Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Housing and Urban Development) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change (Kyoto Protocol Ratification) Bill 2006 [No. 2], which I introduced. The second reading speech has, of course, already been attached to the tabled documents. What I wish to canvass today is the need for the chamber to give this matter urgent attention. As you may have gathered, Mr Deputy President, I was not aware that the second reading debate was going to be brought on at this hour. We are pursuing this today to give effect to the deep concern that members of the Labor Party have on the issue of climate change.

In recent times, the government has sought to change its tack on the issue of climate change. The government initially understood the importance of climate change. I do not think it is generally understood in this country that in the period post-1996 there was a view within the government that climate change was an extremely important matter which was affecting the welfare of the people of the planet. In fact, the government sought to produce a discussion paper on such matters and to pursue specific policy initiatives on climate change, to the point where the question of signing the Kyoto protocol was contemplated. But that position changed very quickly.

The change of government in the United States meant that the Australian government changed its position. The government of Australia, as is all too often the case, has essentially taken a derivative attitude on these matters to keep in step with the position taken by the more extreme elements of the Republican Party of the United States. We saw that attitude expressed in the last few years, to the point where the government refused to sign the Kyoto protocol. It moved from a position of being essentially sympathetic to a position of complete opposition. We have had some of the world’s leading climate change sceptics populating the Treasury benches of this country.

As we have noted, there has been a further change in the government’s attitude in recent times. It has increasingly been acknowledged in the country at large that the Australian people understand the significance of this issue. As a consequence of that realisation, the government of Australia has sought to change tack and to present to the public the view that they really are keeping pace with public concern on these matters despite the overwhelming body of evidence that they are dragging the chain.

Climate change is real and it is happening right now and the government has had to face up to that fundamental proposition. The Kyoto protocol is real and it is happening right now, but you will not hear that from the Howard government. Despite the various manoeuvres that it has undertaken, it remains in denial on climate change and the importance of the Kyoto protocol. It is out of touch with reality and with the concerns of the Australian people. As I say, climate change is real and it is happening. Our dams are dropping while our sea levels are rising.

The Australian Greenhouse Office have reported on the risks and vulnerabilities that they suggest climate change is likely to bring. I think the statistics are quite disturbing. The Australian Greenhouse Office are predicting an increase in annual national temperatures of between 0.4 and two degrees by 2030 and between one and six degrees by 2070. We are likely to see more heat waves and fewer frosts. We are likely to see more frequent El Nino southern oscillation events, resulting in more pronounced cycles of prolonged drought and heavy rains. We are likely to see a further 20 per cent reduction in rainfall in the south-west of Australia and up to a 20 per cent reduction in the run-off from the Murray-Darling Basin by 2030. We are likely to see more severe wind speeds in cyclones associated with storm surges amplified by rising sea levels and we are likely to see an increase in severe weather events, including storms and high bushfire propensity days.

Further proof of the damage of climate change can be found in the 2006 annual review of the Insurance Council of Australia. It said that:

During the last 12 months, most states experienced either severe rain and/or windstorms with associated flooding, and extensive property damage.

Apart from Cyclone Larry ... hail and heavy rain caused over $100 million in household and commercial damage in Queensland, while a wind storm across South Perth in May, 2005 caused insured losses of $53 million, a record for the state.

Australians know that the Howard government has failed the nation on climate change. A survey on the recent Stern report showed that 92 per cent of Australians thought that the Howard government was not doing enough on climate change. Mr Howard dismissed this as an online opinion poll. Of course, he had to come back into the parliament at one minute to five to apologise for misleading the House. The Stern report is a strong warning of a clear and present danger not just to our environment but to our economy. The Stern report highlights not what it will cost to act but what the costs involved will be if economies in our region and the world fail to act. The report says that early action will be much cheaper than if no action is taken. The report highlights that it might be as much as 20 times cheaper to act early in the prevention of the drastic effects of climate change.

The Stern report demonstrates the sharp contrast between the attitude taken by the government of the United Kingdom and the actions of the government of Australia. I know that the Australian government is desperate to become associated in any way with the actions of the United Kingdom in terms of propaganda, but it is not so anxious to be involved in specific measures. The Stern report highlights that we cannot afford to wait any longer. The only way to tackle climate change in Australia is to change the government. That is the strong implication of that report.

On 27 September, Mr Howard said that he was not interested in what might happen in 50 years time. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges facing Australia and the global community but we have a government that essentially refuses to take action. Mr Howard has been in denial on this issue for 10 years. Whatever immediate tactical manoeuvres he undertakes in terms of his present political difficulties it has to be understood that the Howard government is twice as keen on self-promotion and propaganda as it is on addressing the issue of climate change. Since 1996 the Howard government has spent over $1.5 billion on government advertising but it has only spent $670 million on climate change programs. Under Mr Howard, self-promotion comes first and then there is clear daylight before anything else, with actions on important matters such as climate change running a very distant last.

We are now seeing the government seeking to promote its latest fantasy, which again is driven by its understanding of its focus group research. It is now seeking to promote its nuclear fantasy. This is an approach where the government once again seeks to talk about issues without actually undertaking any action. Once again the government will present itself as being concerned about a particular matter without having to actually do anything.

The government has produced a report for public consumption in which a proposition is advanced whereby we should build some 25 nuclear reactors on the east coast of Australia over the next 25 years. And this, somehow or another, is going to be the magic silver bullet that is going to fix our environment problems. Of course, the fundamental question the government fails to address in this new publicity drive—this new propaganda offensive—is the issue of where these reactors are going to go. And it fails to deal with the question of where the waste from these nuclear reactors will go. It fails to deal adequately with the issue of the economics of these nuclear power stations and it fails to provide a comprehensive economic case for change, particularly in an economy where there is such a profound supply of basic energy resources that for hundreds of years we are likely to have energy supplies which cannot be dismissed and which are available at a price that makes any suggestion of nuclear power totally uneconomic.

The Howard government is trying to push the myth that nuclear power is the silver bullet solution to climate change, but, as I said, nothing can be further from the truth. Australia’s greenhouse pollution will increase by 29 per cent by 2050 under Mr Howard’s plan to build 25 nuclear reactors. The Switkowski report confirms that Mr Howard’s nuclear power plan will not cut greenhouse gas emissions. It is not a plan to avoid dangerous climate change. Mr Switkowski’s report shows that, with the 25 nuclear reactors that are proposed across the east coast of Australia and the government’s existing programs—such as the new Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund—Australia’s greenhouse emissions will soar from 558 megatonnes in 2000 to 718 megatonnes in 2015. These are figures that we have taken from page 81 of Mr Switkowski’s report. Mr Howard’s nuclear plan would take Australia further down the path towards dangerous climate change. It is exactly the opposite of the propaganda that he is seeking to peddle to suggest that this government is concerned about a particular matter, when all the actions that it is undertaking suggest the contrary.

Under these circumstances, if global greenhouse pollution rose by a further 29 per cent by 2050 the world would probably experience a four per cent rise in global temperatures. Under that scenario, the evidence suggests that a four per cent rise in global temperatures, with the concurrent rise in sea levels, would see the Great Barrier Reef destroyed. We would see cuts to water flows to the cities of Australia and we would see the flow in the Murray-Darling Basin decrease by some 48 per cent. Under that scenario there would be quite substantial increases in bushfire dangers and we would see a substantial move down the Australian mainland of dengue fever transmission zones through to Brisbane and possibly as far south as Sydney. So it would fundamentally change the nature of Australian society and it would fundamentally change the circumstances in which Australians would have to try to cope with quite adverse conditions.

The Stern review states that global emissions must be cut by 60 per cent by 2050—not increased by 19 per cent; cut by 60 per cent—if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. But Mr Howard’s nuclear plan takes Australia in the opposite direction. Sir Nicholas Stern’s review made it very clear that delaying action costs the economy and our society in massive ways and that taking action now would reduce the costs on a longer term basis. Climate change is a serious threat and we must not posture about expensive and toxic nuclear energy which—even at the planning stages—would not see one kilowatt of power produced for perhaps 15 to 20 years under this proposal. As the Minister for Finance and Administration has pointed out to us on numerous occasions, it would not be financially viable in this country for probably 100 years. We are seeing a great myth being created so that Mr Howard can claim to marginal seat voters that he is genuinely interested in these matters when, as I say, the evidence is quite clearly to the contrary.

Labor takes the view that it is time for the Commonwealth government to take action. That is why Labor will pursue the long-term targets of a 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2050. That is why Labor will join the global community and ratify the Kyoto protocol. That is why Labor will give a price signal by having a national emissions-trading scheme which will be linked to other schemes. That will encourage investment in the clean coal technology and renewables that this country so desperately needs. That is why Labor will significantly increase our renewable energy targets. That is why Labor supports the development of alternative sources of energy but not nuclear reactors.

Labor will introduce a climate change trigger in Commonwealth environmental legislation. Labor will make every school in the Commonwealth a solar school. Labor will support green cars being built in Australia and undertake action to encourage the car companies to take that up. Labor will ensure that transport and sustainable cities are integral to our plan to avoid dangerous climate change.

The Stern review makes it perfectly clear that, unless economic mechanisms are put in place which encourage investment in clean coal technology and renewables, we will not be able to get the transformation to the carbon constrained economy that we need. Australia needs a whole-of-government approach to avoid dangerous climate change. That is why Labor has a systematic plan that offers Australia a way to avoid dangerous climate change. We say that we must take action not just to protect the environment but to protect jobs and the economy. It is also about protecting Australian society. The only future that Mr Howard seems interested in is his own. The only science he is applying to these matters is political science, with a view to securing enough marginal seats to allow this government to continue the policies it has been pursuing. That is why I recommend to the Senate that this important private senator’s bill be carried.