Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell. Will the minister advise the Senate of actions the Australian government is taking to address the problem of global climate change? Is the minister aware of any alternative statements or policies?

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Trood for a very important question. Global climate change and greenhouse gas emissions are incredibly important issues—some would say the most important challenge for the globe. The Australian government shares a strong commitment to taking practical and real actions, both internationally and domestically, to address the risk of serious climate change from greenhouse gas emissions. I am pleased to report to the Senate—I am sure Senator Trood would be keen to hear this—that the world-leading Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which met so successfully in Sydney in mid-January, has established eight working groups, or task forces, to put in place practical measures, new partnerships and new projects in a whole range of areas.

These task forces will have their first meetings in mid-April. For example, the Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation Task Force, which we co-chair with Korea, will have as its aim rolling out and fast-tracking research, development and deployment of new renewable energy technologies across the partnership countries—Korea, Japan, China and India. Six nations representing nearly 50 per cent of the world’s population will get to work on rolling out and fast-tracking those technologies in April. The Cleaner Fossil Energy Task Force will also commence work, and Australia will chair that task force.

Senator Trood also asked about alternative statements and policies. I did see recently that Martin Ferguson, the member for Batman and opposition spokesman on resources, industry and, I think, greenhouse gas policy—even though they have a number of different views on that—made the point after the Asia-Pacific partnership meeting:

Let’s be real: without getting business on board we cannot achieve anything.

That is very practical solution coming from a Victorian Labor Party member. I am not sure whether his preselection is at risk at the moment, but it is a very practical and real approach from at least one member of the Labor Party. Of course, he is joined by the Labor Party’s minister in the Victorian government, Theo Theophanous, who said in the Australian Financial Review this morning:

Victoria must make low-emission brown-coal technologies viable, so we can keep using our most abundant and low-cost fuel.

He went on to say:

Those green lobbyists who advocate greenhouse policies that stifle growth are misguided. Economic pain would not just be politically unpopular, it would be self defeating. Growth is essential to fund the transformation of our energy base to new technologies.

Mr Theophanous is quite right there. You need to ensure that we can reduce the emissions from fossil fuels if we are to solve the risk of climate change to the future of this planet. You also need to ensure that your policies do not constrain growth.

But on the other side of the isle we keep hearing this magic bullet solution called the emissions trading scheme, and Mr Theophanous is going on about this. They think that you can have a magic bullet solution to this significant international problem. The last time there was an analysis done of the energy trading scheme proposed by Labor and the states, the Allen Consulting Group said that the cost would be in the order of a 27 per cent increase in people’s power bills, yet the opposition go on saying that it will not cost anything and it is the magic bullet solution. You have this massive problem that requires a substantial solution, yet Labor think that you can have a magic bullet. If Senator Trood needs further amplification through a supplementary question, we could— (Time expired)

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In light of the very interesting answer that the minister has given to my question, would he like to elaborate further on the trading scheme that he has mentioned to the Senate?

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Trood. The point that does need to be made is that Labor have no substantial investment ideas regarding how to invest in low-emissions technologies. The government, for example, will fund Geodynamics Ltd with $5 million to develop a hot rocks project in South Australia, developing steam from three kilometres underground, to transform the way that power is produced. We will spend $8 million—possibly up to $12 million—to fund the Otway project. We are spending close to $2 billion across Australia, and the only state government in Australia that is spending anything is the Victorian government, which is spending $80 million. There is nothing from WA, New South Wales or Queensland, and you have this magic bullet of an emissions trading scheme. They think that you can have a solution that does not cost any money. We want to see this invisible policy with no money involved, and we want to see the details of it, not just this concept of a magic bullet or a silver bullet.