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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and Administration (Senator Minchin) and the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation (Senator Abetz) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Evans) and Senators Wong and Lundy today relating to climate change.

Over the last few weeks and in question time today we have had yet more examples of the innate political opportunism of the Howard government. We are seeing a gradual conversion for political purposes from the government as climate change sceptics to the government as pretend environmentalists. We are seeing a pale green hue suddenly being cast across the treasury bench, not because the government actually believe that climate change is an issue to be addressed but because they understand that Australians believe that climate change is an issue that needs to be tackled and they reckon they had better get onboard in time for the election. That is what all the positioning and all the announcements we have seen over the last few weeks are about and that is what the answers given today by Senator Abetz and Senator Minchin demonstrate.

There is of course a bit of resistance because we know that on the government side there are people who are deeply against a great many issues that Labor and environmentalists have been raising for some time—and we saw Senator Abetz still not being able to help himself, frothing at the mouth and calling people extremists. We also know of course that Senator Minchin is concerned about the fact that policies have been plucked out of the air. We know—and in question time today he failed when given two opportunities to indicate this—that there are real questions about the extent to which the Department of Finance and Administration was even involved in the costings associated with the great water plan that the Prime Minister announced. The spending of $10 billion of taxpayers’ money is announced, and now it appears that the government cannot provide detailed costings.

The government has come up with a range of excuses. The most recent one prior to question time was the Treasurer saying, ‘We cannot provide the details till the states have signed up.’ This of course is a nonsense. If you provide the aggregate figure, you must have some indication of what the detailed figures making up that aggregate are. More importantly, that demonstrates that this is simply another political thought bubble. It is a political mechanism to make it look as if the government is actually serious about tackling our water crisis and serious about contributing to the global challenge of tackling climate change. The government is playing catch-up politics. It has suddenly realised that the electorate believes this is a major issue and it realises it has to play catch-up.

The previous position of the government, as we know, was that they were climate change sceptics. Senator Lundy, who may well refer to this again, pointed out that Senator Abetz has previously referred to climate change in terms of its challenge to biodiversity as being:

… [an] unclear challenge which climate change may or may not pose to our biodiversity in 100 years time.

That is a pretty equivocal statement. It is hardly an unequivocal indication that you understand the long-term threat to this nation’s security and this nation’s prosperity as a result of global warming and climate change. It is hardly an unequivocal statement, but he has to run the line because the government have worked out that they have to at least turn pale green and indicate to the electorate that they actually care about these issues and are prepared to do something about them.

We also all remember—last year I think it was—the then Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, who I notice has not been participating in this debate much, saying in relation to the Al Gore movie, which was an important and significant international prompter of global consciousness around environmental issues and in particular climate change, that it was ‘good entertainment and nothing else’. That is really indicative of what lies at the heart of the thinking of those on the government benches. Many of them share these views; they simply know that they have to respond politically.

The Prime Minister is a very clever politician, and the water fund is a clever announcement, but it is not an announcement that has been well considered previously—nor have the costings been carefully considered. This is a political fix that the government has put in place. It may well be worthy, but the fact that the costings were ill prepared demonstrates that the government has come late to the party.

I also want to comment briefly, in the time remaining, on the Prime Minister now softening his position in relation to an emissions trading regime. We saw the Prime Minister yesterday say:

No, I think we have to examine carbon pricing.

It is a very great step from the harsh words that other government ministers have uttered previously—and, may I say, quite different from the position that Senator Minchin took today. The reality is that the Prime Minister is softening his position in relation to emissions trading, not because he believes in it but because he thinks he has to. (Time expired)

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

Senator Wong is perpetuating the old ALP line that the government has been slow to respond to climate change, but that is not the case. It is obvious to us all, I think, that climate change is around us: there has been a great decrease in the rainfall in the south-west; we have heard that there are water restrictions in countries like the UK; and there was no snow in Europe, I am told, this winter, in places like Austria and Germany. But it is quite wrong to say that the government has not been aware that climate change is an issue. In fact, far from being laggard, this government has very much led the way. For example, it was the first government in the world to establish a greenhouse office, and that happened way back in 1996. So, Senator Wong, this government has been aware of and has been taking action on climate change for a very long time.

There is a question as to whether climate change is related to some cyclical phenomenon, such as a change in the earth’s orbit in relation to the sun. We are supposedly coming out of an ice age and perhaps that is the reason climate change seems to be occurring. There is a lot of evidence that this change in the earth’s temperature is something that has gone on over many thousands of years in a cyclical manner. But there was a United Nations report at the end of last week which suggests that climate change is caused by man. That is very interesting, but it does not mean that the Howard government’s policies are out of step with that, as Senator Wong suggests.

In fact, the Australian government are leading the way, in many ways, in dealing with climate change. We signed the Kyoto protocol but we have not ratified it for the simple reason that it does very little to address climate change problems because the big emitters of the world are not signatories to that treaty. But, as an alternative, the Australian government have led the way in seeking to set up what is known as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. This partnership brings together some key countries, including Australia, China, Korea, Japan and the United States, to explore ways to develop, deploy and transfer to cleaner and more efficient technologies which the world will need to make the required cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions. The importance of this partnership is clear when you consider that between them these six partners account for almost half of the world’s population, GDP, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.

So, far from being laggard, the Australian government has been very much a leader, through setting up this Asia-Pacific partnership. Distinctive features of the partnership include the way it seeks to address climate change, air pollution, energy security and sustainable development in an integrated manner, and the way in which it fully engages business in developing and implementing solutions. Importantly, the partnership does not replace the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or the Kyoto protocol, but will instead develop those programs by being more inclusive of some of the great greenhouse gas emitters of the world.

Senator Wong suggested that the $10 billion the Prime Minister has allocated to the water management proposal, including the Murray-Darling proposal, is a drop in the bucket, so to speak, and certainly does not represent any clear commitment on the government’s part to managing Australia’s water problems. I think that is a nonsensical comment for Senator Wong to have made. When you think about it, Australia is the driest continent on earth, and it is about time we had a national water management policy. The ALP, while it was in government for 13 years, did not establish such a national policy, and now we have the Howard government giving strong leadership to this country in establishing a national water management policy. The commitment of $10 billion, I think, is proof positive of the government’s absolute belief in that policy. (Time expired)

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The United Nations climate change report released on 3 February this year removes forever the option of denial of and inaction on climate change. The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has reaffirmed what the Howard government has known since 1996 and certainly has failed to act on—that is, climate change is real. It will hurt our economy, our environment and our children’s future. That is why we need to take urgent action now to drastically cut greenhouse gas pollution.

As I said, the alarm bells have been ringing for a very long time, but now they are clamouring, and what we have is a very clever politician of a Prime Minister thinking, ‘How can I give the impression that I’m going to do something about it?’ The 2007 IPCC report reinforces what Mr Howard has been told previously. All of the information that has come out—whether it is the 2005 Climate change: risk and vulnerability report, the 2006 Stern report, the 2003 report Climate change: an Australian guide to the science and potential impacts, two other IPCC reports in 1995 and 2001 or, of course, An Inconvenient Truth, the film by Al Gore—has brought a consciousness of climate change crashing through not only the Australian community but also, finally, the Howard government.

But in true form, because this is not a government with an eye to the future or with a vision or a plan, they are coming up with knee-jerk reactions. They cannot even sing from the same song sheet. We have had contradictions here today from the Prime Minister’s recorded statement alluding to the fact that they were going to move on emissions trading. To that there was almost a flat denial from Senator Minchin today, saying how damaging that would be to jobs and the economy et cetera. So not even the ducks are lined up on the government side. They cannot get their message straight or their costings in order. As usual they are relying on spin, smoke and mirrors to try to trick the Australian people once again into thinking that they have their eye on the future, when they do not and we all know that they do not. We have 10 years of evidence that they do not have their eye on the future.

I was amazed to hear Senator Abetz today, in response to a question that I asked, stand by his previous comments that in fact weeds did pose a greater threat to Australia’s biodiversity. I would like to table the speech that Senator Abetz referenced in his answer to me and the accompanying press release, which not only show that I did not verbal him but have those quotes that I referenced in black and white. I seek leave to table those documents.

Leave not granted.

We know where to find those speeches, Mr Deputy President. It is pretty poor form on behalf of government senators, because I was quoting Senator Abetz in making those comments. That is the problem for this government. They have an inconsistent message. They have all the spin out there, with the Prime Minister talking the talk and announcing his big water initiative, but when push comes to shove they just do not believe it. They are sceptics to the core, and Australians will pay the price forever. People are fearful of the severe weather events that have been occurring, the horrific drought. Along the Great Barrier Reef—one of the earth’s greatest natural amazing icons—the bleaching event that occurred in 2005 was very serious. I know that in 2006 it was only averted by Cyclone Larry. What happens if that keeps occurring?

I note Senator Ian Macdonald laughs. That is not an appropriate response to the genuine concern out there about people’s day-to-day lives and the impact of climate change and the fact that water is part of that issue no matter how often the Howard government try to pretend that they can act on water and continue to ignore climate change. It is offensive that they keep throwing up nuclear energy as an option, as somehow an answer to the increase of greenhouse gases, when we know through the report that was released by the Howard government that in fact emissions will increase by 29 per cent if those 25 nuclear power plants are developed in accordance with the ideas that the Prime Minister is putting around. So there is hypocrisy, and misleading information going out there, and a concerted attempt by a very clever and tricky politician to con us. (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suggest Senator Lundy, with all due respect, stick to the written script done for her by a staffer and not start adlibbing in these sorts of debates because she gets herself really tied up in contradictions and confusion when she starts—

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don’t be so condescending, you rude man!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Senator Lundy, but you are suggesting Cyclone Larry stopped the climate change in North Queensland.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It stopped the bleaching event, as you know. You know that for a fact.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No wonder I was laughing. I was laughing at you and your ridiculous propositions and not at the issue of climate change. Senator Lundy again misrepresents the answers to questions in the Senate today. It is quite clear that the coalition have not had any sort of conversion. As Senator Eggleston rightly pointed out, right back in 1996 we established the first greenhouse office in any government anywhere in the world. Labor did not have one when we took over. The coalition have been conscious of this issue and working towards addressing greenhouse gas emissions since our very first day in office under the direction of Senator Hill, quite a significant and very far-sighted environment minister at the time.

Over the 10½ years since, this government has taken a great number of initiatives to help address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change problems. No one single solution is available for the problem of climate change. Quite clearly, the major thing that has to happen in the world, Senator Lundy, is for the big emitters—that is, the United States, China and India—to come on board. So far they have not, although, as an initiative that Senator Ian Campbell was very much involved in, these big emitters are now very seriously engaged in the question of greenhouse gas emissions.

The solution of the Labor Party has been for several years now to simply sign the Kyoto agreement and that will fix climate change. It might be an easy solution for the Labor Party but it will have no impact at all on greenhouse gas emissions because the big emitters are not parties to the Kyoto agreement. Australia attended the initial conferences and agreed to do things, and we have met the targets that were given to us by Kyoto. But simply signing a piece of paper will not help greenhouse gas emissions. You have to get the big emitters involved—China, India and the United States—and our government has been attempting to do that. So there is not just one answer; there has to be a suite of answers. That is one of them: reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In relation to alternative energy that does not require fossil fuels, this government has spent enormous amounts of money. Just before Christmas the Treasurer, Peter Costello, launched an alternative power plant in Mildura with a huge contribution—$1 billion, I think it was, though I do not have the figure before me. It was a huge Commonwealth government contribution to that power plant. As well as that, we have had any number of initiatives to assist with wind power, solar power and hot rocks power.

And, of course, we are looking very seriously at uranium and nuclear energy. I am not quite sure what the position of the Labor Party is today. Some of the Labor Party bury their heads in the sand and say that this is no good and that we cannot have it. Other more sensible members of the Labor Party are looking at that a bit more seriously because they realise that nuclear not only is effective power but also has some greenhouse gas advantages. I always smile when the Labor Party raise issues like how good the UK and the European Union are with their greenhouse gas emissions. They should realise that in places like Russia 70 per cent of their power comes from nuclear energy. They do not have a lot of greenhouse gas emissions because most of their power comes from nuclear energy.

There are a number of other issues I would like to raise but time is going to beat me yet again. The Murray-Darling Basin was mentioned. Senator Lundy, if you had sat on the ministerial council of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission as I had and seen the fights between Queensland and New South Wales, between New South Wales and Victoria and between South Australia and everyone else then you would understand that trying to get the states to agree just does not work. (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers given by Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, in question time today. Senator Abetz is on record, as I believe most government members are, and certainly Senator Ian Macdonald has just reinforced this, denying the real challenges that face us on climate change. Senator Abetz proposes the:

... unclear challenge which climate change may or may not pose to our biodiversity in 100 years time.

Again in question time today he appeared confused and unclear. Senator Abetz needs to learn a new step: the Prime Minister has now changed his rhetoric from strident sceptic of the effects and challenges of climate change following the release of the report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the environmental threats are well documented. It is clear to all that climate change is an environmental challenge—it is an economic challenge. This report follows the release in December 2006 of the State of the environment report for 2006, which confirms that under this government Australia’s greenhouse emissions continue to rise and our vital waterways are deteriorating. The report confirmed climate change is hurting Australia and that greenhouse pollution continues to soar under the Howard government. We have also had the 2005 report of the Australian Greenhouse Office, Climate change: risks and vulnerability. Labor’s concerns were further borne out by the Stern report, which urges governments to act decisively. Many other reports produce the same evidence.

The Prime Minister dropped the ball on climate change—indeed, he never really picked it up until now when all the available evidence cannot be disputed by simple dismissive rhetoric. And this government still has no answers and no plan. National leadership is needed here. It is critical to Australia’s future prosperity, and all we have seen from this government has been 10 long years of delaying tactics, 10 long years of no action on greenhouse emissions, 10 long years of denying the challenges we need to address.

In 2004 we saw firsthand the lack of government commitment to a climate change strategy when it again failed to act. Of course, I am speaking about the federal mandatory renewable energy target, MRET, which was a small target and the government refused to extend it. On that occasion we saw the failure of Tasmanian Liberal senators to stand up for what was a critical decision for Tasmania—support for the Tasmanian renewable energy sector. At that time it was predicted the failure of the Howard government to act could lead to loss of the Vestas Narcelle wind turbine blade plant in north-west Tasmania. The federal government failed to enhance the MRET, despite its own review panel recommending an increase. Unfortunately, this lack of government support for renewable energy saw Vestas, as predicted, close down with the loss of 100 Tasmanian jobs.

In Senator Abetz’s home state of Tasmania we have seen the state government, through Minister Llewellyn’s department, release Tasmania’s draft climate change strategy. It received more than 110 public submissions. Recent CSIRO projections for Tasmania indicate rises in minimum temperatures in particular, more westerly winds and reduced rainfall in eastern areas. Tasmania can also expect ongoing rises in sea levels. Minister Llewellyn acknowledged:

... the need to work hard to play our part in the international response to climate change ...

The state government has proposed that one part of the climate change strategy will be to maintain Tasmania’s already low greenhouse gas emissions, based largely on renewable and clean energy from hydro and wind, which supply virtually all Tasmania’s energy needs. The minister has said:

... a major greenhouse response is being left undone: that is a change of policy and attitude by the Federal Government to encourage renewable energy across the nation.

Tasmanians see climate change as a major challenge for Tasmania. It is unfortunate that Tasmania’s only federal minister does not seem to.

Federal Labor have positive policies needed to secure Australia’s economic and social long-term future. A Labor government will address climate change by immediately ratifying the Kyoto protocol, cutting Australia’s greenhouse pollution by 60 per cent by 2050, setting up a national emissions trading scheme and substantially increasing the mandatory renewable energy target. Federal Labor are serious about climate change. That is why we will also convene a national climate change summit. The challenge on climate change is one for all of us; however, that challenge can be met only by providing strong and committed leadership at the federal level, and this government is not up to the task. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation (Senator Abetz) to a question without notice asked by Senator Allison today relating to carbon emissions.

This week we finally saw the Prime Minister being pushed into thinking about an emissions trading system. There was an extraordinary admission on his part that his thinking so far, which has relied solely on nuclear and so-called clean coal provisions to bring down our emissions sometime well into the future, has failed. Finally, the Stern report, Al Gore’s film and the IPCC’s report a couple of days ago have meant that the government has been exposed for its pathetic achievements on greenhouse reduction. In answer to my question today the minister said that Australia was more on track than other countries. We are not on track. I would say that you are either on track or not on track, and we are certainly not in that category. We certainly have a more generous target than other countries and we have failed.

This government talks about the need for school reports to be based on an A to F approach, to give a very clear indication of the achievements of the child in question. This government would only attract an F, at best, for its performance on greenhouse so far. Before asking this question, I referred to the Australian Greenhouse Office, the authority within government on this matter. It put out a report, in December last year, tracking the Kyoto target. The report said that, with current policies, greenhouse emissions are set to reach more than 127 per cent of 1990 levels by the year 2020. Despite that, members of the government—Senator Abetz, the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources—have said, even in the last few days, that Australia is on target. Clearly, it is not; it is a long way from being on target, and I have said this in this place before.

The figures show that from 1990 to 2004 we had a massive increase in emissions, particularly in energy—a 34.7 per cent increase in emissions in the energy sector. We had a 43 per cent increase in stationary energy and power generation, a 23.4 per cent increase in transport, a further 18 per cent in industrial processes and 2.2 per cent in agriculture—a massive increase of greenhouse emissions across the board. That tells us this government’s policies are just not working. But Senator Abetz said this government believes in practical solutions. Well, precisely! ‘Practical solutions’ means a level playing field and a price signal, and that can only mean at some stage working with emissions trading and some sort of carbon levy.

We would like to see immediate action because, over the next three years, Australia is going to have to cut 18 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in order to meet that target. We cannot say we are on track unless we have a plan for that massive reduction—and we do not have a plan. The Prime Minister was talking yesterday or today about this carbon trading system being voluntary. Why would it be voluntary? Why would any business that is generating emissions give up on those emissions voluntarily—free of cost, if you like—and give the advantage to their competitors? It is just a basic business principle that you need a level playing field. Rules—mandatory arrangements—need to be in place so that business can have certainty in the future and we can create that level playing field. I would not have thought it necessary for me to remind this government about that.

We constantly hear about the need for a level playing field, but not, it seems, when it comes to greenhouse emissions. There is no point in saying that, in 10 or 15 years time, we might have nuclear reactors—we might not, too. Anyway, 10 or 15 years is far too long; the problem will be well and truly upon us before that time. The task is immediate. Sure, we need practical action—we need it now—but not the kind of practical action we hear about from this government. Voluntary arrangements have not worked. The figures are there for all to see. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.