Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received a letter from Senator Milne proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The glaring disparity between the findings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts of the impact of sea level rise on Australian coastlines and the Government’s climate change policies and targets.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

I rise today to note the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now. I note that at last we have a government committee saying what the Greens have been saying, what the scientists have been saying and what the community has been saying for decades. But the conclusion cannot be drawn that action on the very real threat of climate change to Australia’s coastal communities is going to be addressed by the government’s targets.

This is the most important thing: if we proceed with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and a national reduction of emissions target of 5 to 25 per cent, we will lock in a high probability that we will see the worst case scenario in this report actually come to pass. That is the critical thing. There is a massive disconnect between what the science is saying and what the government is saying. It is irresponsible in the extreme for anyone to report that the CPRS or the national target will in any way mitigate climate change or avoid the worst case scenarios.

We are talking about the fact that we have in Australia 711,000 addresses within three kilometres of the coast. This is a very real risk to Australia’s coastal areas. We know that with sea level rise we will get thermal expansion of the oceans as a result of increased temperature and increased and rapid melt of the glaciers. At some point we will also run the risk of losing the West Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet. I would remind the Senate that the Greenland ice sheet is equivalent to seven metres of sea level rise and the West Antarctic ice sheet is the equivalent of six metres rise—13 metres in those two ice sheets. No-one is suggesting that they are going to be influencing sea level rise tomorrow by 13 metres; what we are saying is what the scientists are pointing out. I quote Dr John Church:

There is an important issue of thresholds. We are likely to cross a threshold leading to an ongoing disintegration of the Greenland icesheet—and remember that the Greenland icesheet contains the equivalent of seven metres of sea level rise. We could cross that threshold late this century.

This is the key point:

At a 550 ppm CO2 equivalent level there is approximately a 50 per cent risk of crossing that threshold. That is not to say that the Greenland icesheet will disappear as soon as we cross that threshold, but unless we substantially reduce levels below that value there will be an ongoing disintegration of the icesheet …

           …         …         …

and if we cross that threshold there will be major impacts over many centuries or perhaps even millennia.

At 550 parts per million we are running a 50 per cent risk of crossing the threshold and seeing the one-metre sea level rise that we are talking about, with the most conservative science in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report, and we are running a 50 per cent risk of crossing that threshold. At 550 parts per million, that is precisely what the Rudd government is talking about. When it goes to Copenhagen with its targets, it is talking about 550 parts per million or more, and the scientists tell us that we should be aiming for 350 parts per million.

Do not let anyone be under any illusion when we have a minister stand up in here, note the report from the House of Representatives and say, ‘That’s why five to 25 is what we need to do.’ No, it is not what we need to do. As we already know, the great fear for Copenhagen is that we will end up with Copenhagen agreeing to 550 parts per million or more, and that is going to be locking in that kind of sea level rise. What we will then see is a tremendous risk to Australia’s coastline. Let me talk about some of the impacts of global warming on the coastline. Starting with the Great Barrier Reef, scientists are now very afraid of reaching a tipping point on ocean acidification. The CRC in Hobart talks about 450 parts per million as being the tipping point for ocean acidification. If you lose those structures in the Great Barrier Reef that hold the corals together, the corals are going to disintegrate and weaken, and when they are hit by a cyclone you will get a lot of destruction of the reef.

Let us look around the Australian coastline. We have Brisbane, which is incredibly low and vulnerable. The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts says that in Tasmania 20 per cent of the coastline is already vulnerable. That is the kind of response we see. Looking around the whole country, it is not just coastlines but also estuaries. We are going to see flooding in those estuarine areas all around Australia. We have this suggestion that the federal government is in some way taking leadership on issues related to climate change and sea level rise, but I want to come back to Professor Steffen, who said:

Mitigation, as vigorously and rapidly as we can, is the best insurance against the worst of the projected coastal impacts. Obviously this is a global task, but as a country with a very high percentage of population and infrastructure in the coastal zone, it should be a high priority for Australia that the international community achieves an effective mitigation strategy at Copenhagen.

The government is running up the white flag on Australia’s coastline and the 711,000 residences on that coastline. For every metre of sea level rise, you can talk about up to 100 metres of incursion in vulnerable coastal areas. Australians must take notice of the House of Representatives committee report but they must then come back and say to the Prime Minister and to Minister Wong, ‘You cannot look us in the eye and tell us that your targets are in any way going to mitigate this outcome.’

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

Climate change and its devastating impacts now and into the future—including rising sea levels—are indeed matters of public importance. The Australian people recognise that. The Rudd Labor government recognise that.

In November 2007 Labor was asked by voters across the nation to, among other things, take on the mounting task of addressing climate change. Frustrated by years of inaction by the climate change sceptics—many of whom still sit opposite us—pulling the strings of Australia’s environmental policy, the Australian people spoke out at the ballot box. Since this government took office, tackling the very real and increasing threat of climate change has been a very high priority. The first act of the Prime Minister was to sign the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. Unlike those opposite, we acknowledge that climate change poses threats to our environment, our economy and our society. Unlike those opposite, we believe that Australia must take responsibility for our contribution to climate change and that we must act to reduce it.

This government has committed to dramatically cutting Australia’s greenhouse emissions and it is working with households, schools, communities, businesses and primary industries to reduce carbon pollution and adjust to the inevitable impact of climate change. The government has taken a seat at the world table, for the first time, in a collaborative effort to find global solutions to this global problem. The government has been working to support green jobs and investment now and into the future. The government introduced into this parliament legislation that could have brought into law a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—legislation that would have put the brakes on Australia’s rising greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, in August, the Greens sided with the Liberals and the Nationals to vote down the CPRS.

The matter of public importance today relates to a report handed down by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts and this government’s climate change policies and targets. The report of the committee, Managing our coastal zone in a changing climate: the time to act is now, includes 47 recommendations. From what I know of the report to date, it makes for sobering reading. Even a snippet from its introduction is unequivocal. I quote:

Firstly, many thousands of kilometres of the Australian coastline have been identified as at risk from the threat of rising sea levels and extreme weather events due to the impacts of climate change. The concentration of Australia’s population and infrastructure along the coast makes our nation particularly vulnerable to the coastal erosion and inundation that will accompany increases in sea level.

The government do not shy away from this report or from its findings, as daunting as they may seem—quite the contrary. As the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, said this morning on radio 2UE, we called for it. In fact, instigating this inquiry was one of our first steps in advancing a national approach to coastal policy. The government believe such a national coastal adaptation response is needed, and the Commonwealth has been working with the states and territories through COAG towards this end. We are already investing in a range of initiatives as part of our efforts to adapt to the climate change consequences we cannot avoid, in coastal areas and elsewhere. Such investments include the $12.9 billion Water for the Future plan and the $200 million Reef Rescue package. Of course, this committee report will be further examined and its recommendations considered in the light of what the government can act on and how the report will inform future policy. The Commonwealth will work with state and territory governments, coastal councils, natural resource management groups and other experts in developing a response to the report. As Minister Wong said today:

This is a report which confirms why we have to act on climate change. It confirms the sorts of impacts that we risk, and demonstrates yet again why we have to act as a nation to reduce our contribution to climate change.

... the committee has looked at a range of scientific opinion and has come to a view about the sort of risk we face from sea level rise. ... I think it is quite clear from the consensus science that this is one of the consequences of climate change and we simply can’t ignore it.

And we would be, I think, irresponsible as politicians, as community leaders, to just pretend that these risks don’t exist.

Indeed, this report is the latest in a long and growing list of examples of the negative results of climate change. As committee chair, Labor’s Jennie George MP, writes in her foreword, after an 18 month inquiry with 28 public hearings and 100 submissions:

It’s one thing to read about the science but another to see first hand, as we did, the obvious and early negative consequences of climate change on our coastal zone.

Ms George also says of the inquiry:

One clear message emerged—and that is the need for national leadership in managing our precious coastal zone in the context of climate change. I am optimistic that the Australian government will meet that challenge. Indeed, many of the initiatives already instituted by the Department of Climate Change head in that direction.

As we have been reminded since the release of this report, approximately 80 per cent of Australians live near the coast and more than 700,000 homes and businesses are within three kilometres of the coast where elevation is below five metres above sea level. Unlike those opposite, this government recognises the threat of rising sea levels. We recognise that Australia’s coastline is vulnerable to climate change due to our population concentration and the natural and built assets in those areas. We acknowledge that some of these areas have faced rapid population growth; they have suffered catchment degradation and have been subject to inappropriate development, all of which have made them susceptible. That is why, among other things, we are undertaking a $25 million assessment of coastal vulnerability. This national coastal vulnerability assessment will look at the threats to our coastline, its cities, towns and infrastructure, and its biodiversity. It will consider the environmental, economic and social impacts of anticipated sea level rise, extreme storms and other climate change events. In doing so, this assessment—due for release soon—will give us a better understanding of the risks and identify the priority areas for research and investment.

After the release of this assessment, the government has committed to holding a national forum through which to develop a national coastal adaptation agenda. True to form, the opposition would rather do nothing than act on the threat of rising sea levels. On being asked by a journalist today about the need to pass an emissions trading scheme sooner rather than later due to the risk posed to coastal homes and businesses by rising sea levels, Mr Tony Abbott MP said:

When it comes to rising sea levels I’m alert but I can’t say that I’m particularly alarmed. The fact is that sea levels have risen along the NSW coast by more than 20 centimetres over the last century. Has anyone noticed it? No they haven’t. Obviously an 80 centimetre rise in sea levels would be more serious but I’m confident that we have the resources to cope.

Let us be thankful that this government is far more proactive than that. We are committed to working with local communities to address specific coastal challenges. In addition to the national coastal vulnerability assessment, our Caring for Our Coasts policy includes collaboration with coastal groups, academics, and state, territory and local governments to develop a blueprint for coastal towns and cities, enabling them to meet present-day and predicted climate change challenges. We are updating and upgrading the Disaster Mitigation Australia Package to take climate change weather events into account. We are investigating $100 million over five years in the Community Coastcare program— (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think that anyone in this parliament—in fact, any Australians generally—would deny that our climate is changing. Of course, it has been changing for 95 million years and perhaps even longer. We read about the times when this globe was covered by ice. The ice melted some time back in Australia’s history and then the centre of Australia was a rich tropical rainforest. It is now a desert. We read about when there was an inland sea in Australia, and today it is all land. So quite clearly the climate is changing, but we do not accept the alarmist propaganda being put out by the Labor Party and, of course, by the Greens. We do know that in the last century there was a 20-centimetre rise in global sea levels, and that is significant. We also know that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted that over the coming century there could be an impact of between 18 and 76 centimetres if no action whatsoever is taken. I point out there that the lower level predicted by the IPCC for the next century is 18 centimetres if nothing is done, whereas in the last century it was 20 centimetres. I am not saying that 18 centimetres is right, but it is within the range that the IPCC has given us, and that is if nothing is done. We also know that over the last 20,000 years there has been a 130-metre change in sea levels. Sea levels do change across the board. There was a 20-centimetre rise last century and there is a predicted rise of between 18 and 76 centimetres in the next century if nothing is done.

I am confident that something will be done at some time in the future. Indeed, it was the Howard government that first addressed this issue by setting up the world’s very first Greenhouse Office. This was the very first government office anywhere in the world that started looking at climate change issues. It was the Howard government that went to Kyoto and negotiated Australia’s targets at that time, targets that have been met by this country when they have been met by very few other countries.

We are concerned about alarmist hypocrisy from the Labor Party. You have only to look at what the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, said when speaking to Tony Jones on Lateline. He agreed that the upper level of rises in the global sea level could be as much as six metres—six metres!—by the end of this century. According to Mr Garrett, in 90 years time sea levels could rise by six metres. You do not need to be a great mathematician to work out that that is 66 millimetres every year for the next 90 years. This is what the Labor Party is going around trying to scare the Australian public into believing—that every single year for the next 90 years there will be a 66-millimetre increase in the sea levels around our coastline. It is absolutely ridiculous poppycock, and Mr Garrett should know it. It is typical of the fearmongering in which the Labor Party and the Greens have indulged in this debate.

It is also very interesting that the Labor Party has sent out a team of backbenchers to continue that scare campaign, that spin campaign, for which Mr Rudd and his government have become so well known. In a doorstop interview this morning, Mr Dreyfus, the member for Isaacs, was saying that Mr Rudd is going to reduce sea level rises. One might have thought that it was Moses reincarnated!

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then he will walk on it!

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps he might walk on the water once he reduces the levels. Mr Dreyfus was asked by a journalist how much a five per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by Australia would mean to the increase in sea levels. He was then asked, ‘Will it be a couple of millimetres?’ Mr Dreyfus answered, ‘It will be more than that.’ So five per cent by Australia alone will mean that we will reduce sea levels by a couple of millimetres! Nobody in their right mind could possibly believe that sort of ridiculous rubbish, but it is part of the scaremongering campaign being undertaken by Mr Rudd.

The coalition’s position is quite clear. While none of us is understanding enough to be able to comment on whether the science of man-made emissions-causing climate change is true or not, I am one of those who goes along with the proposition because I am not a scientist—and the scientists seem to be evenly divided—but if everybody else in the world does it then Australia should do it too. However, we should not be destroying our economy in Australia and we should not be destroying the jobs of our fellow Australians by rushing into this ill-thought-out, poorly designed emissions trading scheme in front of the rest of the world.

Anyone with a modicum of sense would know that reducing emissions in Australia by five or even 25 per cent will not make any difference to the changing climate of the world. It will make absolutely no difference to the changing sea levels of the world. What we have to get is agreement from the big emitters: America, China, India, Russia, Indonesia, Argentina, South Africa, Colombia—all of those places that compete with the commodities in which Australia trades. When the world does move, so should Australia. That has always been the coalition’s view. That is why we started this whole debate, with the report from the former Secretary of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Mr Shergold. We have been looking at this for a long time, but Australia cannot act by itself. Unless other countries are prepared to do their bit, nothing Australia does will make one iota of difference to the changing climate of the world.

That is why this mad rush before Copenhagen in less than two months time is so difficult to understand, unless it is part of the socialist conspiracy to destroy the Australian economy and have all of Australia entirely dependent upon government handouts. I fear that that is where Mr Rudd is going. He is creating a socialist society that Gough Whitlam could only have dreamed about. But Mr Rudd is doing it by making absolutely everybody dependent on government handouts. Mr Rudd is going to tax every Australian to the hilt. Every Australian’s electricity bill and every business that operates in Australia will be taxed to the hilt by this Labor government. It will come as no surprise because that is what Labor is renowned at doing: increasing taxes. What Mr Rudd will then do, having massively increased the tax take from all Australians, is decide who should be favoured and who gets the money that he has collected. He will socially engineer a country like Australia that has been built on free enterprise, choice and freedom. That is the design of Mr Rudd’s plan. There can be no other reason for taking this action well in advance of the rest of the world. It will make not one iota of difference to the changing climate of the world. That is why Mr Rudd and his scheme should be rejected. That is why most Australians want it delayed until we see what the rest of the world is doing in Copenhagen. I certainly hope Mr Rudd takes note.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very serious motion which deserves very serious action from the government and the coalition. But that is not what we are seeing. I have just been looking at the front page of today’s Sydney Morning Herald which says that the report from the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, following its investigation, enjoyed cross-party support. Under the caption ‘What lies ahead’ for New South Wales, the newspaper reports that 200,000 buildings are vulnerable to sea level rise this century because of climate change, 484,000 buildings are vulnerable nationally, up to $50 billion worth of property is at risk and 20 per cent of the Tasmanian coastline is under threat. In a specific case, looking at Narrabeen and Sydney’s northern beaches, with just a 20-centimetre rise—the level of rise being described by the previous speaker in the Senate—and a one-in-50 year storm surge, the coastline at Narrabeen would be pushed back 110 metres, causing $230 million in damage. We are talking here about people being removed from their living places and having to find elsewhere to live. We are also talking now about the increasing impossibility for people who are in climate change threatened properties on the Australian coastline to be able to get insurance. We know for certain that the insurance industry is going to get tougher, not easier, in deciding where it will not insure householders or business owners in Australia against storm surges of that variety that are, one must think on the average of probabilities, going to happen in the coming decades at Narrabeen.

The problem is that the head is still stuck firmly in the sand. We hear people like the previous speaker saying that climates have changed on the planet over many millions of years and, quite falsely, that scientists are equally balanced on whether or not they think there is going to be climate change et cetera. The fact is that we are in an age of climate change. We are now facing sea level rises, and they are accelerating.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Six metres!

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Six metres, says the previous speaker by interjection, and I note that he laughs at that. But he is the same senator from the coalition who laughed at me 13 years ago in this place when I predicted sea level rises of the sort that we are now having to talk about.

The problem here is the government’s target level for greenhouse gas emission reductions—from the country, Australia, which is the biggest per capita polluter on the planet—of five per cent over 2000 levels by 2020, four per cent if you take the Kyoto baseline of 1990. Measure that against, for example, Scotland’s legislated aim of a 42 per cent reduction, or Costa Rica, which has led the world for many years in environmental and social thinking, which wants a 100 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2030. The previous speaker, representing a strongly held feeling in this parliament, said that we must not act before the rest of the world. I disagree. We are the wealthiest country on earth per capita in resources and we have the biggest coastline per capita of all the wealthy countries on earth. We have the most to lose. These reports show that there are 700,000 vulnerable properties on the eastern seaboard alone. And these properties are being affected. We had a storm from the south in Tasmania within the last month of which old-timers said they had not seen the like in 60 years. It sank boats and washed others up on the shore. But the erosion along the coastline which came from that storm surge was massive. Near my own house a boulder of five to 10 tonnes, with a large tree, fell from the cliff line and washed into the beach from this storm surge. The tree and the boulder had been there for many decades. You can say that this is a once in so often storm, but that needs to be added on top of what Senator Macdonald agreed was an 18-centimetre sea level rise in recent years.

The portents are very clear for all of us. People like the Greens mayor Jan Barham and her council at Byron Bay have been trying to warn about this and even to plan for it, and what they have received in return is sniping and uninformed invective from, for example, the editorialist of the Australian that we will live to see seas go down, a marker of the head-in-the-sand inability to deal with the problem of climate change which marks this era. The government’s proposal for a five per cent, increasing to 25 per cent if there is global agreement, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is completely inconsistent with the threat and the damage which climate change is already bringing to the Australian coastline.

We have just heard a debate with vilification against people who are moving countries because they are threatened. Look at Bangladesh, where 80 per cent of disputes in the courts are now over erosion of land, a country with a massively increasing population, very much of it less than 10 metres above sea level and very vulnerable to increasing storms and floods as the glaciers in the Himalayas melt and their water comes down the Ganges and other rivers. According to the United Nations, we face the prospect of 150 million displaced people—Bangladesh will supply many of them—by midcentury, and many of those people are going to come to Australia. That migration will make the current pressure on our seashores from so-called boat people look like nothing at all, and yet it is inherently being built into the future of this planet by the inaction of the Rudd Labor government and by the inaction of the Turnbull opposition. On top of this, in this country, now the world’s biggest coal exporter by a very big margin, Queensland Premier Bligh, with Senator Wong and Prime Minister Rudd, wants to put billions of dollars into infrastructure to accelerate the export of coal to be burnt elsewhere in the world, which will accelerate the problem of global warming in an age when people at Mildura, where there were plans for a large solar plant to produce renewable electricity without threatening the globe, have been unable to get the finance. It is a government which is failing to act on the simple, reasonable face of the facts.

There is now a House of Representatives report about the astonishing impact of climate change on Australia. With it comes the impact on the spread of diseases. With it comes the impact on the ability to produce food, which is diminished greatly; we have seen that in the Murray-Darling Basin. With it comes the loss of our ski fields and the glaciers which feed water to 1.5 billion people in South-East Asia to our north. For months of the year, very little water will run down their rivers. Those glaciers have fed those rivers throughout all of recorded human history. Yet the blinkers are on because of the power of the polluting industries over the two parties in this parliament. The power of the polluting industries goes against the nous of the majority of Australians, who want greater action on climate change and want to see some security, through government action, brought back to people living on the coastlines, and to Australians generally, for the future of this nation.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to contribute to the debate on this MPI today. I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts into managing our coastal zone in a changing climate. In case people have the wrong idea, I note that this was indeed a bipartisan report, and the members of the opposition who participated in this inquiry are quite clearly signed up to the fact that climate change exists and is having a deleterious effect on our coastline. You may not have ascertained that from the comments by Senator Macdonald. The opposition members in this inquiry were Dr Mal Washer, the Hon. John Cobb, Ms Nola Marino, the Hon. Bruce Scott and Mr Jason Wood. I appreciate their contribution to this important report.

Comments are often made in the debate about climate change along the lines of ‘the climate of the world has always been changing’. Of course it has always been changing. We know there have been ice ages in the past. We know there were inland seas in Australia in the past. The difference now is that there are 22 million people living in Australia, and I do not think there were 22 million people living in Australia during the last ice age. The fact that there are some 22 million people living in Australia, 80 per cent of them close to the coast, means that the impact of climate change is going to be a lot different to what it was during the last ice age.

I am pleased to say not only that the Rudd Labor government acknowledge that climate change exists and is a problem for the population of Australia but that we have tackled the problem of climate change head-on. We have accepted the science of climate change. We have accepted the consensus that global warming does exist, that human activity is causing global warming and that global warming is deleterious. Therefore, we accept that human activity should be modified to ameliorate the impact of global warming. We have accepted the view that we need to act now or our climate will change and the population of Australia, 22 million of us, will suffer serious consequences. The government recognises the destruction that climate change will have on our country should we fail to act, and we have devised a plan to begin to reduce the severity of climate change and to maintain an environment that will support the kind of human activity that we need and want for the generations to come.

It is well known from the science that, as a nation, we are highly susceptible to the impacts of climate change, and the House of Representatives report referred to in this motion before the chamber goes substantially to that issue. The effects that climate change will have on our environment, our economy and our lifestyle will be serious. The health of our population, the security of our water and energy supplies and the impacts on our coastal communities will all be significant. The nation, and indeed the whole world, is treading somewhat uncharted waters here. No-one can be exactly sure of the extent of the impact that climate change will have on our future, but we need to be prepared to accept the fact that there will be change and we need to do something about it, and that is what the Rudd government is doing.

In our relatively short time in government, the government have already proven to be a driving force for international action on climate change. Of course, the first action of the government was ratifying the Kyoto protocol, and that was seen by the world as a positive step in our commitment to stabilising the concentration in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Additionally, the government have established a mandatory renewable energy target, implemented the Clean Energy Initiative, introduced energy efficiency measures and implemented a national water strategy. The government are taking lots of action now through a comprehensive plan of action to fight the war on climate change.

The matter before the chamber states that there is a disparity between the findings of the report of the House of Reps Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts and the government’s climate change policies. The report lists many recommendations but it is my view, having quickly looked at them today, that many of those recommendations are in fact already being addressed by the Department of Climate Change, by the Minister for Climate Change and Water and indeed by the government overall. We are heading in the right direction.

But government action to combat climate change has not come easily. As we have seen again in this debate just now, in government we continually come up against that bunch of climate change deniers—the sceptics in opposition who, with their usual ‘head in the sand’ attitude, hope that Australia will be fine and prefer to do nothing. Fortunately for Australia, the sceptics have not had it all their own way in the opposition party room, as we understand it. I know all of us in the chamber are awaiting with interest the progress of the CPRS legislation through this chamber in the next sitting.

The Rudd government, I am pleased to say, has invested heavily in all aspects of dealing with climate change, coastal zones included, and we are actively fighting the battle against climate change. We are acting to reduce carbon pollution and secure Australia’s future prosperity. We have invested in clean energy programs, we are supporting businesses to take action against climate change and we are supporting households to take action. We have acted to monitor the nation’s carbon emissions levels with good, well funded science. As part of that, the government has dedicated a total of more than $15 billion to implementing a comprehensive response to climate change. The government’s climate change strategy provides the long-term framework and confidence for our nation to prosper in the shadow of climate change.

A report released earlier this year by Professor Will Steffen from the ANU Climate Change Institute found that our climate system appears to be changing faster than originally thought likely. That report, Climate change 2009: faster change and more serious risks, also found that the need for an effective reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is urgent to avoid the risk of crossing dangerous thresholds in the climate system. The report focused on rapidly changing areas of science of importance to Australia, such as the contribution of melting ice to sea level rise, acidification of the oceans and changing water availability. That report is like so many other scientific reports that are coming out now—and I think the CSIRO was here during the week. Indeed, a number of scientists have been here in Parliament House during the week, and overwhelmingly the science that they are presenting to senators and members demonstrates and reaffirms the fact that climate change is a reality and that human activity is contributing to it.

All of those reports also give us in the government the impetus to continue to act as quickly as possible to address this issue. The government has funded scientific endeavour in the Australian Climate Change Science Program to the tune of $31.2 million over four years. That will enable us to develop an even better understanding of the impacts of climate change and to develop stronger action plans to counter the effects. We have also invested $387.7 million over five years to fund infrastructure critical for climate change science.

I think it is slightly galling that this matter for discussion, which is of course critical of the government, was put up by the Greens. It is the kind of matter they usually put up when it is their turn to have an MPI, but we cannot let this debate pass without acknowledging that the Greens voted with the opposition when the CPRS legislation was before the chamber previously. It is hypocritical of them to come here and criticise the government when in fact they joined with the opposition to vote down that legislation. They voted with the opposition to prevent the first extremely important steps that the nation should take—a major initiative and an important initiative that the government are attempting to get underway so that we can begin to seriously address the effects of climate change in this nation.

Helen Kroger (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter for a few minutes, and I would firstly like to take note of the hysteria that is rising from the crossbenches and the comments that have been made by those on the opposite side of this chamber in relation to the evidence presented in this report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts. I would suggest that the hysteria that we have witnessed today is far more erosive for all Australians than the potential effect of rising sea levels on our coastal areas.

What we are hearing is a most excitable and emotional response to a report on rising sea levels given that sea levels, as we have already heard, have risen 20 centimetres over the last century. To put this into context, if I may, there has been a 130-metre change in sea level over the last 20,000 years. What we have heard is nothing but scaremongering, and it is not what we should expect from this chamber. A responsible government would take a reasoned and cautious approach to the findings of this report and consider the recommendations provided with a cool head. There is no place for a hysterical overreaction to the latest report. But, as we know, it is not a responsible government that has been determining the future of Australia and the generations to come. It is not a responsible government that has plundered our financial reserves and committed future generations to paying off a $315 billion debt.

What we have been saddled with instead is a Big Brother government determined to cast its authoritative hand over the lives of all rather than allowing individuals to have a greater say over their own lives. It is this Big Brother government that demands compliance from principals and parents to build a ‘Julia Gillard memorial hall’ rather than allowing them to determine where the stimulus money could be best spent—whether on shadecloth, whether on classrooms or whether on, dare I say, more books for the kids to learn from. It is this Big Brother government that believes that parents are incapable of supervising their children and wishes to introduce a mandatory internet filtering system. Filters are available now to parents for them to determine how they wish to protect their children from unwarranted and inappropriate sites. This is a government that believes it knows best and wishes to enforce this upon all parents.

Such is the arrogance of this government that they are even now seeking to censor the very people elected to this place so that they may not have the opportunity to question or criticise the actions of the government on behalf of those very constituents who elected them. So it is no surprise that those on the crossbenches and those on the other side of this chamber have sought to tie-in rising sea levels to the CPRS legislation. But I ask: how will a reduction in CO2 emissions by five per cent make any difference to a natural occurrence that has taken place for centuries? Minister Wong said in question time today that this was further proof of why we have to act now. Well, I ask Minister Wong: why do we have to act before Copenhagen? This report should not be used to justify the Rudd government’s political agenda to pass the CPRS before Copenhagen. It is deeply flawed and in its current form will cost jobs. It is going to cost industries. It will impact on our international competitiveness and it will affect us all for many generations to come. In its current form, it will hurt each and every household in terms of the significant rise in energy costs. It is for that very reason that the coalition have sought to amend the CPRS to protect those who are going to be most impacted by it and ensure that the jobs and safeguarding of all Australians is paramount.

Can I suggest that a government’s No. 1 priority is to protect and safeguard all Australians. Bringing the CPRS legislation into this chamber and ramming it through without consideration of amendments before Copenhagen does not do that, and that is why we do not resile from the fact that we want to address climate change. There has been no suggestion that we do not support what the Senate are trying to do here. What we wish to do is make sure that the final CPRS is not as flawed as it is in its current form. This report must be considered with reason and with a cool head. It is an interesting report. It is interesting that Mark Dreyfus commented on it this morning. We have heard already that he made the comment that it will reduce sea levels and suggested that the extent of that will be more than a couple of millimetres. I find it very interesting that Mark Dreyfus has such a concern as the member for Isaacs—so concerned that he does not even live in his own electorate; he lives in Toorak, and his neighbours are not affected by this.