Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Hansard source

That is very interesting. I will take that interjection, Senator Colbeck. Senator Colbeck has made an assertion about the Labor Party’s position on this. You are in the government that is filled with climate change sceptics. You are led in this chamber by a senator who has made it clear that he questions whether or not human activity has had any impact on climate change. We know that this government, both in the cabinet and on the back bench, is filled with people who remain sceptical about the reality of climate change. Is it any wonder that you have been asleep on this issue for 11 years?

So, Senator Colbeck, if you and other ministers of the government want to come in here and lecture and try to make a political point, perhaps you should look at yourselves—because you know what? The Australian people know who has put climate change on the agenda in the political scene. The Australian people know that the only reason this government is doing anything at all on climate change is the upcoming election and that the government believes, or recognises, that it needs to be seen to be doing something to deal with the perception that it has done nothing over 11 years. It is all about spin; it is all about the election; it is all about politics. It is not about good policy; it is not about genuinely understanding and believing that climate change is a real challenge to this country. It is not about recognising the economic, social and environmental challenge that climate change constitutes; it is all about political spin. Just as we saw the water announcement in January being made without aspects of that package going to Treasury or Finance for costing, here we see yet another hasty, politically motivated response from the Howard government—a government that has been asleep on the issue of climate change for 11 years.

The government is now introducing legislation in an attempt to show that it is reacting in some way to the deficiencies of its past, which has arisen as a consequence of the government not being willing to embrace emissions trading as a way of tackling climate change. A sloppy bill like this suggests clearly that, at the time it was introduced, perhaps the environment minister had not really had a chance to look closely at it himself. The bill in the form introduced into the House of Representatives has the potential to increase uncertainty due to unintended consequences, including the introduction of legal ambiguities in relation to some of the clauses proposed.

I want to go for a moment to the issue of the government’s approach to climate change and the inconsistencies in its approach in general. Recently, in relation to the government’s position on the ratification of Kyoto, the environment minister said in the other place:

Kyoto may be amended, and we hope it will be. We will be part of that. We want to amend Kyoto.

That was what the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr Turnbull, said in the other place in a recent debate. It really was an extraordinary statement because, for the last 11 years, the Howard government has been all about bagging Kyoto. It has been critical of Kyoto. It has talked at various times about the Eurocentrism of this multilateral agreement. It has been denying—and decrying those who claim it—that Kyoto has an important role to play in addressing climate change. Now we have Minister Turnbull saying: ‘Kyoto may be amended; we hope it will be and we will be part of it.’

It would be useful to know whether or not the minister could explain how the government propose to be part of Kyoto if the government continue to refuse to ratify it. That really is the key question that the Howard government need to answer: how are they going to be part of amending the Kyoto protocol when the government in the first place refuse to ratify it and therefore cannot take a place at the table and vote on it?

We see the Howard government getting themselves into an extraordinary, illogical and ridiculous situation on this issue. It is no wonder international commentators and political leaders look upon the position that the Howard government have taken on the Kyoto protocol with some bewilderment. They have got themselves into a tortured, convoluted and contorted position when it comes to Kyoto. At the same time, I remind the chamber of various comments made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Senator Minchin is on record as saying:

Kyoto is a failed doctrine ... Therefore, by definition, it is doomed to fail.

That was the government’s previous position: Kyoto is a failed doctrine and therefore by definition doomed to fail. The question that we need to ask ourselves—and that, no doubt, Australians who are interested in this issue will ask themselves—is: which is the government’s position? They are clearly confused when it comes to the Kyoto protocol. Either it is a failed doctrine or we should commit ourselves, as Minister Turnbull has, to amending it.

I want to raise an issue in relation to the Sydney declaration, which occurred recently at the APEC meeting and which the government trumpeted as some great reform. In July last year in a speech to the Committee for Economic Development of Australia the Prime Minister said:

A central flaw of Kyoto is its reliance on a distinction between developed and developing countries which makes little sense when translated into global emissions.

But the Sydney declaration actually put this specific view:

The future international climate change arrangement needs to reflect differences in economic and social conditions among economies and be consistent with our common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.

That in fact is the Kyoto approach. Article 10 of the protocol says that all parties should act:

... taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and their specific national and regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances ...

So, really, the Howard government’s position on the Kyoto protocol and on climate change has become one of the most farcical public policy positions that any federal government has ever held. It is being exposed day after day, with contradictory statements by ministers such as those I have outlined.

In addition, notwithstanding the fact that the Prime Minister had been hostile not only to the idea of ratification but also to the notion that the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change would be the appropriate pathway to build multilateral agreement on climate change treaties into the future, we now see the much-trumpeted Sydney declaration include a specific recognition that the UN framework is the acknowledged and accepted pathway for future global climate change negotiations and formulation.

We know the Howard government’s position on climate change and the Kyoto protocol is all over the place. As I said previously, I suggest to the chamber that the reason they are all over the place is that they do not believe it. They are filled with climate change sceptics; they are filled at senior levels with people who do not believe that human activity has had an effect on or contributed to climate change. This has infected their public policy response. Theirs is a response driven by politics alone, not by belief and not by public policy considerations. That is why their position is, frankly, incoherent and inconsistent.

There is one further thing to note in the debate on this bill—that is, as a consequence of the public policy position taken by the government, we have seen an impact on the Australian economy. It is unfortunate that there has not been sufficient attention paid to the economic consequences of this government’s failure to embrace clean and renewable energy in Australia, its blind-minded and blind-eyed approach to the issue of Kyoto ratification and its denial of the opportunities that Australian companies could and should have to be involved in clean development mechanisms, joint initiatives and other measures that are linked to the protocol.

The fact is that, under the Howard government, renewable energy companies have voted with their feet. In August last year we saw a company close its wind turbine assembly plant in Northern Tasmania. The cost was 100 jobs—that is, 100 Tasmanian jobs went as a result of that decision. In February 2007, Pacific Hydro announced it was investing $500 million in Brazil because Australian renewable energy projects had been stalled by the government’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol. I invite Senator Colbeck, the parliamentary secretary who is handling this bill, who is a Tasmanian senator, to indicate whether he is supportive of the fact that 100 Tasmanian jobs were lost as a result of the government’s position. Is that really his position? Is he seriously saying that it is a good thing, because of this government’s intransigence and failure to deal with this issue, that 100 Tasmanian jobs were lost? There has been a direct economic impact and a direct economic burden on our country, on Australian workers and on Australian industry as a consequence of the government’s position.

I make the point that the same company that closed its wind turbine assembly plant in Northern Tasmania has subsequently announced that its Portland factory will close in December 2007 because further investment cannot be viable in current market conditions. The reason for the unviability is that the Howard government has failed to establish a market in which these companies can operate and to provide the necessary services for reducing emissions and providing energy at the same time that many other countries—many of our competitor economies—have begun to do so. There is no market here for these companies to undertake these activities. As a consequence, companies are stranded and stuck, and the investment goes offshore and the jobs go with it.

A very strong business case lies in Australia accessing the Kyoto protocol. There are lost opportunities associated with emissions reduction projects; there are lost opportunities associated with the clean development mechanisms in other countries. The fact is that, under the Howard government, Australia and Australian companies continue to miss out. There is the opportunity for this nation to become a regional leader by establishing low-carbon projects in Australia that can generate carbon credits to other countries. There is an opportunity for this nation to become a regional hub for a global power carbon market—which is what many Australian businesses would like to see. Unfortunately, all of these opportunities have gone begging as a consequence of the Howard government’s stubbornness in respect of climate change and its refusal to ratify the Kyoto protocol. I move the second reading amendment standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add “but the Senate:

             (a)    notes that:

                   (i)    the bill was hastily drafted without any genuine consultation with stakeholders, including state governments, industry groups and environment groups,

                  (ii)    the bill was hastily drafted and introduced so as to prevent due public and parliamentary scrutiny, and

                 (iii)    significant Government amendments were circulated less than 24 hours before the second reading debate so as to prevent due public and parliamentary scrutiny;

             (b)    is concerned that the bill does not reflect the urgent need to establish an effective emissions trading scheme; and

             (c)    therefore demands that the Government amend the legislation according to the unanimous recommendations in the report of the inquiry into the bill by the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee”.