Minister, who until recently identified himself as one. At the same time we are not going to put all our eggs in one basket by just going down the geothermal route. There are many other technologies that we need to consider.

The threat posed by climate change is such that there is no one way to combat it. That is why we have identified these and many other ways in which we should address this problem. The threat is far bigger than the threat of winning or losing an election. Failure to take decisive action now will impact on future generations of Australians subjected to increasing temperatures, rising sea levels and, most concerning of all for one that exports primary products, more frequent and severe droughts. As a member whose electorate is on the coast, obviously the issue of rising sea levels is of concern.

The choice is clear. A Rudd Labor government will act decisively and responsibly to protect Australians from this threat both now and in the future while those opposite continue to question whether that most obvious challenge in this area even exists. I cannot think of an issue, apart from Work Choices, which has changed the views of the Australian people about who is fit to run this country. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister identified 92 per cent of Australians who thought the government should be doing more about climate change. (Time expired)