David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the document.

In speaking to the motion, I want to briefly look at where we are at with respect to both Kyoto and the long-term evolution of greenhouse gas caps and a carbon trading scheme. The 108 per cent of 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2008-12 was of course established by the Hon. Senator Robert Hill after much negotiation at Kyoto. I am very proud to say that he was an outstanding minister for the environment and did a wonderful job. Indeed, I note that the government has not said that there is anything wrong with that target for emissions levels. We are tracking to meet this target and have been for some time now.

I note that on page No. 4 of the prime ministerial statement it states:

Under the previous government’s policies, the projections showed that Australia would be around 6 million tonnes off our target.

There is no doubt that this Prime Minister is more preoccupied with spin and the scoring of political points than he ever is with the substance of this very, very important subject. He cannot leave it alone. His government has the huge responsibility of delivering us compliance not just with Kyoto but with a scheme that will see us into the future for two or three generations. When I see the tacky and quite reprehensible political points being taken it makes me wonder whether there is any credibility in what this government is going to do with respect to this very important issue.

As I have said, we are tracking towards meeting this target, with emissions in 2005 being only 2.2 per cent above the 1990 level. In 1990, emissions of CO or equivalent gases were 550 million tonnes. In both 2004 and 2005 they were 560 million tonnes. We are doing better than almost all developed countries in meeting our international targets. Unlike many countries, we are meeting our goals on the basis of national actions alone. In light of this achievement, the Labor Party should explain why—and this is a very important point—it has been silent about countries such as New Zealand, Canada, Japan, Spain and others who are failing to meet their targets. It is all very well for us to be shackled and compliant and to do the right thing. But let me say this: there is only one atmosphere on this planet. We are battling away doing what we should be doing and shouldering the moral burden, yet these other countries are not complying with what they promised to do and our government is now silent in that regard. I note the Prime Minister for New Zealand was here the other day. Did the Australian Prime Minister mention this to her? Was it a topic of conversation or are we just, in a blase fashion, muddling along saying, ‘Well, that’s all right; we won’t worry about that’?

I want to make the point that, whilst those other countries are failing to meet their targets, they have been attacking Australia for not ratifying Kyoto. Yet here we were complying with what our obligations were stated to be—and they take time to criticise us. All this time the Australian government, as it now is, is quiet and docile. That is why the global response to climate change must involve, firstly, all major emitters of greenhouse gases. This government really needs to shoulder the burden, particularly with respect to India and China. I make this point. I asked the minister in estimates: in 2012, if India and China refuse to take on equitable controls and emission targets, what will Australia do? I got obfuscation and dithering and I got ‘I’ll tell you when I get there’ answers. This is simply not good enough.

Our response to climate change must involve the avoidance of distortions of economic activities and emissions with no environmental benefits. The fact is that, if China and India do not provide emissions targets that are fair and equitable and responsible—and, heaven knows, those of us who have been to Beijing know that they have a huge problem, a public health problem—then we will be exporting manufacturing jobs offshore. That is the simple answer. We will be putting Australians out of work. We should also recognise the different national circumstances. I think it is very important that we recognise that China needs to come to the party on this. But we also need to shoulder responsibility, as the Howard government did, to assist China with respect to a whole host of technologies, technological advances and technological exchange, particularly in the area of coal and gas.

In Bali we endorsed the Bali roadmap for a post-Kyoto agreement well before the new government, which was then the opposition. We did so based on five principles. Firstly, there was the inclusion of developing world countries, especially China, India, Indonesia and Brazil, in future greenhouse reduction commitment regimes. That is fundamental to where the opposition stands on this. I think that is a very proper and responsible clause. We said that there should be no binding developed-world targets in the 2007 document. We said there should be no specific target for Australia in the 2007 roadmap, even if only indicative. We said that the ability to do the economic modelling before Australia even considers any possible future commitments was a very important priority. We also said there should be the inclusion of incentives against developing world deforestation and incentives for developing world reafforestation. That is a very important point that the government has been absolutely silent upon. That is where the opposition stands with respect to this. It is a dynamic, precise, targeted approach to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions on a global basis.

I pause to note that, according to the prime ministerial statement, the initial report outlines the way the Rudd government is now measuring and using calculations to ascertain emission levels. This is a first here. We had 90 days to respond to the ratification of Kyoto at Bali, and the initial report outlines the measures we are using to calculate our emission levels. That is a very interesting statement. We took 92 people to Bali. We took a veritable army of people to Bali for two weeks. I asked the question in estimates—and this was a question to the ministry of climate change: did we seek to measure the carbon footprint of taking 92 people to Bali, including airfares, accommodation, food and all of the things that were used by our 92 people? It was obviously probably one of the biggest delegations outside of the Indonesians. The government said, ‘No.’ It is all very well for them, as a government, to talk about carbon footprints at the moment. This is what the Rudd government does very well: it talks about the obligation and the feelgood. But, in the practical analysis of what we are asking business and the mothers and fathers in our nation to do into the future, the government does not do it. The government flies 92 people to Bali and does not bother about the carbon footprint of that.

Against this background, there is a desperate need for a much more inclusive post-2012 agreement demonstrated by the addition of 800 new coal-fired power stations in China and India over the coming five years. That is a huge responsibility. There is an enormous amount of consternation out there that, unless we engage China and India properly, 800 new coal-fired power stations in the coming five years will defeat anything we do in Australia, given that we emit something less than one per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases.

Now let us get this into context. We emit something less than one per cent, and 800 new coal-fired power stations are going to be constructed in China and India in the coming five years. That sets the standard and heightens the huge responsibility upon the Rudd government to do more than just make nice ministerial statements about ratifying things that mean very little in practical terms. We have this huge challenge wherein domestic users of electricity are probably going to see their power bills quadruple or more in the next five years while electricity generators deal with emissions controls without compensation. (Time expired)