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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by Senators Abetz and Minchin to questions without notice asked today, relating to climate change.

Every week we hear something a little more arrogant and a little more sanctimonious from the Howard government on climate change. How fascinating it was today to see Senator Abetz and Senator Minchin effectively throw up their hands and say, ‘Well, what do you want us to do—shut down the whole economy?’ This shows that this government has no idea of the seriousness of this issue and it is choosing to make that kind of ridiculous and, I think, quite immature statement about the economic and social challenge ahead of us on climate change. What we now know, and this was reinforced today by Sir Nicholas Stern’s speech at the National Press Club, is that there is a chronic market failure. We know that climate change will cost the global economy—according to Sir Nicholas Stern, more than both world wars and the Great Depression combined. Unless, he says, the world acts to reduce carbon emissions, the global economy could be cut by up to 20 per cent. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that early action on climate change is critical to protecting our future prosperity.

But we have none of that from the Howard government, despite the auspicious source of these statements being today at the National Press Club in Canberra, the national capital of Australia. They persist in making excuses saying what they are doing is enough. Well, it is not enough. We know that the Howard government is full of climate sceptics and that they are busy trying to talk their way through growing community pressure and growing political pressure, certainly from the Labor Party and others here in the federal parliament but also from right around the world, to take decisive action.

Labor are conducting a national climate change summit this Saturday, coinciding with Earth Day, because we are focused on the sorts of solutions and consensus that we need to try to find amongst the stakeholders in the Australian economy and community. That will bring together scientists, business leaders, union leaders, community stakeholders and of course the Labor Party to hear what they have to say about the urgent necessity to address climate change in Australia. That is on top of Labor’s commitment to ratify the Kyoto protocol and other initiatives that I will go through shortly.

Firstly, I want to make a point about ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Many people have now seen the movie An Inconvenient Truth and it grates so appallingly on many of those people when the US and Australia are identified as the only two countries holding out on ratifying the Kyoto protocol. It is clearly there as a symbol of not only the Howard government’s neglect of climate change but their subservience to the administration of George W Bush in America and his anti-climate change stance that this government is happy to mimic, to be a puppet to, at the expense of all of us, not least the climate change refugees whom we may well have on our own doorstep with the islands in the Torres Strait predicted to be affected by global warming through rising sea levels. So it is an issue that is very close to home, one that is so in a very tangible and practical way for those people.

Today Labor announced another policy to add to our growing suite of very specific policies to tackle climate change. Labor’s leader, Mr Rudd, and our environment spokesperson, Mr Garrett, announced a plan to provide $50 million to help subsidise the installation of solar power in homes and community buildings around the country. This will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 16,800 tonnes a year, the equivalent of taking 4,000 cars off the road for a full year. This is another policy, joining our policies on green cars and clean coal, that a Labor government will put in place if elected. Another critical issue is that we will substantially increase the mandatory renewable energy target and set up a national emissions trading scheme, with the overall goal of cutting Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050. All of these things stand in stark contrast with a lazy, sceptical government that is incapable of, and unwilling to, take climate change seriously. (Time expired)

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The trouble with the Labor Party’s credibility on this issue is that they have parroted a very lazy greenhouse policy for the past 11 years that they have been in opposition. They have three-word policies and two-word policies, one of which is, ‘Sign Kyoto’. We happen to know that signing Kyoto will do absolutely nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia or globally. We also happen to know that most of the countries that have ratified Kyoto—you can count the exceptions on one hand—will go massively over their targets. Eighteen months ago, during an election campaign in Canada, Australia was being lectured by the former Prime Minister of Canada, Paul Martin, because we and the United States had not ratified Kyoto. Paul Martin was kicked out, probably because most Canadians understood that, while he was lecturing his cousins in the United States and his friends in Australia on greenhouse gas emissions, Canada had gone 30 per cent over its Kyoto target, leaving the incoming government of Stephen Harper with a massive problem. Of course, Mr Martin’s credibility was nil. The Labor Party’s other policy is the three-word policy of a ‘national emissions trading scheme’.

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Kemp interjecting—

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that is four words, Senator Kemp. For 11 years they have been saying the four words ‘national emissions trading scheme’, but they are no closer to telling us what it is.

We know that if you have a trading scheme you will have a price on carbon. The last time we heard from the Labor Party about a price on carbon was when they were in power. The then environment minister, Senator John Faulkner, now sits, a lonely figure, on the back bench with the coffee plunger he inherited from Cheryl Kernot and the scars he inherited from his flirtation with Mark Latham. The only thing he has left in terms of his failed policies, let alone his failed allegiances with Kernot and Latham, is his carbon tax. He came into this place just over 11 years ago—he sat where Senator Abetz now sits—and proposed a carbon tax. Of course, the political flak flew within hours of him proposing a carbon tax. He had come back from a climate change conference in Bonn. He had decided that a carbon tax was the answer. He came back from Bonn all brave—having sat in the first-class section of an aeroplane—and said: ‘Let’s have a carbon tax for Australia. We’ll lead the world.’ Of course, greater minds and greater political thinkers than Senator Faulkner—and there are a lot of those around the place—said, ‘You’d better go quiet on the carbon price.’

You at least have to give credit where it is due. Senator Faulkner had the guts to say, ‘We need a carbon tax and a carbon price.’ But that was the last time Labor said anything specific. Ever since then, for 11 long years in opposition—not long enough, I say—they have been talking about a national emissions trading scheme. The closest we got to that came not from the lazy sods opposite who call themselves an opposition but from Roger Wilkins, the former head of the Cabinet Office in New South Wales under the Labor government of Mr Carr. To his credit, Roger Wilkins worked away with his state comrades for a number of months and they came up with a design for a national emissions trading scheme. Labor have not signed on to it federally; they have not done any work like this.

Roger Wilkins got the states together and they launched this scheme. You will recall, Mr Deputy President, that the Premier of Queensland, your home state, said: ‘We’re not going to be part of Roger Wilkins’s New South Wales policy. We’re out.’ They were out by, I think, lunchtime. Then Alan Carpenter figured that it would be very bad for Western Australia because it would kill jobs in WA—just as Mr Beattie had figured that it was going to kill jobs in Queensland—and he pulled out. So, at the state level, the best the Labor Party has been able to come up with in terms of a trading scheme is a document that the two big resource-rich states pulled out of within 12 hours. We are yet to see Mr Rudd come up with a policy. What is the best thing he can offer the Australian people after 11 years of lazy opposition? What are they going to do this weekend? ‘Let’s have a summit. Let’s have a meeting.’ Talk about lazy!

I would just like to correct the record in relation to the US not ratifying the Kyoto protocol. There was a vote by the United States Senate on what was called the Byrd-Hagel amendment. It was a vote on Mr Gore’s proposal to ratify the Kyoto protocol, and it went down 95 votes to nil. Do you know who were the great President Bush supporters who voted against ratifying the Kyoto protocol? Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator John Kerry—all those people. It was not some sort of Bush conspiracy. The Democratic Party of the United States knew that signing the Kyoto protocol would be bad for the jobs of United States citizens, just as our government recognised it would be bad for our citizens. (Time expired)

Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers provided by Senator Abetz and Senator Minchin on the issue of climate change. Climate change is a serious issue with serious consequences. It is only now that we are in an election year that the issue has made the gigantic leap from being way off the government’s action radar for nearly 11 years to being on the government’s election agenda—an agenda that places greater importance on removing the working conditions and job security of thousands of hardworking Australians, with Work Choices, than on addressing climate change and our national water crisis.

The Howard government cannot be trusted on the environment. It has wasted a decade denying the existence of climate change. The government has failed to adequately address environmental challenges. It has failed to deliver a real action plan policy addressing climate change. It has failed to deliver to the Australian people on the environment for our children and for future generations. Labor has a policy of ratifying Kyoto; the government does not. Labor has a policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent by 2050; the government does not. Labor has a half-a-billion-dollar national clean coal initiative; the government does not. Labor has a $500 million green car innovation fund; the government does not.

Today, federal Labor announced that a Rudd Labor government would encourage the installation of solar panels across Australia to slash greenhouse gas emissions. Federal Labor’s solar home power plan will invest $50 million over four years to install solar power in our homes, schools and community buildings. This will provide up to $4,000 a household—about 25 per cent of the cost of a typical domestic solar power system as a rebate available to homeowners.

The Howard government has had numerous opportunities to pass legislation to deal with the effect of climate change on our environment, but it has refused to do so. Why shouldn’t the people of Australia be cynical? As recently as November last year, we witnessed this government rushing legislation through in the form of the Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment Bill—another lost opportunity to improve on existing legislation and address the very real challenges we are facing in Australia and around the world. Not only did the government fail to take up the opportunity to improve on the legislation but, through the changes, it effectively weakened existing legislation. It weakened the protection that the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 provided for Australia’s biodiversity and heritage.

That is why the people of Australia will not take this government seriously when it comes to the environment. We have seen nearly 11 years of inaction by the Howard government in the face of Australia’s greatest challenge. The government cannot be excused, it cannot be forgiven and it cannot be trusted with the environment. The Australian people have a right to climate change policies that will be effective, that will give our children and generations following a real future. Australian business and farmers cannot afford indecision and scepticism; they are already hurting. This government has failed to adequately address environmental challenges. It has failed to deliver. In the face of overwhelming evidence that warming temperatures and associated changes in rainfall and sea levels will have consequences for both the world’s environment and economy, they have been sceptical—and it appears from comments made by those opposite that some are still in denial.

Inaction on and denial of climate change and our water crisis have already resulted in Australian business facing billions of dollars in lost opportunities, and Australian businesses and jobs being forced offshore. It has resulted in Australia’s electricity generators being reluctant to invest in clean coal technology while the government refuses to commit to a carbon trading scheme. It has resulted in Australia’s wind industry being left with $13 billion worth of projects stalled on their books, while at the same time the global wind industry has experienced another record year of expansion.

The Howard government lacks good policy and strong leadership. It is out of touch when it comes to protecting the planet for future generations. Federal Labor believe that climate change is one of our greatest threats and is determined to tackle it. (Time expired)

Rod Kemp (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If climate change is our greatest problem, as Senator Wortley concluded in her remarks, why is the Labor Party policy so completely vacuous? It is astonishing. I listened as Senator Wortley remarked on the Labor Party’s policy. We note that after 11 years, in order to develop your policy, you have to have a summit. When in doubt, have a summit—that is exactly what happens with the Labor Party. After 11 years, it has no idea what to do.

For Senator Wortley and Senator Lundy to lecture the government on policy in here today is quite astonishing. It was a very weak effort. I noticed that this time Senator Wortley steered clear of the coal industry because the Labor Party is so divided over that particular issue. Many workers are employed in the coal industry and they are very anxious to hear what the Labor Party policy is in relation to their industry. Yes, you have a clean coal policy, but it is our policy that you have grabbed. We have been talking about clean coal now for years and, suddenly, the Labor Party has decided it has a clean coal policy. There was an announcement today by Mr Rudd about solar power which is merely a continuation of the policy that we have in place. Talk about trying to create light and sparks! The truth of the matter is that the Labor Party policy is extraordinarily vacuous and has huge holes in it that need to be filled.

Senator Wortley talked about the policy to cut greenhouse emissions by some 60 per cent by 2050—and I would be very interested to hear what Senator Hurley, who is in the chamber, has to say on this, if she is to make a speech. It will be interesting to find out how that target will be reached and what the implications are for major sectors of the Australian economy. Of course, we will have a debate on that. An astonishing feature of your policy is this, Senator Wortley: would we be cutting that without any international agreement at all? Australia supplies about 1.5 per cent, from memory, of world greenhouse gas emissions. Your policy apparently proposes a major cut in these emissions without requiring any matching cuts from other countries. Senator Hurley may be able to explain to us precisely what that means. Would this be a unilateral cut? If so, Senator Hurley, a lot of people in this country would be very upset. It may be part of a multilateral agreement—and we are all for that. However, if that multilateral agreement did not come off, where would that leave your current policy position?

So there is really quite a range of questions which now have to be answered. There are questions from the coal industry about Labor Party policy and whether Mr Garrett in the end will win the day and close down the coal sector. A lot of the government’s supporters are very keen to hear that, of course.

The other thing that I would say is that we are having a debate in this chamber on an extremely important issue, so where are the Greens? Where is Bob Brown? Where is Senator Milne? I must say, you wonder where on earth the Greens are, when they have been trumpeting this issue in this chamber. Here we are having a serious debate on the issue and they are missing in action.

I thought Senator Ian Campbell made a really excellent speech, with excellent remarks, and showed what a quality minister he was. He was able to add some depth and context in his responses to some of the claims that were made by the Labor Party which were, I have to say, unanswered by Senator Wortley. We listened carefully to see whether the remarks that Senator Campbell made on emissions trading would be answered by Senator Wortley, but of course they were not. So what we have is a policy that is vacuous. After 11 years, no real leadership has been given by the Labor Party on this issue. I am afraid that, unless Senator Hurley can win the day, the Labor Party is far behind on a very important issue. (Time expired)

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise too to note the answers that Senator Minchin gave on climate change and also the responses of Senator Ian Campbell and Senator Kemp. They were marked by sarcasm, mockery and an attack on the Labor Party, but there was very little attempt to deal with the actual issues. That is, of course, because the Liberal government have made very little attempt to deal with the issues. They talk about not having targets and not signing Kyoto and say that it will not make any difference. They talk about not having unilateral targets for greenhouse gas emissions and yet they will not participate in the only multilateral forum that is around: Kyoto. They have refused to participate in the one multilateral forum they have. They talk about some other multilateral forum, hoping that it will never eventuate.

The government’s approach is to just hope that it will all go away and they will not have to deal with it in the end. This is in a situation in the Australian economy where more and more businesses—large businesses, medium businesses—are calling for some pricing signals on carbon emissions from the government, and the government have been studiously refusing to deal with this. The end result is that the states have tried to deal with it on their own in a unilateral fashion.

I am very pleased that the South Australian government has been one of the states that have attempted to deal with greenhouse gas emissions by themselves. Senator Ian Campbell made fun of them. He said that they were not successful, that it was too difficult for them, and yet he did not address the central issue, which is the fact that they are trying to deal with emissions themselves because the federal government—the national government, which is the natural government that should be dealing with these kinds of national issues—is missing in action. That is precisely why the state governments have attempted to deal with emissions by themselves. The Howard government is getting increasingly arrogant, increasingly not consultative and increasingly combative with those states in an attempt to salvage its government record and deal with the possibility that it might not win the next election. It is not dealing with the critical issue that we need to deal with. The government lacks the will or the ability to deliver national action on this very important issue.

In the short time that I have left to me, I want to deal with Labor’s response. The Labor opposition is having a climate change summit and is attempting to get policy together on this very critical issue. The government has talked about its Greenhouse Office. The opposition unfortunately does not have access to the kind of money and expertise which a decent greenhouse office might have involved, but it is trying to gather together experts to listen to them on how it will proceed. I have my own views on how to proceed and, indeed, how it might dovetail with another of the key Labor Party platforms, and that is education and the extension of its education focus: research and development. The Labor opposition has the political will to achieve that.

Given that there has been such inaction over a decade and that we are behind in addressing this issue, the question becomes: how will we then achieve it? I think that the neglect of education and research and development by the current government has put us well behind on ways to proceed once we have acknowledged the problem, which the current government has failed to do. I believe that not enough of the proceeds of the resources boom have been invested in research, in innovation and in skills development, because, even if we find a way forward through research and technology, we still need the skills in this country to put it into action. Skills are one of the things which, thanks to government neglect, we are very short of. This is one of the key issues that we will have to address once we have decided to deal with the problem. This whole approach is one— (Time expired)

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

I also rise to take note of the answers given by Senators Abetz and Minchin to questions relating to climate change. The answers provided by Senator Abetz to my question, and to those questions put by the ALP today, were consistent. Senator Abetz trots out the tired old answers to this question, saying that we have to look beyond Kyoto, that Kyoto has been a failure, that we need to move on, that we are going to meet our targets anyway but we have to move on. He talks about the emissions trading system in the EU as being a total failure. I understand the Prime Minister also answered questions and said, ‘This is all about job losses; we’re not going to move on anything which would economically damage the community,’ and so on.

The whole point of Sir Nicholas Stern’s message to us today at the National Press Club, and I understand he is meeting with the Prime Minister today as well, is that if we do not take urgent action—not just a bit here or there, a few grants handed out for clean coal, a bit of this and that, a renewable energy target that is less than 0.5 per cent of the total by 2010—if we do not do more than we have done, if we do not make deep structural changes to the way we do business, then we are not going to deliver on the massive cuts that are required. And, moreover, we can do this. We can have massive cuts in greenhouse emissions and still have jobs growth and economic growth, live the lifestyle that we enjoy and have a thriving economy. That is the message that the government seems not to be hearing.

So we have moved away from what might have been called a precautionary principle approach, where the conservationists were on one side and industry was on the other, and they were arguing about this. That has finished now. What we have is economic modelling that shows that if we do not do anything our economy is going to suffer. So this is now a question of how risky this government is being by not addressing climate change.

Of course we had the same old arguments too about Australia generating just over one per cent of global greenhouse emissions—again, a furphy. We are actually the 10th largest emitter—and I am not talking per capita; we all know we are the highest there. The overall emissions from this country are the 10th highest in the world. That is just behind Britain, which has three times our population; 60 million people live in Britain, and their emissions are only just higher than ours.

So the message from Sir Nicholas Stern was: all developed countries need to collaborate, need to be part of this effort, need to sign up to Kyoto. It is an embarrassment that we have not done that. It is late in the piece, but it is not too late. That is my message to the Prime Minister. And I know that is going to be the message that Sir Nicholas Stern will be giving to the Prime Minister himself today.

It is critically important that no countries duck out of this. That is what Australia has done: we have ducked out of Kyoto. We were there for many years, while Senator Hill was our environment minister, but since that time we have found reasons to undermine Kyoto and to step back from it, claiming it is ineffectual. Well, it is not ineffectual; in fact, it is very effectual. The fact that the government thinks it is important to largely stick with the Kyoto commitments indicates that, to my mind. But of course, we are not going to stick with them. By 2012 we will have overshot our Kyoto commitments by about six million tonnes. We never hear about that from Senator Abetz. We keep hearing about how it is a finished process, that it is out the window and we have to look for something else.

Yes, let us look for something else. Let us go beyond 2012. Let us have some targets. Let us have some targets for 2020. And let us make sure that they include the very easy to do targets. For instance, we should be looking for a one per cent energy efficiency target. Let us stop wasting energy. If we can avoid doing that, we can avoid putting in new coal-fired power stations. We would also manage—and I have said this many times in this place—to reduce wholesale electricity costs by 20 per cent. And I point out again that this is the lowest cost-effective greenhouse gas abatement measure that can be undertaken. But we never hear that from Senator Abetz. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.