Senator CARR (10:54 AM) —The motion before the Senate is a proposition that calls on the Minister for the Environment and Heritage to explain to the chamber why the minister and the Commonwealth government have acted in a certain manner in a Federal Court case in Queensland concerning a couple of coalmines. We have heard today the minister in the chamber give us what he presents as an explanation. The trouble is that there was no explanation. If you listened to the remarks that the minister made concerning his actions with regard to his use of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act you would not have heard him explain to this chamber why he failed to act. The minister spoke here for nearly 20 minutes. He was the second speaker. We have now had three speakers. We have had an hour of precious Senate time on this matter this morning, and we are yet to hear an explanation from the government as to why the government has acted in this particular manner.

I must say, as an aside, that I am surprised at the extraordinary decline in the government’s management standards since Senator Ian Campbell left the post of Manager of Government Business in the Senate. It is truly amazing that on a Thursday the government would give leave to Senator Brown to bring on a motion without notice and provide the opportunity for an hour’s discussion on this matter concerning the government’s failure. You would have thought, having made the brilliant strategic decision to allow this matter to come on this morning, the government would have been prepared and would have explained to us why it is that, despite the rhetoric we have heard in recent times in this chamber from none other than the minister himself, this government is concerned about the question of greenhouse gases.

Just yesterday the minister told us that this government has now strengthened the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to the point where we have one of the strongest pieces of environmental legislation in the Western world. Given that claim, and given the fact that two weeks ago the minister released a report warning that climate change was inevitable and would have profound consequences for this country, you would have thought that the minister would have been better prepared. Given the importance of the changes to the environment that have been brought on as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, you would have thought that the minister would have been able to explain to us why he failed to act. That is the question here: why did the government not use its powers to allow for an environmental assessment of these two mines?

As I read it, the use of the environmental assessment act is not a device whereby you stop development; it ought to be seen as a process by which there is a proper environmental assessment of the impact of development. But we will not know that in this case, because the minister himself has chosen, despite his rhetoric, not to use that legislation to assess the development of these two mines. As a consequence, community groups have taken the government to court. I would have thought that if the government were so strong in its convictions, which it has recently discovered, it would have been able to explain to us why it chose not to invoke that legislation.

We have a situation where the minister, however, today goes to some length to explain that the government’s position with regard to the Kyoto protocol is justifiable because we have entered into some new partnerships within the Asia-Pacific region. He explains to us and asserts that the rationale the government uses for not signing up to the Kyoto protocol is justified, because of these partnerships—which everyone knows, and the minister himself has understood and said, are nothing more than supplementary to the main principles that are outlined in the Kyoto protocol itself. We have a situation where this government is seeking to promote fear and insecurity with regard to the Kyoto protocol by suggesting that the protocol would undermine our economic capacity and our standard of living. Frankly, nothing could be further from the truth.

The European Union and many other countries and other economic blocs in the world now understand just how important it is that the Kyoto principles are implemented. The truth of the matter is that Kyoto provides Australia with a very, very generous target—108 per cent—in terms of its capacity to reduce greenhouse gases. That is a very modest target provision. The minister goes on to say, ‘Well, of course Australia is meeting these targets.’ What he neglects to point out is that Australia’s progress on these matters is, to a very large measure, down to the various state governments that he seeks to abuse. It is the actions in Queensland and New South Wales with regard to land clearing, for instance, and the actions in Victoria with regard to renewable energy that are leading to improvements in Australia’s performance on greenhouse gases. They are not the result of the Commonwealth government’s deliberative policy.

The Commonwealth in its white paper on energy last year refused to take up the option of renewable energy targets. It failed with regard to providing effective incentives for improvements in the uses of alternative technology. In fact, it came to the position where it told the renewable energy sector that they really had no effective place in the regime of energy production in this country. It provided $500 million for investments in green coal. Frankly, I support measures to improve the environmental effectiveness of the uses of fossil fuels, but the government’s position that that in itself is sufficient is a position where the Labor Party would stand aside.

The Labor Party would say that Australia is an economy heavily dependent upon fossil fuels. The fact is, as a person long associated with the defence of the manufacturing industry, I appreciate just how important it is to have reliable clean energy sources. It is critical for this country, given the fact that the manufacturing industry still provides some 12 per cent—nearly 13 per cent—of GDP. It is a little less in terms of the total number of people employed in this country. I note there are some five per cent fewer people employed in manufacturing this year than in previous years. I note, however, that there are some 27,000 people employed in the coal, gas and oil industries. It is not insignificant that we should take into account the economic consequences of the policy decisions being taken.

Equally, when you talk to people in manufacturing—when you talk to the large manufacturers in the petrochemical industries, for instance—they will tell you that their future sustainability rests with ensuring that there are improvements in terms of energy consumption. They will tell you that they are in the business of ensuring that there are massive improvements in the uses of technology. But they will also say to you that the government’s approach of concentrating on pleasing a few coal companies is not in itself adequate to deal with the needs of this country.

It is widely understood that the carbon-trading regime Kyoto provides is an opportunity that we are missing out on. It is a missed opportunity in terms of our capacity to develop new technologies and provide innovations with regard to the manufacturing industry and it is a missed opportunity in that we are missing the chance to provide alternative employment programs for people in the development of those technologies.

The former Chief Scientist, Dr Robin Batterham, puts the view that the government’s approach is clearly grossly inadequate. He argues that Australia needs to improve its greenhouse gas emission performance by at least doubling it—it needs to actually halve its gas emissions by 2050. He says that we have to take much more strenuous action to allow ourselves to provide the opportunity for our people to maintain their prosperity and living standards. That is the approach that we ought to be taking, not the head in the sand approach that the government is pursuing. He points out that Britain, for example, has committed itself to a 60 per cent reduction in its emissions by 2050. That is not the approach that this government takes.

The approach this government take is: ‘We’ll leave it to the states to fix this up. We will provide some very, very modest research grants for our scientists to examine ways of improving our technological performance on emissions.’ They say, ‘We will place considerable investment in geosequestration of coal’—a technology which is widely understood to be unproven, a technology that has yet to see one coal power station in this country at this time able to use that technology. It is a technology that requires considerable investment in transportation systems and that may well expose the Commonwealth to considerable liabilities with regard to the seepage of noxious gases. These are all untested.

My argument is: of course we should be investing in all forms of research in terms of energy. It is not adequate, however, to attack anybody who comes into this chamber and says that there are further steps that can be taken to improve our performance with regard to existing emissions practices within Australia. I put to you, Minister Campbell, as you have returned to the chamber, a simple proposition that some 61 per cent of our consumption of energy is through households and through cities. We have no serious action by this government to address basic emissions policies through our urban areas.

Senator Ian Campbell —We have!

Senator CARR —I look forward to a detailed assessment of what they are.

Senator Ian Campbell —Go to my web site!

Senator CARR —What we need, I suggest to you, Minister, is a much more serious effort with regard to energy conservation within our cities. There are a number of issues here—

Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marshall)—Order, Minister!

Senator CARR —There are a number of issues here which the government has failed to address. The minister has failed to explain—

Senator Ian Campbell interjecting—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Campbell, cease interjecting.

Senator CARR —The minister has failed to explain to this chamber why it is that he chose not to use his powers under the Commonwealth legislation to even have a proper environmental assessment of these mines. You failed, when you addressed this matter before, to explain to us why you chose not to use this legislation. You came into this chamber this week and boasted. You put your big, hairy chest out and said: ‘I’ve got the best environmental credentials in the world. We have got this new piece of legislation, which I will not use.’ You have failed to explain why that is the case. You have failed to explain to this chamber the report that you brought down two weeks ago that said that there is a major contradiction between what you say in here and what you say in the courts of this country. Minister, frankly you are a fraud. You are now seeking to wrap yourself in the green cloak while you move in other circles—in the courts of this country—and fail to explain why you have not implemented your responsibilities, why you have not pursued—

Senator Ian Campbell —Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: Senator Carr referred to me in an unparliamentary way.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Can you explain?

Senator Ian Campbell —You heard it, Mr Acting Deputy President. He said that I am a fraud. That is unparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw it.

Senator CARR —I withdraw my unparliamentary words. I say that the position here is clear: the government is acting in a fraudulent manner. This minister is acting in a fraudulent manner. He comes into this chamber, he boasts about his environmental credentials and then he fails—

Senator Ian Campbell —Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: he cannot say that a senator, whether it is me or anyone else, is acting in a fraudulent manner. I ask you to ask him to withdraw it.

Senator CARR —I withdraw any unparliamentary words that I have uttered. I put the view to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, as I do to this chamber, that this government asserts one thing here in terms of its claimed environmental credentials and it fails to follow that through in terms of the minister’s direct responsibility. He fails in terms of the actions he undertakes in the courts of this country. He has been demonstrated yet again to be doing one thing here and not appreciating what he is doing in other circumstances. It is a clear case of incompetence, at very best—or it is a case of him acting in a fraudulent manner.

Senator Ian Campbell —Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: I think that he should be asked to withdraw that last comment. You have now asked him on two occasions—and hopefully will on a third—to stop using unparliamentary language and defying the standing orders, and now he has on a third occasion. He is clearly defying your rulings.

Senator Conroy —Mr Acting Deputy President, on the point of order: I accept that some of Senator Carr’s language may have been a little unparliamentary, and I think he willingly withdrew it previously, but I am not sure what it was he said this time. I am happy for you to explain it, but I did not actually get the same impression. The word ‘fraudulent’ is not unparliamentary in every context, so perhaps you could explain why you feel it was in that context.

Senator Ian Campbell —I am happy to speak to that point of order. Mr Acting Deputy President, it is not unparliamentary language, in particular; it is actually a reflection on another senator—that is, ‘acting in a fraudulent manner’. He called me a fraud once, and you forced him to withdraw that. In fact, he did not; he just said ‘any unparliamentary language’, so he did not actually uphold your decision. But he cannot say anyone—whether it is me or any other senator—is acting in a fraudulent manner. He has repeated his misdemeanour on three occasions and I ask you to either ask him to withdraw those words and that reflection on me or take action and have him removed from the chamber.

Senator CARR —I withdraw whatever remarks are regarded as being unparliamentary. We have a simple proposition before the chamber at the moment. The minister has been required to provide an explanation. He has failed to do so—he has failed dismally to do so.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Carr, I thank you for withdrawing those comments.