Judith Adams (WA, 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 any impediments to the Howard government’s efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions through the expansion of the use of natural gas?

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

I thank Senator Adams for asking such an incredibly important question. We know that the world in the postindustrial era has pumped about a trillion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. We know that has happened over the last 150 years. We know that, on a business as usual basis with no change to how we produce and use energy, we will double that in about 50 years. We know that the consequence, based on a consensus of the best scientists around the world focusing on that, is that there will be global warming. This has been in the order of 0.6 to 0.7 of a degree in the last 100 years. We know that there would be double the rate of warming at the poles. We know that has the potential to increase sea levels, particularly if there is a melting of the Greenland icecap. That could be catastrophic for ecosystems and for places like the Barrier Reef and the coastal regions of Western Australia, in Senator Adams’s home state. We know that could be catastrophic for the global economy and for mankind.

We know that, as a globe, we need to take this seriously. We need an effective international agreement on greenhouse gas reductions. We also need to take action domestically in Australia. One of the great contributions that Australia can make to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions around the world is to export our liquefied natural gas, much of which comes from the state of Western Australia off the Kimberley coast and, in the future, off the Pilbara coast. We know that that industry can deliver greenhouse gas reductions of 25 million tonnes a year because, when you replace coal-fired or oil-burning power stations with beautifully clean Western Australian gas, you get a 40, 50, 60 or even 70 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It is a transformational way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and it also produces 80,000 jobs in Australia and a $10 billion export industry.

There is a risk to this industry. The risk is from the Australian Labor Party in the guise of Dr Carmen Lawrence, a senior member of the Rudd Labor team, and their comrades in the Greens, who yesterday lodged an emergency heritage listing application for the Burrup Peninsula which, if it is successful, will stop the Pluto project, the biggest gas export project in Australia. I wrote to Mr Rudd, the new leader of the Labor Party, yesterday to bring this to his attention and to ask him to call in Dr Lawrence if he is serious about development in Australia, as he said he was in the Financial Review this morning. He said:

I think it’s the last big frontier of micro-economic reform.

He went on to say:

You talk to the business community. They pull their hair out about the way in which commonwealth and states fail to properly work together when it comes to their regulatory environment for getting business and development projects going.

This is the biggest project in Australia. The Premier of Western Australia and I have agreed on a process and now a member of his team wants to put a spanner in the spokes. If Mr Rudd wants to be leader, and if he is serious about Commonwealth and state cooperation on projects, the first thing he should do is call Dr Lawrence in and tell her to withdraw this frivolous and stupid application to close down the biggest project in Australia.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Ian Campbell, the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. Is the minister aware of the new report titled Common belief: Australia’s faith communities on climate change which calls on the government to seriously address climate change? Doesn’t this latest call for action from 16 faith communities come on top of the call by business leaders, including the President of BP Australia, the Managing Director of Origin Energy, the head of Swiss Re and the CEOs of IAG, Visy and Westpac, for the establishment of a carbon price signal? How can the government be so out of step with scientists, business leaders, church groups and the broader community on climate change? Why does the minister continue to ignore scientific experts, business leaders and now church groups, which are all calling for action on climate change now?

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

That is in fact a very good question and I welcome a question from the Labor Party on an environmental issue of such substance. I welcome the support of the churches for action on climate change. They make a very important point: we do require effective action here in Australia. That is one of the reasons the Australian government is investing in renewable energy. We have seen the biggest upsurge in renewable energy in Australian history under this government. There were fewer than a dozen wind turbines in Australia when Labor, Senator Polley’s party, was last in power. Through our policies, 700 wind turbines will be built in Australia. We have rolled out 12,000 solar rooftops under our photovoltaic rebate scheme. We have announced three solar cities: one in Adelaide, one in Townsville and one in Blacktown.

We know—and this is what the Labor Party should focus on—that we need to bring a whole range of technologies to this task. One of the projects we need to pursue is the capture and burying of carbon, putting it back from whence it came. We know that, if the world is to address climate change, it will need to rapidly expand the role that nuclear power plays. Labor and the Greens have said, ‘No, we can’t have nuclear. We don’t care enough about climate change to bring nuclear in.’ We know that the Greens and Carmen Lawrence of the Labor Party want to stop the export of natural gas.

It is incredibly important that those business leaders and the churches focus on practical solutions to reduce greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere. It will require billions of dollars worth of investment, such as the $6 million we have granted to Origin Energy—one of the signatories to the statement—to develop sliver cell technology. This is a technology that, in partnership with Origin Energy, we are investing in to massively reduce the amount of silicon that is required to build a solar cell. We are investing in the biggest solar power station in the world, to be constructed in Mildura, and we are investing $60 million in the biggest carbon capture and storage project anywhere on the planet.

None of that will make any difference to Australia or to the world unless we have a robust, comprehensive agreement on climate change to act internationally. At the moment the Kyoto protocol seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but, because it excludes most of the economies in the world, greenhouse gas emissions will actually rise under Kyoto by about 40 per cent. That is because it excludes China and India—the rapidly industrialising economies. I think those who have signed the common belief document, including Origin Energy and some churches, are quite serious about climate change.

If we are to address climate change we need to engage China and India. The Prime Minister has shown leadership by not only getting behind the formation of the biggest international collaboration on technology efforts through the Asia-Pacific climate change partnership but also by raising it within APEC. This is a constructive way forward to engage the countries of our region in serious action on climate change, rather than the slogans and the rhetoric that the Labor Party have been able to get away with over recent years. It is time for the Australian Labor Party to get serious about climate change policy and I urge it to do so. (Time expired)

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note that the minister’s response was quite patronising. Perhaps he can make a better effort at answering the supplementary question. Is the minister aware of comments by nuclear task force member Mr Warwick McKibbin that the carbon trading scheme is essential to manage risk and compensate business for losses as they develop technologies to lower greenhouse gas emissions? Is the minister aware of Mr McKibbin’s comment that ‘there is no precedent for innovating first and creating a market second’? Is Mr McKibbin wrong as well? Why is it that all the experts refuse to accept that the minister knows best?

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

That is a brilliant question. The problem is that whoever handed the senator the question did not know that in virtually every article in which I have ever been quoted on climate change I have promoted the views of Warwick McKibbin. I actually think Warwick McKibbin’s views on a carbon price are right. What Warwick McKibbin does is slam the Labor Party’s approach. He slams their trading scheme, as did the Premier of Western Australia and the Premier of Queensland. They produced their policy a few weeks ago and by lunchtime WA had pulled out of the trading scheme and by dinnertime Peter Beattie had pulled out of it. Your policy is dead in the water. Warwick McKibbin reckons your policy is a dud. He reckons your emissions trading scheme is the wrong way to go. I happen to support his views on climate change and emissions trading. I support him very strongly. I think he has got a sensible way forward. What hypocrisy it is for you to quote McKibbin. (Time expired)