Alan Eggleston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Kyoto. I went to a private school, so I have a different sort of accent—but there we are. I am just surprised that it has not had a run and the fact that Australia has not signed the Kyoto treaty has not been mentioned. Kyoto is really just symbolic. It is symbolic of the world’s concern about climate change, and it really would do very little to reduce CO2 levels or alter climate change around the globe.

Although the ALP swears on a stack of bibles that it is an important treaty and should be signed, I note that Mark Butler, who Senator Kirk and anyone involved in the left wing of the ALP in South Australia might know—not that I believe that Senator Kirk is involved in the left wing—is on record as saying that Kyoto is nothing more than symbolic. So much for Senator Wong’s point of view! The government strategy on climate change was endorsed by APEC only a week or so ago when some of the world’s greatest emitters—the Chinese government and the United States government—agreed to work towards setting achievable greenhouse gas emissions targets. So there is no question that this government does not have a great record. It is simply nonsense for the opposition parties to keep coming back in here alleging that this government has a poor record on climate change.

I will now turn to the specific issue of the rise in sea levels. Senator Milne said that the government was not listening, that there was a studied ignorance of what is going on, and that this government seemed to be totally indifferent to the implications of rising sea levels. May I assure the Senate, and Senator Milne in particular, that the government is aware of recent research and reports on rising sea levels and of the risks that such sea level rises could pose to coastal properties and infrastructure around Australia. We have a lot of very low-level communities close to oceans—only a metre or so above sea level. I came from Busselton, down in the south-west of Western Australia. The whole of Geographe Bay is really just a metre or two above sea level. Very large areas of places like Dunsborough, which is a very popular holiday resort down in the south-west, and Quindalup are only a metre or two above sea level.

So sea level change is a very important consideration for Australia. In every part of this country, in a similar way, there are towns, ports and roads which could be affected by rising sea level. Anybody coming in here and alleging that the federal government is not concerned about the implications of that, knowing full well that that there is already a government agency at work looking into the implications of rising sea level change, is, at one end of the scale, being quite unfair to the government and, at the other end of the scale, perhaps being deliberately misleading to those assessing the comments.

Australian scientists are world leaders in research into the area of sea level rise, and the government is supporting research into the causes of sea level rise which has occurred over the last century. We are also supporting research into the contribution of melting ice sheets to future sea level rise around the globe. Accordingly, we do not think there is a need for an inquiry by a Senate committee into the risks associated with sea level rise in Australia, because assessment of these risks is already underway by an agency sponsored by the Australian government. The Australian government is leading work to assess the vulnerability of the coastal zone to climate change through the Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council. This council, which has been set up under the jurisdiction of not only the Commonwealth but also, perhaps, other bodies, is charged with the assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea level rise, and it is due to report in 2002.

The terms of reference include analysis of the risks from erosion in the coastal zone exacerbated as a result of climate change. Erosion of course is very important because it changes the ecology. The second reference is analysis of the risks to infrastructure and coastal ecosystems from climate change. The third includes assessment of the changing vulnerability of the coastal zone as a result of changing demographic and other socioeconomic trends. Those two points cover Senator Milne’s concerns about local government, because obviously if towns are going to be flooded that involves socioeconomic and demographic change. We also have to think about infrastructure like ports, which is a very important point. There are a lot of ports that would be very adversely affected by a three- or four-metre rise in sea level, let alone a six- or 10-metre rise, and there are roads which run along seafronts, and parks. In many places, such as in Kwinana in Western Australia, there are large industrial plants right on the seafront. The impact of sea level rise on facilities such as all of those needs to be given careful consideration and, under this program, the Australian government is undertaking research into the impact of sea level change on those sorts of facilities. The last point of reference is development of information and other tools for managers and planners of the coastal zone to better incorporate the risks of climate change in decision making. In other words, having assessed what the impact will be on infrastructure, on towns and on the ecology of the area, they will provide the basis for decision makers to make decisions about dealing with the prospect of sea level rise.

Senator Milne referred to the fact that we did not have adequate maps and tools available to work out what the impact of sea level rise would be. But the government does recognise the need for better tools and maps to enable more adequate assessment of risks from climate change and sea level rise. To accompany and support the national coastal vulnerability assessment, the Spatial Information Council, ANZLIC, is developing for the first time a national digital elevation model, a three-dimensional picture of the earth’s surface, which will enable modelling of inundation at a resolution that will be useful for decision makers to work upon. In other words, computer modelling is being developed based on data from around the world on what the impact of sea level rise will be.

All of this work will be supported by the new Australian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation, announced by the Prime Minister in April this year, which has a budget of $126 million over five years. That is quite a lot of money and should enable a good job to be done. This centre will be working with the new CSIRO adaptation flagship to improve the science underpinning adaptation, provide better information on climate change to decision makers and support the development of targeted adaptation strategies, including those for the coastal zone as a result of climate change and sea level rise.

So, with all of that being done, the government’s view is that there is no need for a Senate inquiry at this point of time, because, to some degree, it will only duplicate the work of this centre for climate change and in fact may not do the work as thoroughly or as comprehensively as the centre which the government has set up. All it will really do is call attention to the fact that sea level rise is a risk, a potential adverse outcome of climate change. I think there has been plenty of evidence here in the Senate today that all political parties are aware that sea level rise is a risk. Therefore, on that ground, I do not think there is anything to be gained by setting up a Senate committee and advise the Senate that the government will be opposing this motion.