Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Campbell. Given the government’s emphatic statements over its term of office that Australia will meet its very generous Kyoto target of an increase of eight per cent in greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels, why has the minister started this week to back-pedal from that claim, now saying that Australia ‘is likely to meet’ the target, Australia ‘will struggle to meet’ the target and that we are ‘one of the five countries that might’ get there? What advice or information has the minister now received in the lead-up to the meeting of the parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Nairobi in a few weeks time to indicate that Australia will not meet, is unlikely to meet or will struggle to meet its Kyoto target, and why is that the case?

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

I have changed my language, and I am very glad that Senator Milne at least has picked it up, because it is a very important issue. There are two key factors. Firstly, Australia did make a policy commitment to achieve 108 per cent and we are committed to doing that. Senator Milne asked the reason why there is some risk we might go over 108 per cent. That risk has always been there. We have consistently tracked towards 108, but the risk of going over, when you have an economy that is growing at the rate that we are going with the expansion of industry and housing, is always there. The reason we have stayed below 108 per cent is that we have a range of very effective policy measures engaging the business community, the farm sector and the local government sector. There is $2 billion worth of expenditure from the Commonwealth government on programs like the photovoltaic rebate scheme, putting 12,000 solar cells on top of roofs; getting rid of deforestation in Australia; getting rid of land clearing in virtually every state of Australia; and planting 20 million hectares of trees. All of those measures will save around 85 megatons of carbon and will help us get towards our target. But, yes, there is a risk of going over. The reason I have changed my language is that, as we go to the United Nations framework convention meetings each year—and I will be attending the meeting in Nairobi—

Paul Calvert (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Boswell and Senator Heffernan, if you wish to have a conversation, either go outside or resume your seats.

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

As we go to the United Nations framework convention we always prepare a report on Australia’s tracking towards its Kyoto target. We are committed to that Kyoto target. But the fact is that, because of the very strong growth in our economy, there is certainly a risk of going over the 108. We may in fact do that. That report will become public. Senator Milne knows I table that every year. I will have the full information before the Australian people.

We are committed to that target; we are one of the few countries that is on track at the moment to reach our target. I make it clear that there are many other countries—Kyoto signatories—who are going well over their target. France, for example, while not going well over, are on track to achieve about a 109 per cent increase in their emissions; Ireland are on track to have a 133 per cent increase over their 1990 emissions, which is 20 per cent above their target; Spain, again another Kyoto signatory, is looking at a 151 per cent increase in their emissions over 1990 levels; Portugal, a 152 per cent increase in their emissions; Norway, 123 per cent; the Canadians are on track to go 116 per cent over their 1990 levels; and Australia, at the moment, on current estimates, is on track to reach 108. But I am flagging the potential that we could go over. What will the government do if we look like we are going over? We will have to take policy measures to try to get us back there again, because we are committed to fighting internationally and nationally the challenge of climate change with practical measures, real measures, to stop carbon going into the atmosphere. We will deliver, as opposed to the Labor Party and the Greens. All they deliver is slogans and not action.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for acknowledging that he has backed off the emphatic assurance of meeting the targets and for acknowledging that the likelihood is that we will not. I asked him to identify what advice he has had as to why we are not likely to get there and what the cause of that has been. Also, he said a moment ago that he will have to change his policies accordingly. Given that he has always said that he will not introduce emissions trading or a carbon tax because we are on track to meet our targets, now that he is acknowledging that the likelihood is that we will not get there, will he now change position and adopt emissions trading, a carbon tax and a greenhouse trigger in EPBC so that we can get there?

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

If I thought that emissions trading would solve Australia’s problem we would do it, but it will not. All it does is put a new tax on the economy. What we know is that we need multitrillion dollars of investment in new technologies to capture carbon and bury it underground, to bring on geothermal, to roll out more solar cells, to get people to change light bulbs across the country. We know what it takes. They are practical measures involving investment, but what Labor and the Greens want to do is to smother the economy. They want to close down coal mines and communities. They want to massively reduce the size of the economy and reduce jobs.

We want to have economic growth and low greenhouse gas emissions. We are going to do both because we are committed to it with practical measures. I will present an entire report which will show to the whole world exactly where the growth is, but one of the big growths is Labor state governments continuing to build coal-fired power stations all around the place. That is the main growth: energy production built by state governments. I am not condemning them for it, but that is where it comes from. (Time expired)