Global Warming

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (14:40): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change. Will the minister update the chamber about action being taken to combat global warming in South Australia, and actions taking place at a national and international level?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (14:40): I thank the honourable member for his most important question. We in this state pride ourselves on our clean and green image as a state, across many of our industries and our environment. It is important, of course, for our premium food and wine, as well as our tourism sectors. Tackling global warming is pivotal to the continued growth in these sectors. Our leadership, as a state, on climate change is a vital part of this image and we are showing that it is possible to reduce emissions and still maintain economic growth.

For example, I am advised that emissions in South Australia are 8 per cent lower than 1990 levels, while the economy has grown by over 60 per cent over that same period. While South Australia transitions as an economy to a lower carbon future, the same cannot be said of the federal Liberal government. The federal Liberals talk about jobs and growth in a transitioning economy, but they do not want to talk about climate change, because they are well and truly beholden to the global warming sceptics lobby.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The honourable members opposite are squealing because they don't want this exposed.

The Hon. K.J. Maher interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Squirming and squealing, as my leader reminds me, because they don't want to be reminded in the lead-up to the federal election, which is only days away now, how much their party has failed this country. We have a prime minister who used climate change to grab the top job, by saying he would never lead a party that was not as committed to climate change, and he has now channelled Tony Abbott and launched a second-rate climate change scare campaign.

The federal government's climate policy consists of direct action, or so they would say. A policy that has been attacked, not only by environmental groups but also by the Australian Industry Group, which represents more than 60,000 businesses, including those involved in transport, manufacturing and mining supplies. In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald last year, the Australian industry group was quoted criticising the scheme because of its uncertain viability, and the fact that taxpayers—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, can you take a seat please. You don't have a conversation between benches while the minister is on his feet answering a question. It is totally out of order. I expect the minister to be able to get to his feet and give his answer without any interference. Minister.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr President. Where shall I start? From the very beginning, I think. So, South Australia prides itself on its clean and green image—

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Hon. Mr Maher, I must say, as the Leader of the Government in the house, you have more of a responsibility to show an example. And as the whip, Hon. Mr Dawkins, you should set an example as well.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister, you may continue with your answer.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr President. I won't provoke them any further—or perhaps I will. There is nothing like putting the facts on the table that provokes the Liberal Party in this place. We have a prime minister who used climate change to snaffle the top job of prime minister away from a former prime minister, and said that he would not lead a party that was not as committed to climate change as he was. And now he is channelling Tony Abbott, and launched a second-rate climate change scare campaign. The federal government's climate change policy consists of direct action—a policy that has been attacked, not only by environmental groups but also by the Australian Industry Group, which represents more than 60,000 businesses, including those in transport, manufacturing and mining supplies.

In an article in the Sydney Morning Herald last year, the Australian Industry Group was quoted criticising the scheme because of its uncertain viability and the fact that taxpayers face a multibillion dollar bill to meet Australia's new pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Even the old Malcolm was scathing about this policy prior to becoming Prime Minister, saying that it is nothing more than an expensive charge on the budget and it will not reduce emissions. That is our current Prime Minister speaking of the former prime minister's policy, which he has now adopted holus-bolus.

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull then was right. He was right: Australia's emissions are now rising. What Mr Turnbull knows, but is afraid to admit now, is that Australia needs an emissions trading scheme. That is what almost every economist advises as the most efficient way of tackling global warming. That is what the federal Labor Party is committed to implementing if it wins office. The need for an emissions trading scheme—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: It is surprising. Those opposite are champions of the free market. The champions of the free market run away screaming from a market-based mechanism when it comes to carbon: 'We will have a market for everything else. We will have market for health care. We want to privatise Medicare. We will have a free market approach to Medicare, but when it comes to the environment, when it comes to carbon, oh no, we do not want to have a free market approach.'

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Minister, sit down. Let's all settle down.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: It gets a little bit awkward when the minister is being attacked from the front, attacked from the rear.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I am used to it, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: I can't hear what the minister is saying. I am actually interested in what the minister wants to say. Minister, continue with your answer.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr President. The Liberals start squealing when you start to dig below their skin about how committed they are to free markets—only some free markets, not others. No free markets in emissions trading, no free markets in carbon, but lots of free markets in Medicare, lots of privatisation in Medicare, that's what they stand for over there. Every economist advises that the most efficient way of tackling global warming is to use a market mechanism.

The Hon. T.J. Stephens interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Minister, can you just take your seat for a minute. The Hon. Mr Stephens, I don't think the word you used was an appropriate word. I won't even mention it. I think it would be appropriate if you withdrew whatever you said.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I am a little confused as to which word you might be referring to.

The PRESIDENT: A few people heard it. I heard it. I heard it quite clearly. Do you want to withdraw it?

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I am confused as to which word you are talking about, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: Well, you called the minister a wanker.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: No, I didn't.

The PRESIDENT: You did. I heard you.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I said, 'This is a wanky answer.' I didn't call him a wanker.

The PRESIDENT: That is a totally inappropriate word to use during a debate.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS: I was certainly talking about the minister when I said 'a wanky answer'. Mr President, I withdraw it.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. Can the minister please get to the crux of his answer.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: It is coming, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT: There are a number of crossbenchers who want to ask questions. Continue with the answer.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: The need for an emissions trading scheme is even recognised by the Business Council of Australia, perhaps more traditional allies of the Liberal Party than they are of the Labor Party. Its chief executive officer, Ms Jennifer Westacott, has been quoted as saying:

The Federal Opposition's climate change action plan…could provide a platform for bipartisanship to deliver the energy and climate change policy durability needed to support the critical transformation…The last thing Australia needs is to start from scratch on carbon policy. With the support of business and the community in developing specific measures, the Opposition's plan could build a bridge from the existing regulatory frameworks to the first phase of their proposed emissions trading scheme.

That was the Business Council of Australia. Even they think Prime Minister Turnbull's approach, which he adopted from the former prime minister Tony Abbott, doesn't really work. Australia needs both an emissions trading scheme and stronger emissions reduction targets if we are to meet the commitment we made under the Paris Agreement to keep global temperature rises to below 2° ; otherwise it is just a worthless piece of paper with a scribbled signature on it. Let's put it another way. Another Liberal leader, former leader John Hewson, said:

It was all a bit much for me to see Environment Minister Greg Hunt wallowing in the signing of the Paris Agreement on emissions reduction in New York this week. His commitment to its ratification by year end, after opposing the pricing of carbon and attempting to close down the renewables industry, is nothing short of blatant hypocrisy.

Another Liberal leader: 'blatant hypocrisy,' labelled by his own party; that's what they have come to. It is time the Liberals became serious about global warming. The need to set higher targets and join South Australia in making a commitment to zero net emissions by 2050 is paramount. Global warming poses a significant challenge for this country and for the world, and as the driest state in the driest inhabited continent, it is important that South Australia makes all efforts to limit global warming.

Data from NASA shows that April was the hottest ever recorded, making this the seventh month in a row that has broken a monthly record. If Malcolm Turnbull is genuine about the undertaking he gave in Paris, then the Liberals must adopt the target recommended by the Climate Change Authority and proposed by a future Labor government—namely, a 45 per cent cut on 2005 levels by 2030—instead of the current policy under this Liberal government, summarised by Erwin Jackson from the Climate Institute as, 'We've got a 2030 target consistent with 3° to 4° of global warming.'

We have 3° to 4° of global warming under the existing targets set by the current federal government. We have a domestic policy framework that has seen emissions increase under the current federal Liberal government. Surely Australians deserve better than that. They have their opportunity to make sure they get that on 2 July.