Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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

The failure of the Government to implement effective climate and water programs

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—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Climate change is real. It is important. It is significant. But it takes substance, not symbols, in order to manage it. It takes substance, not symbols, in order to manage the water requirements as well as the climate change requirements that this country will face over the coming decade, over the coming 20 years and over the coming 30 years. The case that we want to present today is a simple one: the early signs from this government are not of competent management of climate and water but of incompetent and ineffective management of those programs necessary to make a real and sustainable difference to the way in which Australia deals with both the climate challenge and with our water supplies. I want to make this case, along with my colleagues the member for Calare and the member for Murray, in three stages: the domestic climate change policies, the international climate change policies and the rural water policies.

Underpinning all of this is the concept of competence. Let me start in relation to the issue of competence with a recent decision of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. The minister was called upon under the EPBC to decide whether or not to allow dredging of Port Phillip Bay. He had to make whatever decision he had to make, and that included a decision regarding the two million tonnes of toxic sediment containing zinc, cadmium, lead, arsenic and up to 270 trace elements, which will now be dumped into the middle of Port Phillip Bay. But there was a slight issue. In making his decision for Port Phillip Bay, his reasons referred to Western Port Bay. This is a minister who made one of the biggest environmental decisions in Australian history for the wrong bay. I just want to repeat that: he made it for the wrong bay! Did he know the right bay? No. Did he consult with the community? No. Is he competent? No.

That is the base of and the way in which we are looking at this sort of issue. What we see is a dangerous practice of incompetence and ineffective programs. Let me turn to the first of these areas, which is the notion of domestic failure in terms of the climate change programs which they are seeking to bring forward. We put forward a very interesting proposal called the Green Vouchers for Schools program. What we see today with that Green Vouchers for Schools program is, in a word, chaos under the new government. First, it was axed. Second, it was placed on hold. Third—and I note this from the website in the last couple of days—our program, which was initially axed and then placed on hold, has suddenly and mysteriously been reinstated. Why is that?

We see that the new program which the government put in place to supersede it is late. The website says 1 July, maybe. It is inflexible. There were originally no projects over $30,000; whereas we had a $50,000 limit. I noticed, again on the website today, that it appears—but we do not know—that they have changed their cap to agree with ours to give schools precisely the flexibility which we had given them, but they have done this without even the slightest acknowledgement of the mistake which they made, the way in which we warned them of it and the change that they have made in response to the very problem we identified in the Age on 2 January this year.

More than this, schools seeking to decrease greenhouse gas emissions today are trapped. That is because, at this point in time, the very program which the government said would succeed is not in place. The current program, which they axed, then put on hold and reinstated, is in the minister’s own website accompanied by the words ‘you may wish to reconsider’. Their program promised 27,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas savings a year. At present, how many are we receiving from the work that they have done? None. Zero. Nothing. Not one tonne, precisely because they have put on hold and failed to administer a simple program which was effective, which was wanted, which was appreciated and which they will now spend a significant amount just rebranding. I would be fascinated if the minister could provide the figures to the House of what the cost of that rebranding exercise will be.

So we see, firstly, that this greenhouse gas program, Green Vouchers for Schools, has been axed, put on hold and now reinstated, but the government are discouraging schools from taking it up whilst providing no way forward. On the other front, the Community Water Grants program, from which members on all sides will have seen tremendous results in their electorates, is on ice, on hold, with no date for a new round of Community Water Grants, no date by which community groups, schools, councils or those wishing to avail themselves of the opportunity to save water, to improve riverbanks, to improve watercourses or to work on pollution can do so. All around Australia, community groups are throwing up their hands. We have had the query: when will this happen? Unfortunately, we have to refer the questions to the office of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts or the Minister for Climate Change and Water, and to date there is no news and no sign, just a pattern of maladministration. We have a pattern of maladministration which does not befit officeholders under the Crown.

I turn, secondly, to the biggest area of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia: the question of emissions from power stations. We see a fascinating thing. We set out prior to the last election the need for a clean energy target. The reason we set out a clean energy target is that we believe that we have to go beyond renewables only. Renewables are important, but, unless you have incentives for cleaning up the 75 per cent of coal and gas electricity which is part and parcel of Australia’s makeup, you will never deal effectively with the great challenge of greenhouse in this world. We will see in India and China 800 new one-gigawatt coal fired power stations over the coming five years. Yet we see that they have turned their backs on the need for clean energy which cleans up the power stations.

Do not take my word. Who has put out a report on this? In December last year, after the election, the CFMEU put out a report called Carbon capture and storage: making it happen. What was its conclusion? Its conclusion, at page 15, was fundamental. The CFMEU—great friends of the coalition—said exactly what we have been saying: if you want to make a difference to greenhouse gases in Australia, you have to provide an incentive for adoption of clean coal technology and, if you want to do that, you have to have a clean energy target.

The government have turned their backs on cleaning up the coal and gas fired power stations of Australia. There is no adoption incentive. They will use this idea of technology development, but I can tell you, Minister, that, for as long as we are here, unless you provide an adoption incentive it will not happen. That is the simple answer. My prediction before this House today is that by the end of this term the government will have buckled and agreed with us on the need for a clean energy target. I go so far as to put on the record my prediction that by May 2009, in the budget that comes down then, there will be the adoption of some form of clean energy target so as to encourage clean coal and gas and the cleaning up of our power stations. You can have two choices here: either you clean up the power stations or you do not clean up the power stations.

Our approach is very simple. We are source blind. Everything needs to be cleaned up. But, because of an ideological disposition that the government took to the electorate, they have turned their back on the single biggest challenge facing the world and the single biggest challenge facing Australia in terms of clean emissions and clean energy, and that is cleaning up the power stations, both coal and gas, as well as generating new, clean, renewables. Solar, wind, hydro and geothermal—we support all of those, but unless you have a clean energy target you will never solve the great global challenge.

This brings me onto another issue—that is, the question of international policy. We see here a pattern of silence. Yes, the government will point out one of the symbolic gestures that they have made, and good luck to them, but much more important is this: we see a silence about those countries of the world which, unlike Australia, are not meeting their targets. Of all the developed countries, Australia is one of the few countries to be meeting its international targets, and that is because we put $3.4 billion down into effective greenhouse gas reduction programs over the last decade. The problem is real. The solutions were real. The effect was real. But what we see overseas and from this government, which is hurting our capacity to have an impact internationally, is silence about those countries that are failing to meet their obligations.

Canada is plus 22 per cent on its international greenhouse targets, but have we heard anything from the government about that? No. France is plus nine per cent on its international targets, but have we heard anything from the government about that failure? No. Japan is plus 12 per cent on its international targets. Have we heard anything about that failure? No. Norway is plus 22 per cent on its international targets, but have we heard anything about that failure? No. Spain, for example, is 36 per cent over and above its international commitments, but have we heard anything? No. The government’s pattern is very simple: apologise for Australia being one of the very few countries in the world which is actually meeting its targets and say nothing about those countries which are actually breaching that which they have pledged.

It is very important that we set down $3.4 billion worth of funds to produce real emissions savings. We have achieved real emissions savings of about 87 million tonnes a year. That is real. That is practical. One thing that we know about the atmosphere is the tonnes of CO and parts per million of CO or equivalent gases that are in the air. Yet we see a failure to speak up internationally about the real challenge and the failure of other countries to meet their obligations. It is fine to criticise Australia for not pledging to do what we already did in any event. But will you say something about those countries which I have outlined and the many others that have failed to do that which they have agreed internationally?

The second great failure internationally—and this is important—is a silence on the destruction of the rainforests of the world. The former Minister for Foreign Affairs and the former Minister for the Environment and Water Resources set out a very important initiative: the Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. There was a reason for that. That was because of a perverse incentive under the international regime: rainforests are being cleared for palm oil. This is the very regime which needs to be rectified in order to overcome that. As a result, what the previous government did was to lay down $200 million for a Global Initiative on Forests and Climate. Twenty per cent of the world’s greenhouse emissions come from rainforest destruction, and it is the single area which over the next five years can be most quickly turned around and most quickly addressed. Yet we see—in part I think because it was one of the great issues which we championed—a silence on this issue of immediate international action. There is a great opportunity—at the lowest cost and with the highest ecological benefit—for action today. They went to Bali and they said virtually nothing about protecting the great rainforests. They said nothing about our proposal for a global rainforest recovery plan. If you want to have an impact, as the McKinsey report showed only on Friday of last week, you turn to what you can do to capture carbon through natural systems and to prevent its release into the atmosphere.

All of these things—what schools can do as consumers, what power stations can do in order to reduce emissions and what we can do through the natural environment—are fundamental to this question of how we implement real, effective and important greenhouse plans. It is real, it is significant and it is fundamental. But if you engage in symbols alone and if you fail to administer your portfolio properly then what we see is a failure of government to do the real work.

Who on that side of the House will justify the closure of the Green Vouchers for Schools program? Is that acceptable? Are there people over there who have received complaints from schools that they could not access this program whilst it was put on ice and the alternative program to succeed it was put off into the never-never? Ultimately the position is very clear. We are concerned and we raise this as a matter of public importance because the issue is important and what we see is a failure to properly administer the charge of government and a failure to deliver effective programs. We see it in the declaration of the wrong bay, for one of the most important environmental decisions that the government will face. We see it in the failure to administer the green schools program. We see it in the failure to develop a proper alternative for a pathway to clean coal and clean gas. And we see it in the silence about what is necessary at the international level if we are to achieve real, sustainable and important emissions reductions over the coming 10, 20 and 30 years further on. (Time expired)

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

I thank the member for bringing this matter into the House so that we can debate it. The member has an interesting challenge. He somehow has to white out 11 years of inaction, denial and obfuscation by the previous Howard government, which failed to take climate change seriously. So what he is really doing in the House is repositioning himself. He is showing, as the opposition spokesman on these matters, that he is aware of the seriousness of those issues. I do commend that, because members opposite—including this member—had to labour for years and years under the burden of a government for which it was only symbols. The member comes in here and accuses this party of being a party preferring symbols over substance. And yet they were led by a leader who for 11 years refused on a symbolic basis not to ratify the Kyoto protocol.

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

Well, that is what it was all about. That is what the debate was about when we were in the House. The Prime Minister did not want to talk about Kyoto even though it was his view—and it was the view of the government at the time—that they were putting in place matters of substance. If ever there was an example of symbolism over substance it was the position that you held on not ratifying the Kyoto protocol. It is now in the history books. It is a matter of record in this House. And you have tried to distance yourself from it in this MPI—perhaps not satisfactorily.

Let us look at the agenda that the Rudd Labor government has brought forward and let us determine whether it is an agenda of substance or not. But before we do that let us just raise answers to a couple of questions that the member brought into the House. The member for Flinders says that the reasons named in the statement for Port Phillip Bay were inaccurate. In fact, that is not the case at all. In fact, the reasons named in the statement have been subject to a court challenge. The court has found that the statements had validity. Additionally, I will remind the member, if he wants to raise the issue of Port Phillip Bay, that it was the position, as I understood it, of the opposition to support the Victorian approvals process and the independent experts group that was in the process of endorsing that. Now, if that is not your position any longer, bring it back in to us.

The member for Flinders came into the House to talk about green vouchers. I am really glad that the member came in to talk about green vouchers because I can assure the members and public listening that this government takes very seriously both the commitment it has made in respect of the National Solar Schools Program and, particularly, the investment of an extra $153 million to allow schools to choose the most effective way to meet their energy and water requirements. At the beginning of this month I put in place transition arrangements for the government’s $489 million Solar Schools Program. From 1 July this year, every school in Australia will be eligible to apply for grants of up to $50,000 to install two-kilowatt solar panels, a range of energy efficient measures, lighting upgrades, skylights and shade awnings, in addition to rainwater tanks and solar hot water systems. That commitment by the Rudd Labor government will enable schools to choose a flexible mix of measures that they determine in their circumstances are appropriate for them to meet the greenhouse challenge.

That was the problem with the former government’s plan. The former government’s policy was an interesting one. Unfortunately, you could only have solar hot water systems in one aspect of it and water tanks in another. Under the Rudd Labor government’s plan, you will actually have the flexibility to determine the kinds of measures you want to put in place in your schools. If members opposite are wondering why it is that we have not seen a rush of schools taking up the green vouchers—which they are still entitled to do at this point in time—it is because schools are smart enough to realise that the policy that we offered is superior to the one they brought to the last election.

The member for Flinders spoke about the clean energy target. I remind the House that, under the Howard government, Australia not only did not have a position to take to the international community in terms of ratifying the Kyoto protocol but did not have a mandatory renewable energy target at all. In fact, I remember asking a question in the House—I think it might have been the first question that I put to the then Minister for the Environment and Heritage, who is now the shadow Treasurer. The question was a simple one: will the government support a mandatory renewable energy target? The answer was never given. The fact of the matter is that, by having a mandatory renewable energy target, we will enable Australian industries and Australian communities to have a specific target that they can head towards to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Other countries have them. The member for Flinders asks why we are not talking about greenhouse gas emissions in other countries. Why aren’t they talking about mandatory renewable energy targets in other countries? Because they have them. Why shouldn’t Australia have one? The reason Australia did not have one was the same reason we did not ratify the Kyoto protocol. It was the same reason we, as a nation, did not set a target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. One of the most basic and necessary tasks of any government is to set a target. It is a task those on the other side, led by Prime Minister Howard, failed to do.

Why was that? The answer is a very simple one. The Liberal Party did not have a conviction that a national government should take resolute action on climate change. They did not have a conviction that we in this parliament should bring forward policies to deal with addressing dangerous climate change. That is what a mandatory renewable energy target is. It is not symbolic. It is a policy of substance. Setting a target of a 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050 on 2000 levels is a policy. Professor Ross Garnaut was commissioned to consider least-cost paths and matters determined by the state premiers and the Leader of the Opposition at the time—because the government had never done it—and to better inform governments as to how to reduce emissions in a low-cost way to ensure that we have a sustainable economy. Those on the other side of the House, when they were in government, never did it.

In fact, the Liberal Party and the Howard government were so disinterested in addressing climate change seriously that when the states finally got together to determine what a national emissions trading scheme would look like—it was called the National Emissions Trading Taskforce—the Commonwealth did not participate. When the Commonwealth realised very late in the day that climate change was an issue that counted to Australians and that they wanted to do something about it, it was far too late. Notwithstanding the efforts of the former minister for the environment, who went into the cabinet and suggested at the eleventh hour, ‘Wait a minute, maybe we should ratify Kyoto,’ it was too late. It was all over red rover. The symbolism of hanging on to an unwillingness to ratify Kyoto was stronger for the former government than any positive sign they could show the world community that this country knew how to take climate change seriously.

The member for Flinders came in here and said, ‘We don’t hear you speaking internationally.’ He must be joking. He was in Bali when the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Penny Wong, and I went to Bali. Australia was given a standing ovation in the halls at Bali as a consequence of our ratification. It was not that the world was not listening. The world could not believe that for 11 years Australia had been led by a government that was not willing to ratify the Kyoto protocol. It is as simple as that. To say that we are not speaking in international fora is to deny the absolute facts. We have ratified the protocol. It was the first step of the Rudd Labor government. It was a proud step, which was supported by the majority of Australians and countries right around the world.

I was asked by the member for Flinders about rainforests and what we are saying and doing about it. I want to take the comments that the member made and say that I think rainforests are an important issue. There is no question about it. In the policy repertoire of the former government, rainforests were all they had. Rainforests were in effect their fig leaf—if you will excuse a rather lame analogy. Unwilling to ratify the Kyoto protocol, unwilling to allow businesses access to the market that was generated by the protocol and the clean development mechanism, they trumpeted and talked about rainforests. Rainforests are important, particularly the impact that clearing rainforests for palm oil production will have both on the biodiversity of rainforests and on the greenhouse gas emissions that the planet has got to bear. It is an important issue. It is one that we will look at and consider seriously. We take the environment very seriously. We take climate change very seriously. That is why we have a commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That is why we have a commitment to adapt to the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid. That is why we have a commitment to work in international fora. The Minister for Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, will be going to meetings of the parties, will be going into international fora, to take a position that the Australian government is consistently putting about the need to act nationally.

In the past, in this House—and I think this will shock some new members on this side—members opposite participating in debates on climate change have denied its scientific validity. We had debates in the House from members opposite where they said there was no connection between climate change and drought. They expressed great concern for the farmers of this country and the serious impact that the current drought was having—and we have a genuine concern and awareness of the impact that the drought can have—but who was going to get up here and argue on the basis of symbolism that climate change, already identified as increasing the temperatures in southern Australia over the next decades, did not count and had nothing whatsoever to do with droughts now or in the future? I can tell you who was going to do it: it was the former Leader of the National Party. He got up here and said it and he said it publicly. That is symbolism over substance of the very worst kind. Captive to a narrow ideology and unwilling to accept the validity and the basis of science as delivered by the IPCC and Nobel Prize award winner, former Vice-President, Al Gore, whose contribution was called, by a former government minister in this House, ‘an entertainment’—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

That is the language that was used: ‘an entertainment’. The IPCC examination, the most extensive examination by the scientific community of the likely impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on our planet and on the climate in terms of warming, was dismissed—it meant nothing.

There has been talk about symbolism and substance. The opportunity to provide substance comes when the Treasurer has to get up and present a budget. But in all but one of the past Treasurer’s budgets, climate change was never mentioned. When former environment ministers went to international fora to talk about climate change, they dared not say the word ‘Kyoto’. That was symbolism over substance. When we look at the task that the nation has to put us on an even and sure footing so that we can manage the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and at the same time build a sustainable economy, we see that the former government went missing in action. The cry from business leaders, trade unions, communities, farmers and schools right around Australia was: ‘Will someone wake up this government to do something about climate change?’ On election day that is what Australians did. As well as being a clear expression of the will of the Australian people about the Work Choices legislation, the election in 2007 was a clear expression of the will of the people about the importance of taking a nationally strong position on climate change—something the Liberal Party and the former Howard government never did.

Let me conclude by saying that it is our intention to drive a clean energy revolutionary with policies such as the establishment of a $500 million renewable energy fund, an energy innovation fund and the national clean coal initiative. We want to help Australian families green their homes with policies like green loans, a one-stop green shop and rebates for energy-efficient rental homes. We want to bring cleaner transport through with measures like the green car innovation fund and the green car challenge. They are matters of substance. They are the policy matters that we should be debating in this House, but instead the member for Flinders comes in here and attempts to skate over a past which cannot be ignored or escaped from and throws some flamboyant and erratic language around in an attempt to marshal a debate.

We have reached the stage in our national life where we need seriousness on this issue, not frivolity. We need to take the issues that we are debating right up to one another. I absolutely welcome that. We need to go out to communities and provide them with opportunities, as we have done for the people of Coober Pedy. They will have the opportunity to have the largest solar power station in Australia—erected in remote Australia. The people in Coober Pedy and others in remote Australia who may be listening know that they have issues. They are reliant on diesel, but they have a lot of sunlight—and we have the technology and the expertise. For 11 years this issue stayed in the too-hard basket for the previous government. The Rudd Labor government is fully committed to climate change solutions and matters of substance that mean a lot to the Australian people.

John Cobb (Calare, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to bring the attention of the House to the fact that, after three months in government, the new government has pretty much ignored what is for Australia one of the biggest issues it has, and that is the state of the Murray-Darling Basin and its water and the fact that Australia gets over 40 per cent of its food product from the people of that region. And this is a government that, on 25 January 2006, when in opposition, backed then Prime Minister John Howard and our government when we launched the National Water Initiative.

In the last three months, the only way in which this government has acknowledged the issue of water and the problems associated with the Murray-Darling Basin has been to cut $50 million from that program. Some of it was money that could not be spent this financial year, which is fine—it was about setting up the Murray-Darling Basin Authority—and some of it was money to set up a structure within the Bureau of Meteorology to monitor what happens with water in Australia as part of that initiative. But if you have a look at the forward projections, you see that that money has not been put back.

It is very good to see some new members of the new government here today, because in the next 10 minutes they will learn more about water than any of their senior executive know about it. The fact is that, in all the time that Labor has been in government—three months—not once has the Minister for Climate Change and Water allowed anyone from the irrigation industry to see her or her staff. In fact, the government has been deadly silent on this issue and the National Water Initiative, which was backed by the Labor Party at the time it was launched. The people in the Murray-Darling Basin still do not know one thing about how this government is going to proceed with it. Is the restructuring money going to be put in? Is the money to create efficiencies in the transfer of water in the Murray-Darling Basin going to go ahead? Is the money to create efficiencies on farms going to go ahead? There has not been one word.

The issue of Victoria is very interesting in this. For a government who have said that they are getting rid of the blame game, that they are going to work with state governments, that they are all kindred spirits of a socialist bent and that they are going to sort it out, why have they not already got Victoria signed up? They will say that they had a meeting with Premier Brumby on the water issue. I could not believe it when the person who said that Victoria wanted nothing to do with a national water plan—that it did not want to do it—then said that he had always believed in a national water plan. That is quite unbelievable.

The failure of state Labor governments right around Australia to ever pay for what they have taken from irrigators is a path that this new federal government, it would seem, is going to follow. If you listen to one of the new members of the new government—the member for Maribyrnong, a former heavy, and probably still very much a heavy, in the union movement—it would seem his idea is that the government should compulsorily acquire water from irrigators and shut down the rice and cotton industries because they are using water. This is about ignorance. The fact is that the cotton industry is, by and large, an extremely efficient user of water. If you know something about it, you realise efficiency is the issue, not what is grown. The cotton industry, like other industries which are horticultural, uses around eight megalitres of water per hectare per crop. That is what they need to concentrate on, not what is growing. In the past some people have simply not liked an industry.

All the states have worked under the national competition policy. New South Wales, in particular, and Victoria have in the past taken water from irrigators despite taking federal money under the national competition policy, and they have never given any of it back. The new government has to learn that the National Plan for Water Security acted like it did because of production and food prices and helping industry help itself. A small part of the $10 billion was to buy water, some of it was for restructuring but most of it—almost $6 billion—was there to help industry become more efficient and to help water transfer become more efficient. That has to happen.

The Leader of the House said that that money simply had to be spent on buying water, not on creating efficiency and getting water back that way. He simply wants to buy water. We have a mixture of the member for Maribyrnong wanting to compulsorily acquire water from irrigators, and the former shadow minister for water and the present Leader of the House wanting to do nothing but buy water. They have to understand that it was no accident that the National Plan for Water Security was put there like it was. If you simply take water, you are going to cut production. If you simply take water from people when they are at their most vulnerable, physically, financially and mentally—and we are talking about irrigators and farmers who have gone through six years of drought—then probably some of them will sell water, but they will regret it as soon as things get better. It is taking advantage of people when they are at their most vulnerable.

The government have to accept that they are totally ignorant about water and the effect of taking it away. They will cut production. What happens when you cut production from an area as important as this? Up go food prices. If you put up food prices then the Treasurer, who is having so much trouble grasping the subject, will realise that suddenly up goes inflation, and it has a bad effect on the economy. The things that have to be learnt have to be learnt by going and talking to the people involved with them. Do not do what the government in Victoria are doing. They are stealing water, which is going to have the same long-term effect as what the member for Maribyrnong and the current Leader of the House want to do in taking water without making efficiencies.

The Victorian government are focused on pinching water out of the basin and giving it to Melbourne. They want to take over 100 gigalitres of water a year—and I am sure the member for Murray will touch on this—but over twice that is currently being put into the sea from Melbourne as waste water. Why don’t they concentrate on that? But no, they cannot get it around their heads that by flogging water out of the basin and taking it to Melbourne they are creating greater pressures on the Murray-Darling Basin.

We all know that water is under more pressure than it has ever been. Look at the storages. Both the Dartmouth and the Hume reservoirs—the two biggest reservoirs—are under 20 per cent still, and it is not looking good at the moment despite the rain. The rain has not been in the catchment, and that is something you can tell your leaders. Look at the facts, the figures and what is happening and, for heaven’s sake, go out there and tell the people in the towns, not just the farmers or the irrigators who are so dependent upon this system. Ask people in Adelaide what they think about the need for water in the Murray River and I think you will find that they are pretty interested in it.

When you have the minister for water and even her staff refusing to talk to the people most concerned with what happens to the irrigation industry, it is a worry. That she has not given any indication of where she wants to go in the future is a worry, because if they take that water without letting people make efficiencies on farm infrastructure or whatever it might be then they are going to create higher food prices, more inflation and a bad effect on the economy, as I said before. Our plan was going to help the irrigation industry, make savings, help their production, increase their efficiency and, at the same time, look after the nation.

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is entertaining to hear a member of the National Party bemoan the current state of the Murray-Darling Basin. It is precisely on the watch of members opposite that the Murray-Darling Basin has been trashed. It is precisely as a result of the policies that you have pursued that the Murray-Darling has deteriorated to its present sorry state. The National Party, right throughout, has been running interference on the measures needed to generate environmental flows and to protect the Murray-Darling Basin, and the member for Calare continued to run interference this afternoon on the measures needed to save the Murray-Darling Basin. As a result, we find the Murray-Darling Basin afflicted by rising levels of salinity, algal blooms, the loss of river red gum species, the loss of waterbirds and a Murray mouth which requires dredging in order to keep the mouth open—in other words, it is a river system which is on life support. The honourable member has the gall to refer to the quality of drinking water for the city of Adelaide. It is Adelaide which has suffered as a result of the policies and neglect of the Howard government, yet the member for Calare has the gall to come in here and say that we ought to do more about the Murray-Darling Basin. It is members opposite who have run interference on all measures needed to protect the health of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Members opposite and members of the National Party have sat on their hands while the Murray-Darling and the rest of this country have suffered from the effects of climate change. I draw to the attention of the House the figures from the two-year period to November 2007, which recorded the lowest ever inflow to the Murray River. Inflows during this period were 43 per cent lower than the previous record low, which occurred at the end of 1938. The CSIRO estimates that, if these sorts of trends continue, by 2030 the Ovens River will have a 27 per cent reduction, the Gwydir River a 10 per cent reduction and the Wimmera River a 50 per cent reduction. This will be catastrophic for the Murray-Darling Basin, yet members opposite sat on their hands over the course of 10 years and were completely inactive, completely passive, on the issue of climate change.

When I saw this MPI topic—‘The failure of the government to implement effective climate and water programs’—I was amused. I thought there must have been a typo. Surely the resolution would have made sense if it read, ‘The failure of the Howard government to implement effective climate and water programs’. It is truly remarkable to hear the member for Flinders, having been in this place for the best part of a decade of shameful inaction, spouting the need for effective climate and water programs. Talk about a road to Damascus conversion. What a difference an election makes!

The Australian people might well wonder just when the Liberal and National parties were going to implement effective climate and water programs—it did not happen in year 1, year 2, year 3, year 4, year 5, year 6 or year 7, and it did not happen in years 8, 9, 10 or 11. So we can suppose that it was going to happen in year 12—that they had a year 12 agenda to do something about climate change and water. The member for Flinders asks the nation to take seriously his claim that the Liberal Party would have tackled global warming if only it had been re-elected for its 12th year.

There are three issues that are litmus tests for whether you are serious about tackling global warming, whether it is just posturing or whether it is a fraud. The first test is this: global warming is an international problem. Carbon is no respecter of national boundaries so, if we are going to tackle it, we have to tackle it through collective international endeavour. The forum for that is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and, in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Astonishingly, the previous government, having negotiated a good deal for Australia back in 1997, ratted on the deal, refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol and proceeded to go around doing everything it could to scuttle and undermine collective international endeavours to tackle climate change. At a time when the science was becoming increasingly clear, and the need for action ever more urgent, the previous government were not merely sitting on their hands but doing everything they could to undermine collective international action. They were living in some kind of bizarre fantasy world in which Australia was located on a planet other than Earth, where we were immune from the effects of global warming. Nothing could more dramatically demonstrate the fact that they are the party of the past and we are the party of the future than the first action of the incoming Labor government: the ratification of the Kyoto protocol on climate change. We showed that we are part of the international solution, whereas those opposite are part of the problem.

The second test of whether you are fair dinkum about climate change is to put a price on carbon. Unfortunately we have gone through a period where we have treated the earth as a business in liquidation. We have not put a value on a healthy and functioning atmosphere. The level of carbon has risen from 280 parts per million in pre-industrial times to 380 parts per million as at 2005. It is expected to rise to 500, 600, even 700 parts per million, with potentially catastrophic consequences. Scientists tell us that we need to contain the carbon levels and, in order to do that, we need to put a price on carbon. Labor have committed to doing that. We have committed to the introduction of an emissions trading regime. Those opposite said, ‘Oh yes, we have committed to an emissions trading regime as well.’ They did it last year—another eleventh-hour road to Damascus conversion—but if you are going to have an emissions trading regime, it has to be built around a target. It cannot be fair dinkum unless there is a target. Labor committed to reducing our carbon emissions by 60 per cent, from year 2000 levels, by the year 2050. We put in place a target.

Those opposite did not put in place a target, and they still have not put in place a target. This is just nonsense. If you went to the election and said, ‘We’re going to change the school funding system and we’ll give you the detail after the election,’ there would be outrage and there would be uproar. Or if you said, ‘We’re going to change the private health insurance arrangements; we’ll give you the details after the election,’ there would be uproar, and so there should be. But those opposite attempted to perpetrate a fraud on the Australian people, going to the election without nominating any target for carbon reductions into the future. Until the member for Flinders nominates a target he cannot and will not be taken seriously by the Australian people so far as his bona fides on climate change are concerned.

The third area in which you can tell whether somebody is serious and fair dinkum about climate change is renewable energy. The previous government had a renewable energy target, but it was so ineffectual that the proportion of renewable energy actually declined during their period in office. By contrast, we have set for ourselves a target of 20 per cent renewable energy by the year 2020—a challenging target, but one which is necessary and one which will benefit the Australian economy, because there are jobs in renewable energy and there is regional development in renewable energy. Those opposite failed to set a target. They ran interference on wind farms. They said, ‘We’ll block the south Gippsland wind farm at Bald Hills because it might endanger the orange-bellied parrot,’ even though one had not been sighted in the area for 50 years. That was the kind of interference that they ran on wind energy.

At least the member for Flinders and the Leader of the Opposition have been out there trying; the rest of them are busy playing the blame game about who lost the 2007 election. There they are; they are trying. They are a dynamic duo—Batman and Robin—but I suspect they will be unsuccessful. There are too many sceptics on that side, too many doubters, for them to produce the serious policies which are needed to tackle the major challenge which Australia and the rest of the world faces in relation to global warming and which the Labor government is committed to tackling. (Time expired)

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Heritage, the Arts and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to say that a matter of extreme public importance is the fact that we have the failure of this government to implement effective climate and water programs. In the budget address-in-reply last year Mr Rudd, in what was one of his first major speeches as Leader of the Opposition, very tentatively said, ‘Well, yes, we need to deal with the challenge of climate change and the water crisis before the costs of inaction become too great.’ Now we are looking for the Rudd government action. There have been a few months of Rudd government now. We had a lot of expectations built during the campaign that this government would be serious about climate change and water. What has it done? Very simply, it has signed Kyoto—a very easy thing to do.

In government, we the coalition led the climate change umbrella group with the minister of the day, Robert Hill. We introduced as an issue carbon sequestration through vegetation into the whole Kyoto debate. We also, as leader of the umbrella group, tried very hard to bring in the developing nations to the whole Kyoto agreement arena, knowing that, no matter what the developed nations did, their efforts would be completely subsumed by the emissions from the developing nations over a very short period of time. We knew it would have been dead easy simply to sign Kyoto and look as if we were serious. We knew it was much more important to use our weight to change our own domestic economy. We had a coal dependent energy driven economy that we had to manage very carefully while bringing ourselves to achieve the Kyoto target. We made the point in the international community that Kyoto was not good enough without the developing nations. That is what we did, and we achieved international acclaim for that stand.

We introduced the first Greenhouse Office, for example—the first in the world funded with over $1 billion. We made, as you are aware, such a careful response that our economy continued to thrive. We had employment grow through that time. We had new industries come to this country and invest with security, knowing that the hands on the wheel were steady. They knew that we understood climate change but would balance it with the needs of the economy. We also, during our period of office, funded the largest and most significant natural resource management program this nation had ever seen. It was called the Natural Heritage Trust. We also, several years later, introduced the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, the NAP.

As we speak, there are about 15 regional catchment management authorities staring down insolvency and having to sack many workers because this government has refused to say anything at all about the future funding of the Natural Heritage Trust. Come on; it cannot be that hard. We had a multibillion-dollar program that was right throughout Australia. We know that it did enormous good in terms of biodiversity protection and water quality protection. Minister Garrett, you cannot organise yourself to tell the Australians who delivered this program on our behalf what you are going to do with it. These catchment management authorities, who delivered this program on behalf of us and our state colleagues, are, as I said, staring down insolvency. Read about it in the ANAO report just delivered. They are having to sack their workers, presumably because the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts has not got around to thinking about it. Or perhaps he just does not understand.

Let me say, too, that we introduced the National Water Initiative. It has been referred to by my colleague the member for Calare. We understood the failure of Federation, where we had four state governments, a territory government and the Commonwealth presiding over a dog’s breakfast of different water laws, different water allocation systems, different property rights—all of them in there—trying to manage one ecosystem. Successive Labor governments at the federal level had never tackled this Murray-Darling Basin problem, and the wall-to-wall state Labor governments in the basin have continued to use that basin in a profligate way, not dealing with the overallocations, not dealing with our National Water Initiative in a proper way when we put it on the table. In particular, the government of Victoria said, ‘It’s a good idea, but we’re not signing up.’ Mr Rudd, I have to give him credit, did say—

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will refer to the Prime Minister by his title.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Heritage, the Arts and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I beg your pardon. Mr Rudd, the Prime Minister, did announce in his budget address-in-reply speech that he would build bipartisan support for a national consensus around this Murray-Darling Basin initiative. He has failed. (Time expired)

Jennie George (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to complete this debate on the MPI by restating the words that were used by the shadow minister for climate change, environment and urban water in introducing the debate today. He said:

Climate change is real. It is important. It is significant. But it takes substance, not symbols …

On this side of the House I think we can all agree with the sentiments expressed by the shadow minister, but the great tragedy for our nation and the great tragedy for the international community is that over 11 long years those sentiments were never translated into any decisive action on the part of the Howard government. The last speaker really should reflect on the fact that this is the first week of the 42nd Parliament, the first week of the Rudd Labor government in power. I would argue, and I think the Australian community accepts, that the Labor Party and the Labor government are doing a lot more in terms of practical policies and proposals to address an issue that is of great concern to the whole community. I have no doubt that the environment and the dangerous impact of climate change were very high on the list of issues that saw the defeat of the Howard government and the election of the Rudd Labor government. That and Work Choices were the decisive issues that swung a lot of people out there in the community behind a very clearly articulated program and policy approach by the Rudd Labor team.

I might say, for the new members present in the chamber, that it is really hard to contemplate but there are still members on the opposition benches who are sceptical about the science of climate change. I am delighted to see my new colleague the member for Lindsay in the chamber. The former member for Lindsay was one of the very notable people contributing to a minority report on a House of Representatives committee inquiry last year, together with the member for Tangney and others, who, even as late as late last year, doubted the science behind climate change and global warming. I think the opposition has a lot to answer for. It is a pity that the new shadow minister for the environment, who I think is genuinely quite sympathetic to the issues of climate change and global warming, was not in cabinet to convince the sceptics on the then government benches about the importance of this issue.

The TV program last night was really fascinating. One of the fascinating points that came across was the rather belated acknowledgement by the former Treasurer that in hindsight, yes, the government should have ratified Kyoto. ‘In hindsight, yes,’ he said, ‘we should have ratified Kyoto and we should have done it a lot earlier.’ But the truth of the matter is that they did not. They had 11 long years to really get their act together on an issue of substantial global challenge and they failed the task. It is not surprising that they failed. They had a senior industry minister saying to Laurie Oakes on the Sunday program:

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

Really, for a senior minister to profess to scepticism on this issue beggars belief. When Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth was shown—and I think it was a very important consciousness-raising exercise—the same minister said of that really important documentary that it was ‘just entertainment’. The truth is that the people who were then on the government benches were well behind community opinion. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming, in the dying days of the Howard government, to acknowledge the importance of this issue. They have got a hide now to come into the chamber to try to castigate a government that is sitting in its first week. Within days of our election to office, the first official act of the new Rudd Labor government was the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. That was important because, for the first time, Australia had a seat at the table when it had previously been missing in action.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The honourable member will resume her seat, as the time for discussion has concluded.