27 June 2024

Topics: Great Barrier Reef avoiding UNESCO ‘in danger’ listing, nuclear

E&OE

Peter Fegan:

There’s been a recent recommendation by UNESCO, that’s the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, to not list the Great Barrier Reef as quote ‘in danger’ to preserve its status as a World Heritage Site and it’s been roundly welcomed. But the further demands on Australia to expand climate targets without similar requests on higher emitting countries reeks of double standards. Successive governments have invested heavily, altered policy and put in place measures to protect the Reef. So I thought I’d bring in this morning the shadow environment minister, Jonno Duniam, he joins me on the line. Shadow Minister, thanks for your time this morning.

Senator Duniam:

Hey Pete, good to be with you from chilly Canberra.

Peter Fegan:

Well Canberra, yeah, it would be cold there this morning. I think it’d be chilly on many factors. Let’s just start on double standards. So let me just read this again, UNESCO is saying the Great Barrier Reef as in danger to preserve its status as World Heritage. So it’s not it’s not listed as that right, so but further to the demands on Australia to expand climate targets without similar requests on higher emitting countries, China, Indonesia, it’s double standards?

Senator Duniam:

It’s exactly what it is. And so the context here is over successive governments – Liberal, Labor, everyone – has been doing everything they can to protect the Reef. It’s an important part of our identity of our country. It’s an important environment. No one wants to see it damaged and when we were in government under Scott Morrison, we invested was around $1.2 billion in response to UNESCO’s demands to keep the Reef off the in danger list. This government last time round signed up and committed to locking into legislation an emissions reductions target at 43 per cent and every time we meet UNESCO’s demands, they say that’s great but more to do, and everyone knows Australia is a very minor player when it comes to global emissions. Just over one per cent is what’s generated here in Australia. And so, for UNESCO to turn around and say, hey, in order for you to save your Reef and keep it off the in danger list, which is a terrible thing to happen because what that really means is people around the world are going to hear that the Reef’s dead, it’s no longer there, it’s going to kill the tourism industry. In order for us to keep it off the list, you’ve got to cut harder. But with one per cent, what about China, what about Indonesia, what are they going to do to bring down emissions if what UNESCO says is to be believed to stop the water warming and harming the Reef. We can’t do it ourselves and this is where, my view is, the government needs to stand up and say, ‘well, look, thanks very much, we know what we’re doing. We are doing the best we can. How about you turn your guns on China, Indonesia and other big emitting countries and get them to do some heavy lifting rather than penalising us’, a country already under pressure. Australian households and businesses can’t pay their power bills. Going harder and faster on emissions reductions targets is going to make that so much harder.

Peter Fegan:

Well, the unfortunate thing is Jonno, we know that the government goes weak at the knees for China, Indonesia, UNESCO, this is the big threat that a lot of people probably aren’t pinpointing, I know you have, is that if we are told by UNESCO, hey, we need to reduce our emissions on the Reef, what do you think are going to happen to tourism operators? They’re going to be banned from entering the Reef, we’re going to have to be told that we’re staying off it. There goes another industry.

Senator Duniam:

Well, and one industry already gone in response to UNESCO’s demands, and UNESCO sent a mission of diplomats out here to come and have a look, they didn’t speak to a single fisherman or woman, but they banned an entire fisheries industry that didn’t actually fish on the Reef but nearby from being able to operate. And this government, in partnership with the Queensland Labor Government, just said, ‘yeah, no worries, we’ll shut this industry down’ on no scientific evidence and no proper recompense for the fishermen and women affected. So yes, it will flow on to tourism operators. And so yes, there will be the bans, but even before any ban comes into place, the worst thing that happens to people who live and work in and around the Reef is when people are talking it down and the Australian Greens, and sadly, this Federal Government often talk about how disastrous coral bleaching is and it leaves the impression through the media that the Reef is dead. And I have spent time talking to Reef tourism operators about what impact that has. People go ‘ohh gee, you know, there’s probably not much to see there anymore. We’ll book a holiday to Fiji instead’, that’s what happens. And it’s death by a thousand cuts. This is why we’ve just got to stand up, tell the truth, and I might just remind your listeners that to the Australian Institute of Marine Science, based in Townsville, did hand down a report just over a year ago. The coral cover on the Reef was at a 36 year high. That’s the period of time we’ve been keeping records. It’s improved, but no one hears about that.

Peter Fegan:

What’s the solution? That’s the big question.

Senator Duniam:

Well, I mean we’re always going to have to be investing in and Reef health and management. We’re always going to have to be improving on land practises when it comes to farming and forestry and other operations. We are doing our bit in Australia to manage our impact on the Reef and I think we should be proud of that. The Reef tourism operators and others that work in and around that part of the world are doing their bit. They’re the eyes and the ears, they want to protect it and they’re doing their bit. So really the solution is UNESCO need to actually be even handed about this and the government need to say ‘hey, thank you very much, Geneva. Thank you for diplomats who are well-meaning, I’m sure, we’ve got this under control. Please go back and talk to the people who represent countries that are big emitters and get them to do their bit. Stop putting it all on us’, and I hope and I know there’s a new emissions reduction target coming out from this Labor Government, I just hope that they don’t buckle and subscribe to a tougher, harder, more punitive target which is going to drive up power prices and make diddly squat difference to Reef health. I just hope they don’t do that but I fear they will.

Peter Fegan:

Jonno, let’s just stick with energy for a moment. Can we ask about nuclear energy? Obviously Peter Dutton and his plan moving forward, it looks like it’ll be the key for the Coalition at the next election. It’s a question I haven’t asked before, how is the upper house being receiving Peter Dutton’s plan and David Littleproud’s plan moving forward? You do hear from some of the independents, but how is it being received?

Senator Duniam:

Well, I guess you wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the usual apoplexy that goes with suggestions of this nature is what’s been the case. You know if you look at the Greens…

Peter Fegan:

What about the Teals?

Senator Duniam:

The Teals have been very anti as well. I mean they talk a big game on emissions reductions and that’s great for people who live in downtown, built up, populous areas but it’s not so good for people who live out of town in the country where these renewables transmission network and you know, new solar arrays and wind farms will be erected at great cost, I might add. I mean this is the other thing, the government can’t tell us how much their full rollout’s going to cost. We understand that it’s going to be between $1.2 and $1.5 trillion, but somehow nuclear is the most costly plan. Look in terms of how it’s being received, because you know, instead of looking for solutions, people are just willing to play politics with this, we will roll out a very comprehensive package around all of the details on nuclear, including the costings, what it will mean to the communities that will benefit and the country more broadly, how it will play as part of the mix. And I think it’s important to remind people that this is just part of our energy solution. It is a longer-term solution. Gas is a very, very important part of what we need in the intervening period. At the heart of what we are advancing here, Pete, is a solution to the problem Australian households and businesses currently face and that is higher power prices. I haven’t heard the Prime Minister once during the week talk about emissions reductions targets. All he could talk about was his 2030 target and slavishly trying to reach it even though they won’t. Didn’t mention power prices once and ever since we’ve been talking about nuclear, he’s just said no. So what’s his answer to bring down power prices? He hasn’t got one. They should at least listen to what we’re saying and give it a go.

Peter Fegan:

I mean, I think for the country’s sake, I think we need to start thinking about a bipartisan approach, whatever that case may be. If we’re going to turn our backs on coal, I mean, that’s the other thing Jonno is the country is so quick, both sides, you’re both doing it, you’re both turning your backs on coal immediately. I think there’s a fair argument there that why aren’t we investigating or spending a little bit more money on figuring out how we can lower emissions when it comes to coal. There must be a better way to burn it. There must be a better way to export it. Why are we turning our backs on it?

Senator Duniam:

It is a good question and I know my good friend and colleague Matt Canavan from Queensland talked a lot about high efficiency, low emissions coal technology. I think, sadly in part, the horse has bolted a bit. The market has determined that they don’t want to go there and I think that is because of what’s happened politically over a long period of time now, the demonisation of coal in particular, and so investments in that space have probably dried up and most of those companies have been transitioning to other forms of energy including, but not limited to gas. So, I mean we remain a big coal exporter and it’s interesting, I was asked by an ABC journalist recently, why are we exporting all of this coal to places like India, which create heaps…

Peter Fegan:

Because it’s a $110 billion industry, that’s why.

Senator Duniam:

$110 billion industry, and as a developed country, Pete, we have a responsibility to help developing countries. You know, these people are coming out of poverty in great numbers because they are getting cheap energy and we should support those. Sure, it’s great for us economically in terms of the jobs. It provides an economic return to our country which back to your point around why have we turned the tap off on it here in terms of domestic and energy generation in Australia, but you know, in terms of our responsibility, we should be sharing our resources at a price, of course, to help countries improve their standard of living, provide better health and other outcomes for their people, and that’s what coal’s doing in India. So you’ve got to balance these things up but look, we can’t be picking winners. Yes, we’ve named up nuclear as part of the mix, but it is, as I say, part of the mix. Labor are the ones who are saying yay or nay to specific things and they’re saying yay to renewables and no to everything else.

Peter Fegan:

I’ll let you go before the bells ring.

Senator Duniam:

Good on you, Pete. Have a great day.