Mr KELVIN THOMSON (9.00 p.m.) —In January, in answer to a question on notice, I received advice from the government that this year's Antarctic ozone hole—the hole in the ozone layer—at 28 million square kilometres, was about 10 million square kilometres larger than the 2002 hole. The 2002 hole was smaller than that of previous years, and this year's hole is about the same size as the ozone hole observed in the year 2000. The size of the Antarctic ozone layer hole each year depends on a number of meteorological factors as well as on the concentration of ozone-depleting chemicals. In 2002, unusual weather patterns restricted the size of the ozone hole in comparison with those of recent years. Meteorological conditions this year were more conducive to the formation of a larger ozone hole than in 2002.

The fact is that the ozone hole has increased substantially, and there simply is no room for complacency in the way in which we tackle ozone-depleting substances. The ozone layer protects us all from the harmful rays of the sun, and holes in the ozone layer leave us more vulnerable to skin cancer. Australia has the highest skin cancer rate in the world. That is why I am concerned about, and want to raise in the House tonight, the Howard government's failure to take seriously the threat to the ozone layer from methyl bromide.

Methyl bromide is less well known as an ozone-depleting substance than chlorofluoro-carbons or halons but it is a major ozone depletant. Molecule for molecule, methyl bromide is a much more potent destroyer of ozone than are chlorofluorocarbons. That is why the international community at the Montreal protocol resolved on a general phase-out of methyl bromide by 1 January 2005—that is, 1 January next year. They did agree to allow countries to put forward applications for exemption in certain limited circumstances, which are known as and are referred to as critical use exemptions. Decision 1X/6 states that a use of methyl bromide should qualify as critical only if (1) all technical and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimise the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide; (2) methyl bromide is not available in sufficient quantity and quality from existing stocks; and (3) an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialise and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes.

The Montreal protocol established a technical and economic assessment panel to consider applications for exemptions from the methyl bromide ban. Thirteen countries sought exemptions from the ban. The United States sought 13 exemptions and Australia sought five. The technical and economic assessment panel met in May last year but could not agree on its recommendations. It met again in October and included a new category, `noted', in addition to the previous categories of `recommended' and `not recommended'. My understanding is that the assessment panel in noting these applications really believed that there are alternatives to the use of methyl bromide, so it was not prepared to recommend them. Seven of the 13 countries had some of their applications assessed as `noted', including Australia, the United States and Belgium.

In November, the parties to the Montreal protocol met in Nairobi. The United States said they wanted their applications to be `recommended' rather than `noted'. Some of the other countries, to their credit, said, `No, we're not prepared to approve the applications in the `noted' category.' So there was a stalemate in Nairobi. The critical use exemptions issue for methyl bromide is presently unresolved. I am advised that, in two days time, the technical advice committee will meet in Los Angeles to try to resolve the deadlock by reconsidering applications in the `noted' category with a view to either recommending them or not recommending them. This will be followed by a full meeting of the parties in March to try to finalise the issue.

I believe the Australian government's obligations are clear. Instead of supporting this dodgy category of `noted', we should join with those countries that are refusing to exempt any methyl bromide uses which the scientific and technical advice committee will not explicitly support. We should not join with the United States or any other country looking for loopholes in the fight to repair the hole in the ozone layer. With all the research and development that has been done, there are alternatives to methyl bromide. People in industry have been given years to get their house in order and move to alternatives. It is time the Howard government told them to get on with repairing the damage to the ozone layer which methyl bromide has been causing.