Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, on this World Environment Day, what measures are the Australian government taking to engage with the global community on climate change?

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Climate change is a challenge for the globe, for our region and for our domestic policy settings in Australia. In fact, if we look at the IPCC report and its projections in relation to Australia on climate change, we see it states the following with high confidence:

By 2020, significant loss of biodiversity is projected to occur in some ecologically rich sites, including the Great Barrier Reef and Queensland Wet Tropics. By 2030, water security problems are projected to intensify in southern and eastern Australia ... By 2030, production from agriculture and forestry is projected to decline over much of southern and eastern Australia ... By 2050, ongoing coastal development and population growth in some areas of Australia ... are projected to exacerbate risks from sea level rise and increases in the severity and frequency of storms and coastal flooding.

All reasonable members of this House would conclude that that represents a stark set of warnings for the nation’s future. Those opposite do not believe in planning for the future; they seem to think that that is something exotic. From their 12 years of inertia, we understand why.

This government believes in planning for the future. When you receive this sort of stark warning from the IPCC, a responsible government has no recourse but to act. That is why we have embarked upon an approach based on three pillars: one, reducing carbon emissions; two, adaptation; and three, engaging our global partners to ensure that we achieve a genuine global compact on climate change. On the question of reducing carbon emissions, the government’s plan is rooted in what we will do on emissions trading—something which those opposite simply ignored, year in, year out, despite recommendations from their own advisers over a long period of time.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Mayo will resume his seat, as required by the standing orders. So will the member for Melbourne Ports and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs.

Kevin Rudd (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would have thought that even the member for Mayo might have been interested in climate change. It may have been of passing interest to him in his 12 years as foreign minister and in his engagement with many governments and foreign ministers around the world. Maybe it got in the road of a game of tennis here and there—I am not sure. In terms of core business for the nation, climate change was something which the foreign minister should have engaged in, and he failed spectacularly to do so.

The course of action embarked upon by our government is as follows. We are acting on an emissions trading regime, on a mandatory renewable energy target and on domestic programs as well. These domestic programs enhance alternative fuels and alternative energy, and include our present engagement with the automobile industry on important programs for the future designed to increase overall fuel efficiency.

With solar, there is the $480 million National Solar Schools program, the $150 million low emissions plan for renters and the $300 million Green Loans program, as well as something which we have continued, the solar hot water rebate scheme. That seemed to have a means test in it. How much was it? It was $100,000. I thought that the Leader of the Opposition said today that ‘the environment can’t be means tested’? Have I missed something? The member for Wentworth, when he was the minister for the environment, means-tested the solar hot water rebate scheme. Stone the crows. Selective memory again, but that is just a matter of detail for those opposite.

Our second approach when it comes to climate change is to deal with adaptation, which is absolutely imperative. This is where those in rural and regional Australia are feeling it most. This government, through the actions of the Minister for Climate Change and Water and the minister for agriculture, is at the forefront of negotiating with our rural industry organisations about how we will deal with that challenge.

Our third course of action is our global action: what we are doing with the rest of the international community. Unless we bring down global carbon emission, the ultimate impact on our planet will be disastrous. We had to enter into the full sphere of negotiation—not partially, not at the sides and not at the margins, which is what the member for Mayo was so happy to support in times past, but centrally. That had one precondition: ratifying Kyoto. That is why the first action of this government was to ratify the Kyoto protocol, giving us a full seat at the table in global negotiations. If the rest of the world is going to negotiate a global compact which has an effect on Australian industry and international economic circumstances, we want to be full participants in that and not simply at the margins, which is where those opposite were pleased to be.

It also affects our relationships with Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. We have engaged in further discussions with them about how we can go about protecting the rainforests of those countries to make a contribution there. We have also engaged with the United States. What is interesting in the United States is that we now have a strong commitment for the future from both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat. Senator Obama committed to reductions of 80 per cent of 1990 levels by 2050. Senator McCain has previously supported a bill that requires 65 per cent reductions on 2000 levels by 2050. I would suggest to those opposite that they study hard and see where leadership on these questions lies now in the United States. The Republican Party and the Democratic Party are on board. But on the part of the Liberal Party of Australia all we have is continued obfuscation.

In fact, six months ago what did we have from those opposite? Six months ago, they did not even believe in climate change. Six months later, ‘Whoops; we believe in climate change.’ Six months ago, they wanted a nuclear reactor in every backyard, and suddenly they have forgotten about that policy. Six months ago they said that if we ratified Kyoto the economy would collapse. The Leader of the Opposition went on record to say that Australia has rightly refused to sign the Kyoto protocol. It is time that those opposite got real on this. In the United States, Senator Obama and Senator McCain have clear-cut positions of international leadership on climate change. There is none from the Liberal Party of Australia.

We had the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, stand up here and say that he did not believe in the human causes of global warming. Do you remember that? It was fewer than 18 months ago. The same Mr Howard stood up in the parliament and said that if Senator Obama or the Democrats won the presidential election in the United States it would be a victory for al-Qaeda. Those opposite stood behind those comments. They stood behind the comments of Mr Howard when he denied any link between human activity and climate change. It is time that those opposite got real. They should join with the government and adopt a realistic posture for engaging the world on long-term solutions for climate change rather than pretend that it is something for which they have no responsibility.

Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.