Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Abetz, representing the Minister for the Environment and Water Resources. Is the minister aware that, under the EU arrangements, the United Kingdom agreed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 12½ per cent from the level in 1990 and is projected to achieve an 18 per cent cut? Is the minister also aware that Germany has targeted a 21 per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions from the level in 1990 and is projected to achieve a 19 per cent cut? How is it that these two countries can make such massive, absolute cuts to their emissions by 2010 while Australia struggles to reach its target of 108 per cent? Why is it that by 2010 these two countries will have made significant cuts to their greenhouse emissions while the Howard government has spent the last 10 years denying the threat of climate change and the need to take real measures to cut our emissions?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the honourable senator’s question, what we have is a desperate attempt by the Australian Labor Party to deal themselves into this debate. As I was able to inform the Senate yesterday, the issue of greenhouse gas emissions was something that we took on board immediately we came into government with our then environment minister making a statement in 1996—the very first year we came into government. Within a year or two of that, we established the Australian Greenhouse Office to deal with exactly these issues.

It is informative that the honourable senator selectively quotes the odd country or so in Europe. But it is interesting that the country of Germany, for example, relies on nuclear energy. That is an interesting consideration. Also, in relation to Australia, we should keep in mind that a lot of the fossil fuel that is expended in Australia is expended because we are one of the breadbaskets of the world. And I pay tribute to the agricultural and primary sectors for the way they have been dealing with the issue of trying to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. But make no mistake: those countries that are forced to buy foodstuffs from us may well be confronted with higher costs and that, of course, would not be of benefit to those countries that rely on our agricultural produce and those people who rely on it.

The release of the UK’s draft climate change bill proposes to make legally binding the target of at least a 60 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from 1990 levels by 2050. But the bill is undergoing a consultation phase and no final decisions on the elements of the draft legislation have yet been made. So let us just put all this in perspective. This is what the Labor Party continually does: it seeks to assert something as fact, whereas in reality the UK have put forward a proposal—a draft bill—and are determining whether or not they should go down that path.

What better proposal could there be than that announced by the Prime Minister yesterday? He showed world leadership in announcing the $200 million fund to deal with the issue of deforestation. You see, that is what you get when you have an experienced Prime Minister, an experienced government, saying, ‘Let’s forget all the hype, let’s look at practical, workable solutions that are sensible and will not cost one single Australian job but could reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of the world by 20 per cent.’

Australia has a vision for the world, to help the world meet the targets that are required. The Labor Party thinks that if they can somehow reduce Australian emissions by one-half and cost thousands of Australians their jobs they will have done something useful. It is a lot better for the environment to adopt the Howard proposal to assist South-East Asian countries not to deforest. I would be very interested to hear whether— (Time expired)

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the UK, Germany, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden are all projected to achieve an absolute cut in their 1990 emissions by the 2010 Kyoto deadline? Doesn’t this fly in the face of the Howard government’s claims that achieving cuts in emissions will do irreparable damage to the economy? Why is the government so keen to tell the Australian public that they cannot achieve what these countries have?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a lot of claims floating around at the moment. Mr Garrett makes claims in relation to this about rising sea levels, yet I happened to note that he has bought a house very close to the beach at Maroubra. I also happened to note the extreme examples given by Senator Bob Brown, of 17 metres, six metres, five metres—depending on the day—and, guess what? I heard he was moving his office the other day from the ninth floor! I thought it would be the 10th, 11th or 12th floor, but do you know where he has moved his office to? To the ground and first floors of—guess where? Not the top of Mount Wellington, but the Murray Street Pier on Hobart’s waterfront. If Senator Brown believed his predictions, he would not be setting up his office on the Murray Street Pier.