HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

CLIMATE CHANGE

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. Mark Parnell:

That this council—

1. Notes the recent release of The Critical Decade report and the separate South Australian Impacts report by the Climate Commission and the call for urgent action outlined in the reports; and

2. Calls on the state government to intensify its efforts to respond to the challenge of climate change.

(Continued from 6 July 2011.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (20:47): In rising to respond on behalf of the government, I also flag that I will be moving an amendment that seeks to make the wording of the motion a little bit more accurate; that is how I put it. I move to amend the motion as follows:

Leave out the words 'intensify its efforts to respond' and insert the words 'maintain the intensity of its efforts in responding'.

South Australia enjoys pre-eminent leadership on environmental and climate change issues, one that has been driven primarily in this state by Premier Mike Rann. After being elected Premier of South Australia, Mike Rann became Australia's first Minister for Sustainability and Climate Change—one of the first such ministers in the world.

The South Australian government has taken action on many fronts to address climate change and establish a leadership position for our state. Initially, these actions were set against a national policy backdrop of inaction perpetuated by the Prime Minister of the time, John Howard. The Premier, as Chair of the Council of Australian Governments, joined forces with his colleagues from New South Wales and Victoria in 2006 to launch a discussion paper on the prospect of a national emissions trading scheme. They later commissioned a major independent report to examine the economic implications that climate change would deliver Australia.

The aim of that report, compiled by respected economist Professor Ross Garnaut, was to provide an independent assessment on the escalating threat of climate change and an economic road map to show how Australia could not only play its part but also become a leader, rather than a follower, in tackling the challenge of climate change. By taking on this leadership role, the Australian states were able to fill the national policy void that existed until the election of a federal Labor government in 2007. It was action born partially of necessity because our nation is among those at greatest risk from global warming.

South Australia faces the potential loss of high-production land that remains the foundation of our economy, as well as serious threats to our precious water resources, because of the already marginal nature of our rainfall. Australia as a whole faces the possibility of more intense weather events, catastrophic flooding and heightened risk of devastating bushfires if we fail to reduce our levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, since the Labor government came to office, we have shown a preparedness to legislate as well as to innovate in order to tackle these challenges.

In 2007 we became the first state in Australia and one of the first in the world to introduce dedicated climate change legislation. That includes a target to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by at least 60 per cent of 1990 levels by the end of 2050. During a time of unprecedented infrastructure investment and sustained economic and employment growth, South Australia's carbon emissions have dropped. It is proof that environmental sustainability can be achieved at the same time as economic growth.

We have also committed to generating 33 per cent of our state's power needs from renewable green sources, such as wind and solar, by 2020. It is an ambitious target for a state that does not have access to hydroelectricity, but we are already on track as a state to reach it. Initially the goal was 20 per cent, but we made such great progress under premier Rann's stewardship that we decided in 2009 to lift the bar even higher.

When this government was elected to office in 2002, there was not a single operational wind turbine in South Australia. Today there are 534 wind turbines with that number likely to grow beyond 550 by the end of the year. Our success reflects the fact that we moved early to gain an advantage in the development of renewable energy sources.

South Australia has established Australia's most streamlined planning framework for wind investors, and we have set up a dedicated investment fund—RenewablesSA—as well as a board of experts to drive further support, such as opening up pastoral land to wind and solar farm investors. Changing our state's land-use planning system to make it more straightforward has helped us attract significant investment in wind farms, and we are now home to more than 54 per cent of the nation's total installed wind generation capacity.

It is has also enabled our state to reach our initial target of 20 per cent of our electricity generated from renewable sources three years ahead of schedule and nine years ahead of the rest of Australia. Premier Rann recently noted that South Australia's nation-leading role as a renewable energy hub has received a major boost with Suzlon Energy Australia announcing plans to invest $1.3 billion building one of the world's largest wind energy projects on the Yorke Peninsula.

Just as importantly, wind power has taken the place of some of our state's imported electricity requirements. Imported electricity is the most carbon intensive in Australia and to reduce the need for it is an achievement that delivers significant benefits for our state and for the planet. Indeed, the carbon intensity of South Australia's electricity is already better than the national average, and that gap is set to widen further as we draw more investment to our renewable energy sector.

We were also the first Australian state to put in place a regulatory framework that was specifically tailored to the needs of the rapidly developing geothermal industry. South Australia is blessed with some of the hottest rocks in the nation (if not on the planet) and geothermal energy offers huge potential to deliver truly emissions-free baseload electricity without the variability issues that affect wind and solar.

As a result of moving early, South Australia has attracted around 87 per cent of the total investment in geothermal projects in Australia to the end of last year. The same applies to the growth in the use of domestic solar panels to maximise the benefits of our abundant sunshine. We were the first Australian state to introduce a feed-in scheme that pays consumers a premium rate for electricity generated from their rooftop installations in order to encourage the more rapid take-up of solar power.

But our leadership in renewable energy is not solely attributable to the fact that South Australia offers better wind profiles, hotter rocks or more sunlight than other states. It reflects our preparedness to work closely with business and local councils and to change our regulatory processes where necessary in order to provide greater consistency, transparency and investment certainty. We were the first and remain the only jurisdiction to introduce a payroll tax rebate for the construction of large-scale renewable energy projects.

We also helped commission a national independent green grid study that shows a viable business case to support 2,000 megawatts of wind energy on our sparsely populated West Coast as well as transmission facilities needed to feed it into the national electricity grid. That is around 45 per cent of our state's current annual electricity generation and will deliver significant economic benefits to South Australia by making us the national engine room of wind power.

It also provides a compelling example of how we can best position our state to maximise the significant opportunities that will arise when the Australian government introduces its carbon-pricing mechanism. It also enables us to further develop our clean and green industries and skills that will work to our economic advantage. There are also a number of other ways we are working to achieve better environmental and economic outcomes.

To further maximise our advantages, we are looking to the power of innovation, by accelerating the development of our biomass and biodiesel industries. For example, the South Australian government has recently provided a grant to help a forestry company on Kangaroo Island, one of our state's premier tourist attractions, explore a proposal for a biomass power plant that will help meet the island's electricity needs.

We have also introduced voluntary sector agreements as a highly effective tool in reducing emissions and increasing the uptake of renewable energy and energy efficiency measures. These industry partnerships have been highly successful in engaging some of our key industries and industry sectors, such as our wine industry and our tertiary education sector, to fund and develop activities that further reduce our state's greenhouse gas emissions.

Another area that presents significant challenges in reducing carbon emissions is improved energy efficiency, particularly with the spikes caused by cooling demands at the height of the torrid Australian summers. That is why we have decided to apply Australia's toughest energy efficiency standards for new air conditioners. We are also supporting the development of prototype solar thermal air-conditioning units for domestic use.

Another initiative with significant potential is the use of green walls—employing vegetation to cover large external walls and roof spaces—to provide a distinctly South Australian response to improving the energy efficiency of existing building stock. These living wall projects are in their early days, but if we can get the vegetation and its maintenance right, we may create a technique that reduces energy demand in large buildings at much lower cost than other alternative methods.

The South Australian government has also acquired Tonsley Park. The 60-hectare former Mitsubishi manufacturing site will become a dedicated hub for new, clean-tech industries that will not only drive innovation but also create local jobs. At the heart of this development will be a sustainable industries education centre that will specialise in training more than 8,000 students a year in the skills required for the clean and green jobs that will define the first half of the 21st century.

As I mentioned earlier, the South Australian government is currently undertaking an unprecedented investment in infrastructure that is building our state for future generations. Among the big build are initiatives to enhance the sustainability of Adelaide and our state, as well as its liveability. These include practical measures, such as the expansion and upgrade of our public transport network, and water capture and re-use projects, such as a pipeline network that utilises recycled wastewater to sustain our city's Parklands.

Our major new road infrastructure projects now incorporate extensive bicycle paths, and in the past eight years we have almost doubled the total number of kilometres set aside for bike paths and lanes throughout Adelaide. We have also released a 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide, which provides a comprehensive blueprint to shape our metropolitan area and its future, as well as creating a greener, more vibrant city for pedestrians, cyclists and visitors. It includes reducing the vulnerability of our critical infrastructure in the face of a challenging climate, as well as the ongoing protection of costal development from seawater inundation.

Work is also underway on an adaptation framework for South Australia to address the unavoidable impacts of climate change across regions and sectors of our state. We have built a desalination plan to secure Adelaide's ongoing water security, and we have invested in a new $30 million super greenhouse that will help us fast-track the development of new strains of grapes, grains and vegetable crops that are better able to tolerate drought and increased salinity.

There is no doubt that South Australia has the intellectual capabilities, as well as the climatic conditions, to develop alternative energy sources and energy-saving initiatives. Above all, we have the will to trial not just new technologies but also innovative policies, a number of which are being adopted at a national and even global level.

For example, we pioneered our Million Trees program, which has already achieved outstanding results, with more than two million seedlings planted to date across Adelaide. Its aim to establish three million local native plants will reconstruct around 2,000 hectares of native vegetation throughout our city's open spaces and will offset around 600,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents over the life of the plantings.

This work has been expanded internationally through an idea Premier Rann presented to a session he chaired at the summit of the Climate Group's States and Regions Alliance, held in concert with the UN Climate Change summit in Copenhagen in 2009. As a result, an agreement was reached for the alliance's more than 40 member states and regions around the world to plant one billion trees by 2015.

The importance of the Climate Group's States and Regions Alliance is best underlined by the UN Development Program's belief that up to 80 per cent of the decisions needed to implement a global deal on climate change will be taken at state, provincial or regional level. As such, subnational governments such as our state's have a vital role to play if they work in collaboration with industry and the community. As an example, through the work being undertaken by the Climate Group, the trialling of low-emissions LED lighting in public places is underway in our city.

The South Australian government is not resting on its laurels, despite significant achievements in addressing climate change. Rather, it is continuing to move its climate change agenda forward, engaging with the commonwealth as appropriate on its clean energy future package and working across government on a host of initiatives that will keep South Australia in a leadership position, a leadership position that South Australia enjoys because of the passionate commitment of the Premier, Mike Rann, to address the challenge of climate change.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (21:00): I rise to address this motion, which is in two parts: one referencing the document The Critical Decade report and specifically referring to 'South Australian Impacts'; and, secondly, calling on the state government to intensify its efforts to respond to the challenge of climate change. The issues relating to climate change are very complex and cross a lot of portfolios. The largest source, particularly in Australia, is from our energy production. There are also significant emissions from transport, agriculture, changes to land use clearance and from waste. That involves a lot of different portfolios, notably energy and mineral resources, agriculture and the environment. There are often a number of different ways this topic is tackled.

The Critical Decade report has been published by the Climate Commission, an independent body funded through the federal Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, established in February 2011. The purpose of The Critical Decade report, released in May this year, is explained thus:

To review the current scientific knowledge base on climate change, particularly with regard to (i) the underpinning it provides for the formulation of policy and (ii) the information it provides on the risks of a changing climate to Australia.

The report refers to evidence of increases in surface air temperature, ocean temperature, decreases in sea and polar ice sheets, and sea level rises linked to human causation through increased carbon dioxide emissions.

For the record, I say that I am certainly not a sceptic. I understand the scientific process and it is one for which I have great respect. I am disappointed at some of the opprobrium (if I can use that word) that is often directed at the scientific community, which I think is completely unfair. The report sources data from the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which observed in 2007 that:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas connections.

The report states that this position is further strengthened by more recent research and refers to it. The fundamental finding of the report is that we are living in the decade where decreases in the amount of carbon dioxide being emitted are an absolute necessity so that our future way of life is not dramatically changed by the impacts of climate change. It is to these potential results that the second report mentioned in the motion is relevant—'South Australian Impacts'.

The three most significant impacts for our state are: increased heats wave periods resulting in heat-related illness and death, particularly among the elderly; changing rainfall patterns, with less participation and therefore more droughts; and coastal flooding. My federal colleague, the shadow minister for climate action, environment and heritage, the Hon. Greg Hunt, in his media release responding to this report stated that:

The Coalition welcomes the review and update of the climate science contained in the Climate Commission's report...

The Coalition recognises that the world is warming, and that humans are having an impact on that warming.

There is bipartisan support in Australia in support of the science of climate change, as presented in this report. There is also bipartisan support for the target of cutting emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 on an unconditional basis.

However, the release goes on to confirm that supporting the report does not equate to supporting a carbon tax. Given the hour of the evening I will not speak at length, as I might have, but I refer to the Coalition's direct action plan, which I understand was actually endorsed by the Climate Institute as the most effective means of reducing CO2 emissions.

The direct action plan of the Coalition focused on a number of things, including soil carbons and an emissions reduction fund which would assist business and industry, and referred to the planting of additional trees in public spaces, being mindful of the increase in cost of living. It also referred to our record.

This government, in particular, often likes to claim credit for renewable energy; however, the world's first mandatory renewable energy target was actually established by the Coalition government, which provided a renewable energy market with tradable certificates which has stimulated some $3.5 billion of investment in renewable energy technology since its introduction in 2001. I say that because I think it is unfair that this government continually claims credit for what has taken place in the renewable energy space, when a lot of that has occurred thanks to John Howard.

I refer back to the debate we had in this place in relation to the Climate Change and Greenhouse Emissions Reduction Bill. This bill was pushed fairly quickly through the parliamentary session in 2007, and those of us on this side of the chamber, as well as number of the crossbenchers, including the mover of this motion, were very annoyed that it occurred at that pace. We had trouble getting information about the level of greenhouse gas emissions that had been calculated by the local agency, and at that stage we were very mindful that a lot of this was rhetoric rather than reality.

We had the issue of whether we should have interim targets or not, and my colleague the Hon. David Ridgway moved an amendment that we should establish an interim target. We then had amendments from the mover of this motion to increase the renewable energy target for South Australia, which at that stage Labor did not support. We also had an amendment from the Hon. Sandra Kanck to require the minister to report on any determination the minister makes on those targets. The government did not support the amendment but it passed because of the good work of the crossbenchers and the opposition. My colleague the Hon. David Ridgway moved an amendment to make the CSIRO report on targets, which was passed without the government's support. He also moved an amendment relating to the regulation of the council to provide independent advice to the minister.

Those things were all done to improve the transparency of our system, and I note that that piece of legislation was due to be reviewed this year—and it has not been. I certainly will not support the amendment of the Hon. Mr Hunter. If I had decided to make an amendment to the original motion to ensure that it reflected the views of the Liberal Party, where the Hon. Mr Hunter suggests we leave out the words 'intensify its efforts to respond', I would say 'intensify sincere efforts to respond'. However, I will not be doing that in the interests of process. With those comments, I indicate that we support the motion as it was initially moved.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (21:09): I wish to speak today, or tonight as it so happens to be—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: It's still today.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: There are more important things to discuss I think, Mr Wade.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Vincent shouldn't take notice of interjections.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I wish to speak in favour of the Hon. Mr Parnell's motion, and against the amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Hunter. I think it is fair to say that there are few issues or instances where I would consider that my age is truly relevant in this parliament; however, I have spoken in this place previously—quite recently, in fact—about the fact that being the youngest member in the South Australian parliament I am very concerned about climate change and its effect on my generation—and, indeed, the generations that will come after me. I read with great concern The Critical Decade and, in particular, the South Australian Impacts, for I believe strongly in the vast majority of notable scientists who point to reams of research and data highlighting temperature increase on this planet.

On a world stage, Australia seems significantly behind the rest of the developed world in debating the issue of climate change and carbon emission reduction, and anything that this chamber can do to further government accountability and raise public awareness is essential. In Adelaide, limited community understanding and a lack of public transport infrastructure and engagement still leave us with a heavy reliance on private cars and fossil fuels. Buses, light rail and bicycles provide better options for our environment and for improved public health outcomes.

In this state, houses are still built without double glazing, without adequate insulation and without enough concern for energy consumption. Yes, uptake of solar energy panels on dwellings is increasing, but still we falter in our long-term commitment to renewable energy sources. I have noted casually that visitors arrive in this country and wonder at our limited use of the incredible wind and solar resources that we have at our disposal in this wide brown land.

The South Australian Impacts chapter of The Critical Decade report points to concerning data regarding sea level rises and consequent flooding along our coastline. South Australia has experienced sea level increases on average of 4.6 millimetres per year for the past 20 years. This is above the global average of 3.2 millimetres. Current projections have us at a doubled risk of coastal flooding in Adelaide.

By the end of the century, as many as 43,000 residential buildings will be at risk of flooding, and that would make the western suburbs of Royal Park and Seaton seafront. The City of Charles Sturt, encompassing the majority of the western suburbs, is looking at the prospect of 14,000 inundated dwellings. Most of that city's current beachside suburbs would be under water in a flooding event. The impact on rainfall and food production is also negatively forecast by this report. The government has a Minister for Food Marketing, but that will be a pointless exercise if we have no food to market.

I will vote against the government's amendments to this motion, as I believe it is unwarranted, gratuitous backslapping. Australia is one of the biggest carbon polluters in the world on a per capita basis, and South Australia contributes significantly to this. The Labor government should take note of its heavy reliance on and encouragement of mining finite resources and the consequent carbon footprint that this creates.

I can appreciate the economic benefits of mining to this state, but I would suggest that investment in sustainable renewable resources is essential and the way forward. One would think that the very title of this report, The Critical Decade, gives some indication that current government measures to tackling climate change have not yet been and are not yet enough.

I would also hasten to add that, if this government were really serious about battling climate change, perhaps they would have given more support to the amendments to the electrical products bill recently before us, tabled by Mr Parnell, which sought to give a fairer and more extended solar panel reimbursement scheme.

Action now on climate change is required if we are to arrest carbon emissions and even consider a world that can feed this many inhabitants, just to mention one of the many possible consequences. I commend the original form of the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion to my colleagues.

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON (21:14): I rise to speak to this motion of the Hon. Mark Parnell, and I thank him for putting climate change on the agenda again. But it will be of no surprise to members in here that I do not subscribe to the hysteria of man-made climate change that has been portrayed by lobby groups who are connected with some pretty shady people; and, of course, the Club of Rome is one of the big players and instigators of the climate change issue and almost solely responsible for the propaganda and strategies used to raise climate change hysteria.

I will probably be taken outside and stoned after I finish this speech, but that is okay. I would just like to put on the record a few of the emails or parts of the emails that came out as a result of the 'climategate' affair. Professor Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, states:

The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on data. We're basing them on the climate models.

Dr David Frame, climate modeller of Oxford University, states:

The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.

Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, states:

It doesn't matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.

Sir John Houghton, first chairman of the IPCC, says:

Unless we announce disasters, no-one is going to listen.

Christine Stewart, a former Canadian minister of the environment, states:

No matter if the science of global warming is all phoney, climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.

Other members of the Club of Rome—and it is all on public record—include Alexander King, co-founder of the Club of Rome, premier environmental think tank and consultant to the United Nations. His 1991 book, The First Global Revolution, states:

The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

Professor Stephen Schneider (Stanford professor of biology and global change) was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming, and a lead author of many of the IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome, and he says.

We need to get some broad-based support to capture the public's imagination, so we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Timothy Wirth, President of the United Nations Foundation and another member of the Club of Rome, says:

We've got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.

Al Gore, is a member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world's first carbon billionaire. He also is the largest shareholder of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) which looks set to become the world's central carbon trading body. He says:

I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of the facts on how dangerous it is [climate change] as a predicate for opening up the audience.

Maurice Strong sits on the board of directors for CCX. He was the executive director of the United Nations' environment program, he was Al Gore's mentor and he is also a member of the Club of Rome. Back before he became the US President, President Obama served on the board of directors for the Joyce Foundation when it gave CCX nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were instrumental in developing and launching the privately owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself North America's only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases with global affiliates and projects worldwide.

Essentially, Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he then steered through Congress. Mikhail Gorbachev, a former president of the Soviet Union, also a member of the Club of Rome, stated:

The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key that will unlock the new world order.

It goes on and on. We have many, many influential people. We have Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, member of the Club of Rome, who stated:

If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

In these times of access to information, there is no way for a government to contain the information floating around in cyberspace. More and more people are turning to their own sources to become informed on issues that will affect them and their children.

The usual sarcastic response will be, 'The internet is full of nutters and the information is not accurate.' Well, that all depends on the information sources you access. It also assists that many politicians and scientists around the world are placing their findings on the web because of the information blanket that has been placed over any and all science that does not support the government line of gloom and doom.

I attended the event Feast and Famine with Bob Katter—'Mad Katter', as he is called—as a guest speaker and let me just say that it was refreshing to hear a man of many years' experience in politics review better times in this country and recall politicians who had the courage to stand up for this country and make it a great nation. I remember better times myself—and have said it often in this place—a time when politicians still played their games, but, at the end of the day, their decisions were always made in the best interests of this country and its citizens and great things were achieved.

Those days are gone and we now bow and scrape before the UN to implement whatever laws and policies it desires. This is part of the globalisation of the world and we now know that the Greens are supportive of a one-world government and all that comes with that, after Mr Brown made that declaration himself in parliament.

There is nothing like swapping and changing in order to push forward with an ideology. The scientific arguments could not be won on fact, so we were bombarded with emotionally-charged arguments and motherhood statements about scientific consensus and also to convince us that we are all running out of time.

The people know that we are being conned and they are angry that they are treated like idiots. For me, the straw that broke the camel's back was when CO2 was declared a pollutant. Biology 101 says that CO2 is a natural and essential element in our atmosphere. It is essential for plants, for the natural process of photosynthesis which, simply put, feeds our plant life and also produces oxygen. I am sure most members understand that plants feed on CO2and convert CO2 to oxygen during the day and then convert oxygen to CO2 of a night; that is what photosynthesis is. So, in fact, if CO2 is an issue, it could equally translate that the only way to prevent carbon emissions is to eliminate plant life altogether, but we know this would be counterproductive for the environment and the planet.

The Green movement cannot have it both ways—calling for reforestation and then claiming that the food of those forests is, indeed, a pollutant. I am no scientist and nor is anyone else in this place, so we all rely on information from those who are qualified to make determinations on scientific and evidence-based public policy.

The risk is always though, who do we believe? When government has an agenda, it also needs the science to back it up. When having to justify one or more big taxes, of course it must convince the people that their hard-earned money must be taken from them in order to fix that big problem.

Most of us do know that there are numerous stakeholders who have a lot to gain from the hoax of climate change and that the biggest loser will be average Joe, who works more and more for less and less. It seems the government is least of all concerned with the family who cannot afford to feed, clothe and provide shelter and education for their children. God knows, we see ample examples of that in this place.

The Hon. Mark Parnell wants us to acknowledge The Critical Decade report of the Climate Commission, so I will and I will make it clear that I am always suspicious of any report or any commission that is preparing anything for government at a time when the public are screaming out that enough is enough. Part 1 of a scientific audit of the Climate Commission report by Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and William Kininmonth stated:

Over many decades thousands of scientists have painted an unambiguous picture: the global climate is changing and humanity is almost surely the primary cause. The risks have never been clearer and the case for action has never been more urgent.

This declaration establishes two things. The first sentence signals that the report is committed to repeating the conclusions of the 4th Assessment Report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), conclusions that are essentially reliant on computer modelling and lack empirical support. And the second signals that the report is long on opinionated analysis and political advocacy but devoid of objective risk analysis.

These same characteristics apply to the scientific basis of four earlier Australian global warming documents, in order the Garnaut review, two reports [of] the Department of Climate Change, a report by the Academy of Science, and finally a science briefing that Professor Steffen provided to the Multi-party Committee on Climate Change in November, 2010, prior to that committee entering policy-setting mode.

The conclusion of this audit is:

The scientific advice contained within The Critical Decades is an inadequate, flawed and misleading basis on which to set national policy. The report is emotive and...throughout, ignores sound scientific criticism of IPCC shibboleths that has been made previously, and is shotgun in its approach and at the same time selective in its use of evidence. The arguments presented depend heavily upon unvalidated computer models the predictions of which have been wrong for the last 23 years, and which are unremittingly and unjustifiably alarmist in nature. Further, in concentrating upon the hypothetical risk of human-caused warming, the Climate Commission has all but ignored the very real and omnipresent risks of dangerous natural climate-related events and change, which are certain to continue to occur in the future.

Notwithstanding the misassertions of the Climate Commissioners, independent scientists are confident overall that there is no evidence of global warming at a rate faster than for the two major 20th century phases of natural warming; no evidence of sea level rise at a rate greater than the 20th century natural rise of 1.7 millimetres per year; no evidence of acceleration in sea-level change in either the tide gauge or satellite records; and nothing unusual about the behaviour of mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice or the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets.

Regarding the often remarked need to cut carbon dioxide emissions nonetheless—as a 'precautionary principle' approach to perceived dangerous warming—it must be noted that you can’t take specific precautions against an unknown future temperature path. The currently quiet sun, and the established lack of warming over the last ten years, may presage enhanced cooling over the next two decades, as indeed is predicted by some solar physicists. In such circumstances, it can be argued that precautions currently need to be taken against cooling rather than warming. But in reality, and given our inability to predict even the near-term climate future, the only sensible course of action is to strengthen society’s resilience against all climate hazards, and to prepare to cope with warmings, coolings and climatic instantaneous or step events—one and all, and as they come.

In other words, the prudent and most cost-effective national policy is to prepare for all climate events and change, whether they are of certain natural or hypothetical human causation, and to adapt to such events as they occur. Prudence and careful contingency preparation are required in anticipation of both warming and cooling events, for both are certain to occur again in future.

As they have in the past. Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office, now the Department of Climate Change, from 1991 to 2005, and part-time from 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia's carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering.

The area of human endeavour with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analysing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a sceptic.

I have here the speech that Dr Evans made in Perth on 23 March 2011, and I am going to read it in full:

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.

...The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let's be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet's temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

...The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three—so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

I'll bet you didn't know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it's the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you've never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.

Weather balloons have been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they have greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

...At this point, official 'climate science' stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory—that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the Earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance, otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade—yet they have the gall to tell us 'it's worse than expected'. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.

...The official thermometers and often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any [extra] heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%! The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet; you can get them via the corruption paper at my site, sciencespeak.com. Look at the photos, and you will never trust a government climate scientist again.

They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results 'global' warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but that was almost the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners and certain car parks.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was in 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off.

...If reality is warming up, as the government climate scientists say, why do they present only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results? And why do they put their thermometers near artificial heating sources? This is so obviously a scam now.

...The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after WWII, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25-30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

...Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government—how exciting for political class!

...Even if Australia stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and we went back to the stone age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate tenfold—in fact, our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

...Finally, to those of you who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: sorry, but you've been had. Yes carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it's so minor it's not worth doing much about.

Lord Christopher Monckton is one of the world's most outspoken critics of the climate change debate and one can go to the now world-famous interview he did with a member of Greenpeace about the facts of climate change based on research from the University of Illinois and, of course, from the data collected from those satellites up there and beyond responsible for collecting and feeding information to our scientists on the ground about the state of our planet.

This member of Greenpeace was protesting about a gathering of climate change scientist sceptics who were presenting their research papers at a conference. Lord Monckton asked this member where she got her information and she cited the Greenpeace movement's magazines, newspapers and news reports as her main sources. When he offered her websites to go to to access the scientific information, her response was, 'Well, I'm very busy. I have a life and I simply do not have time to spend searching for information.' That is what these climate change alarmists have relied upon. It is just all too hard for most—at least that used to be the case.

I know of thousands of people now who have abandoned mainstream media for their information because they are seeing so much conflicting information elsewhere and they are hearing the same information from many sources. This is not being disrespectful to science. This is actually acknowledging true science from corporate science. They are sceptical—and rightly so. The days of 'trust me I am the government' are well and truly over.

That particular video clip sent shock waves among average citizens who identified with that member of Greenpeace as being nothing more than sponges soaking up a propaganda campaign that would inevitably drain our money and destroy our lifestyle in this country as we know it. The usual tactics were deployed: criticise and destroy credibility, humiliate and denigrate. But it did not work, and Lord Monckton was received in this country by people who were seeking the truth about what was being flung upon us via a carbon tax in the name of saving the planet when, in fact, this is about the rich getting richer and the poor getting very, very much poorer.

This is demonstrated in an article in the Telegraph on Monday 12 September 2011 which states, 'Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire.' This is the same man who refuses to debate Lord Monckton publicly and whose book, An Inconvenient Truth, was ruled by the High Court of the UK as being unsuitable for inclusion in the school curriculum because of the inaccuracy of information.

Lord Christopher Monckton has been one of those most outspoken scientists, as I said, and we are all very familiar with how some in the media tried to debunk him and his qualifications while in Australia. No-one, as far as I am aware, promoted the fact that just prior to coming here this year he won a debate in the prestigious Oxford Union Society on climate change. I quote from an article on this momentous occasion:

For what is believed to be the first time ever in England, an audience of university undergraduates has decisively rejected the notion that 'global warming' is or could become a global crisis. The only previous defeat for climate extremism among an undergraduate audience was at St Andrew's University, Scotland, in the spring of 2009, when the climate extremists were defeated by just three votes.

Last week, members of the historic Oxford Union Society, the world's premier debating society, carried the motion 'That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change' by 135 votes to 110. The debate was sponsored by the Science and Public Policy Institute, Washington DC.

Serious observers are interpreting the shock result as a sign that students are now impatiently rejecting the relentless extremist propaganda taught under the guise of compulsory environmental-studies classes in British schools, confirming opinion-poll findings that the voters are no longer frightened by 'global warming' scare stories, if they ever were.

This debate on climate change is tearing our society apart, and it is not doing our Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, any favours either. She has been criticised in the New York Times for her decision to introduce a carbon tax when the rest of the world is rejecting this notion, and she is also accused of putting Australia at financial risk if she persists with her intention.

I also note a report written by glaciologist, Jørgen Peder Steffensen, that core samples from the Greenland glaciers reveal that we are living in the coolest period of the last 10,000 years. It is my information that the two scientific professions we should be listening to in this debate for scientific truth are the geologists and the glaciologists; but no-one from these sciences is on the Climate Commission. We have meteorologists who are flat out predicting the weather a week in advance and others who, for the purpose of proving the fact of man-made climate change, are out of their depth and area of expertise.

We hear that a consensus has been reached when, in fact, this is not the case. We also see and hear the hypocrisy of many involved in the climate change swindle—those who have found a way to further capitalise from the hard-earned money of everyday citizens. If we are concerned about climate change in reality, then why are we not hearing any more of the disruption of the Mexican Gulf, which is the heart and lungs of the oceanic systems and which contributes to regulating our weather? That disaster was not caused by an average Joe, and the devastation caused will never truly be rectified.

I notice there are no motions, or no concerns are being expressed in this place, to hold BHP and the Obama administration accountable for this man-made disaster of epic proportions. No, we are much busier in this place wasting our time on a debate that the majority of people believe is a load of hogwash. Those people include leading scientists in their field who we would demonise and whose character we attempt to assassinate rather than listen to common sense because it does not serve the global political agenda that is being served.

We have seen some catastrophic things happen to our environment, but it is not the citizens: it is the corporations that are responsible. And what is our government doing about that? Rewarding the real polluters via the carbon tax. This, of course, was affirmed by Melbourne's Grattan Institute, which stated, 'Study finds compensation proposed in carbon draft bill is unnecessary or justified.' This particular article outlined that the Grattan study shows that these polluters are going to be rewarded for polluting this planet. Meanwhile, we will all be paying far more for our power, and our cost of living is going to increase simply because we have to proceed with this climate change agenda.

One of Australia's foremost experts on the relationship between climate change and sea levels has written a peer-reviewed paper concluding that rises in sea levels are decelerating. The analysis by New South Wales principal coastal specialist Phil Watson calls into question one of the key criteria for large-scale inundation around the Australia coast by 2100—the assumption of an accelerating rise in sea levels because of climate change.

Based on century-long tide gauge records at Fremantle, Western Australia (from 1897 to the present), Auckland Harbour in New Zealand (from 1903 to present), Port Denison in Sydney in Sydney Harbour (1914 to present) and Pilot Station at Newcastle (1925 to present), the analysis finds that there was a 'consistent trend of weak deceleration' from 1940 to 2000. Mr Watson's findings, published in the Journal of Coastal Research this year and now attracting broader attention, supports a similar analysis of long-term tide gauges in the United States earlier this year. Both raise questions about the CSIRO's sea level predictions.

Climate change researcher Howard Brady at Macquarie University said yesterday that the recent research meant that sea levels accepted by the CEO were 'already dead in the water as having no sound basis in probability'. He sent on to say:

In all cases it is clear that sea level rise, although occurring, has been decelerating for at least the last half of the 20th century, and so the present trend would only produce sea levels of around 15cm for the 21st century.

The weather cycle for Australia has always been a severe one. We are either in boom or bust in this country—severe drought followed by floods—and that has been the way ever since I can remember, and that is far longer than a decade or so. In fact, the Australian Bureau of Statistics states:

Australia's most severe drought periods since the beginning of European settlement appear to have been those of 1895-1903 and 1958-68. The 1982-83 drought was possibly the most intense with respect to the area affected by severe rainfall deficiencies. These periods were comparable in their overall impact, but differed appreciably in character.

The 1958-68 drought period is described in the article contained in the 1968 Year Book No. 54. That drought period was widespread and probably second only to the 1895-1903 drought period in severity. The areas affected and the durations of drought were variable and overlapping.

It also states:

Since the 1960s, there have been nine major Australian droughts. The major drought periods of 1895-1903 and 1958-68 and the major drought of 1982-83 were the most severe in terms of rainfall deficiency...

This just shows that drought is not something new to this country. It is not something that we can attribute to climate change. It is part of the normal cyclic behaviour of our climate. As I have said in other speeches, our farmers have had to deal with this for decades and decades.

So, to think that for the last 10 or 20 years that this is all new to everybody is why people are so angry about this. People out there have a memory. They understand, they know and they remember that the Murray has been dry or in flood before—it is cyclic—and nothing we can do is going to change that. How arrogant are we to believe that we can control the climate?

I could go on and on, as I have, about this issue, but I will not go on for too much longer because, at the end of the day, debates are never won or lost in this place based on solid science. Depending on the issue, party politics is what wins out, and that is how we contribute to the gradual degradation of our democracy and our political system.

The best thing to say on this issue is that the people know that they are being conned. The people know they are being sacrificed for the sake of the few who will make the money on the carbon market and they are more than angry about it.

To all political parties who serve this agenda I say keep up the good work, because it will be the demise of your party in the long run. People have had enough of being seen as cash cows for government. Climate change is a solution to government's problem of not being able to control every facet of existence of the people. The carbon tax fraud has seen the political death of two prime ministers—Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard—and apparently when sleazy politics and spin fail we can roll out the big guns, namely our celebrities, to put it all into perspective for us poor sods, we climate sceptics, climate deniers or global warming heretics, who are so lacking in the ability to think for ourselves that we would be easily mesmerised by the rich and famous. Even that failed to convince the majority.

I suggest that we mortals get over ourselves and deal with the pollution of this planet in real terms rather than some mythical problem that will cost us and this country dearly and solve none of the problems of government being influenced, if not ruled, by the corporate world of global financial money gobblers who have an insatiable appetite for everybody else's hard-earned money.

This planet will survive long after the human race has been eradicated through selfishness, greed and lack of respect for the world we are supposed to care for and about. We are focused on convincing people to reduce the population in order to solve world hunger, but if in fact governments had a refocus of priorities we could in fact make a huge difference to the issues that face the people of this world, the starving people of this world.

Environmentalism has been taken over by the Green Nazis. Let us be clear: this planet is polluted and it is not because of average Joe, who goes about—

The Hon. M. Parnell interjecting:

The Hon. A. BRESSINGTON: —I wasn't talking about you—the average Joe who goes about the business of living in a world created by government policies that support big industry rather than the public good. That is our problem, not how much carbon dioxide we release into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is not the problem, as has been demonstrated over and over again and then ignored. The problem we face is the pollution of our land, air and water through chemicals that are released by big industry and allowed to do so by our environmental protection agencies worldwide which do little more than support government in protecting the real offenders.

Man-made climate change or industry pollution: there is a big difference in how that challenge should be met. We are not having any debate on the efficacy of the use of thorium and I can also guess as to why not. While we sit here and argue over man-made climate change—and if the Greens were to have their way we would be back in the Dark Ages, living in caves and rediscovering the use of fire all over again—China is leading the way in technology that has been around since the 1960s and then literally abandoned. Less waste, less risk, less pollution, no emissions, but we remain stuck arguing about coal pollution that could quite easily be eradicated. Then we blame average Joe for using the only technology that is available to him.

I do believe that the Hon. Mark Parnell has raised an important issue and I also believe that the scientific critical analysis of The Critical Decade report should be an important feature in this debate. As for calling on this state government to intensify its efforts to respond to the challenge of climate change, I say that all the science must be considered and a metered approach that includes all the information is necessary if we are to find a way forward. I also put on the record that information selection in order to prove an argument has destroyed people's faith in science altogether and this kind of manipulation and propaganda must stop if we are ever truly going to move forward in the best interests of the people of this planet and the planet itself.

Clean green solutions are not so clean and green at the end of the day. Wind power is limited in the amount of energy it produces and now there are reports of farmers having to walk off their farms because of the EMFs that are produced from the turbines and are making them and their families ill, not to mention the limitations for producing affordable power to meet baseload requirements.

Solar energy is a great individual approach that is only an option for those who can afford it and I believe is an option that should be expanded with the ongoing assistance of government to ensure that those in the lower socioeconomic belt—which, by the way, is rising every day—can be assisted to do their bit. We hear all the advertisements about natural gas being a clean green alternative and ignore environmental damage to our land, air and water through the practice of coal seam gas mining, otherwise known as fracking.

How much hypocrisy are the people supposed to endure? I suggest that every member of this and the other place watch the low budget documentary known as GASLAND available on YouTube for download. If that does not raise serious concerns about what is happening in order to market 'clean green energy', then we are not fit people to be making any contribution to any debate on climate change, pollution or any other topic about the wellbeing of our environment and our people.

In other words, it is time to stop the rot and find solutions without any political agendas; that would be very difficult to do. We may all find that the truth will set us free indeed. I agree with the sentiments expressed in the Hon. Mark Parnell's motion because I, like so many others, am concerned about the health of the environment, knowing well that pollution causes damage to all life forms, including humans, and that a balance must be found that allows us all to live in a clean, safe environment without having to regress to the past.

There is a middle ground, and that can be revealed through examining best practice in all aspects of the provision of energy and industry. If they must be dragged kicking and screaming to the discussion and forced to comply with standards that do not compromise the health of the people or the planet for financial gain, then so be it. Drag them to the table. That is our battle—consequences for actions—and the government should leave average joe alone in the meantime until it is better prepared to offer true leadership, rather than just another fundraising exercise to strip the people of any extra money they may be lucky enough to have through hard work and effective financial management.

I do support the motion of the Hon. Mark Parnell as it is written but I do not support any efforts to further advance an unrealistic and unscientific approach to restoring our environment and the health of the people who are adversely affected by the ongoing support of the polluters of our air, water and land in the ongoing struggle to seek renewable clean green energy sources from a limited perspective.

Biofuel is adding to world hunger. While maize is being diverted to biofuel, it is adding to the food shortage in Somalia and other places. We need to think long and hard. As the saying goes, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Looking at this issue from one narrow perspective is not doing us or the world or the planet any good at all.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (21:57): I will, in wrapping up, first thank those members who have contributed to this debate: the Hons Ian Hunter, Michelle Lensink, Kelly Vincent and Ann Bressington. In relation to the Hon. Ann Bressington's contribution, I will just say that I had been getting a bit worried of recent times that she and I were agreeing on too many issues, but I am pleased to say after tonight's contribution that the natural order has been restored, and Ann and I will agree to disagree on this. But I do acknowledge that she is supporting the motion but perhaps not for the same reasons that I put it forward or that I am supporting it, but she certainly is acknowledging that the state government needs to intensify its efforts to respond to the challenge of climate change. She would respond to that challenge—

The Hon. A. Bressington interjecting:

The Hon. M. PARNELL: Yes, she would respond differently to the Greens, but nevertheless would respond. I will just say that I have been encouraged by members to respond in detail to the honourable members' contribution, and I know members would like to hear what I have to say about Lord Monckton's views, but what I will say is that in any field of science, and especially in any field of public debate, where the consequences are severe and the responses required are urgent and far-reaching, there will always be contrarians. There will always be contrarians. The honourable member has found most of them, I think, and we have heard about them tonight.

For the record, I am not a fan of world government, I have never been to Rome and, whilst I am a fan of caves, I do not particularly want to live in one. In fact, as I have said in the past, in relation to responses to climate change, I want my beer cold and I want my showers hot, but I think we can provide those important services in ways that do not harm the climate, and that is what action on climate change is about.

In response to the Hon. Kelly Vincent's contribution, I think we do need to remember that the honourable member will be around and will be living the legacy of decisions we make today longer than most of us in this room, so I think we do need to pay attention to young people. I will refer briefly to what some young people are doing in a few moments.

I thank the Hon. Michelle Lensink for her contribution. She would appreciate that the motion I have drafted does not identify the particular response that is required. It does not invite the Liberal Party to endorse the price on carbon that is being proposed. It simply says that the government should intensify its efforts to respond to the challenge of climate change. The honourable member made the valuable point that the response needs to be sincere. This debate is full of spin.

That brings me straight to the Hon. Ian Hunter's contribution where he listed in some detail everything the government has done, wished it had done and would like us to think it had done in relation to climate change. His contribution included things such as the meritorious program that whenever you build a freeway, if you put a bike path alongside it, all of a sudden it becomes a green, climate change friendly project. I beg to differ: I would love the bike lane, but we do not need the freeway.

I do not support the amendment that the Hon. Ian Hunter has put forward. The call in the motion is for the government to intensify its efforts. The honourable member's amendment is that the government should maintain the intensity of its efforts. Why am I surprised that, every time a member stands up in this place and makes even the mildest suggestion that the government might want to do a bit more than it is currently doing, the response is predicable and uniform? It is, 'We are doing enough, thank you very much. Don't you legislative councillors dare tell us that we need to do more.' That is the response that we got tonight.

In my original contribution introducing this motion I identified a range of areas where I said the government could do better. It included things like stopping support for outdated and dirty fossil fuel programs such as coal to diesel, more support for rail freight over road, planning for more sustainable urban forms and not increasing urban sprawl, supporting our agricultural sector and helping them to adapt to climate change, amongst others. I will not go through those again.

There is one more thing I would like to put on the record now. It is an issue that should attract support from all sides, and it does bring into focus why this motion is so important in calling on the government to intensify its efforts. It is the issue of the replacement of Australia's dirtiest coal-fired power station with clean, renewable energy. I am talking about the Playford B Power Station at Port Augusta.

This coal-fired power station was described by the climate group last year and the year before as 'mainland Australia's most carbon-intensive plant'. That means that per unit of energy the carbon pollution from Playford B is the worst in the country. Thank goodness it does not run all the time. It is mainly used for peak purposes, so it is not as dirty in overall terms as some of the Latrobe Valley power stations in Victoria, but per unit of energy it is the dirtiest in the country.

Replacing that power station needs to be a priority for South Australia. What makes this such a good news story is that it is going to be relatively easy to do, because the planets are aligned. These are the things that line up to make replacement of Playford B an excellent and timely project. First of all, we are about to get a price on carbon. The dirtiest of the fossil fuel power stations will become uneconomical.

There is also a pool of commonwealth money to help transition from dirty energy to clean energy, and this project could tap into that fund. We know that the coal that fuels the Port Augusta power stations is running out. There may well be some debate about how long that will take. The local member in another place estimated in parliament earlier this year that he thought between five and 15 years; other people are now saying it might be 20. Whatever the number, the coal is running out.

That does not mean we have to wait. We do not have to wait for it to run out. We can transition that power station away from coal to renewable energy before then. We know that the operators (Alinta) of the Playford B Power Station are keen for change. They know the writing is on the wall. They have said publicly that once the carbon price is in they are going to have to reassess the viability of Playford B. We know that the local council is interested in maintaining power generation at Port Augusta, and the workers obviously want to keep their jobs.

The other planet that has aligned to make this an excellent project is that the government is about to approve the biggest and most energy-hungry project in this state's history: the Olympic Dam expansion. That is a project that will use more electricity than every single house in Adelaide combined. It is the elephant in the room in the climate change debate in South Australia—an elephant that was conveniently left out of the Hon. Ian Hunter's contribution. We have not a snowflake's chance in hell of meeting our climate reduction targets if the Olympic Dam expansion goes ahead in the way that I think the company wants, and that puts extra pressure on the government to attach conditions to that approval that require renewable energy.

This is a golden opportunity to replace Playford B with a world-leading, job-intensive, cleaner alternative and the best of those alternatives looks to be a solar thermal plant. The Greens were pleased to join with a number of community groups here in South Australia, and I would like to mention the Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Conservation Council SA and Beyond Zero Emissions who are all united in their call for Port Augusta to be the site of Australia's first solar thermal plant.

I will not go into the detailed science. Members probably know a little bit about it, but we are talking about using the power of the sun to generate heat which can then be used to generate electricity. The advantage of solar thermal is that it provides baseload power, and the reason for that is that heat is much easier and cheaper to store than electricity. You store the energy in the form of heat rather than storing it in batteries, and you can provide electricity day and night.

A baseload solar thermal power station at Port Augusta in place of Playford B has incredible advantages not just for the climate but over other forms of renewable energy, including wind and photovoltaic energy. It would be the first in Australia. It would be something for us to be proud of, and now is the time to do it. Finally, I urge all members to support the motion as originally drafted. I do not think we overstep the mark in calling on the government to intensify its efforts and I believe the motion should be supported by all members in that original form.

Amendment negatived; motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT