Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

What a mess, through a lack of application, the most important and potentially most catastrophic environmental and economic issue confronting this nation has got into because of the opposition and, on this occasion, Senator Xenophon and the silent Senator Fielding. The government announced the Garnaut report in December last year at the Press Club, and there was a responsibility upon all of us to come to this debate in mid-year fully equipped with the information that we needed.

There have been a number of Senate inquiries and, of course, consequent upon the inquiry that Senator Xenophon proposes we could propose another series of inquiries, because this is a field that is always moving; there is no limit to it. But we are charged with making decisions in the interests of this nation and getting on with the job. I submit that, after 11 years of inaction by the Howard government and now a two-year wait in this period of the Rudd government, it is time for the Senate to deliberate on this matter and carry it through to a vote. If the vote gets up, the legislation will be implemented; if it does not then we absolutely need to look at other models, other alternatives and, we Greens submit, a realistic application of the government’s responsibility for better targets and better facilitation of the nation’s move towards the green economy, which it should be moving towards.

I flag an amendment to Senator Xenophon’s motion tomorrow, which is that we get on with the determination on this matter this week. That is our responsibility and it is what we will be advocating tomorrow. But here we have the opposition saying none of that. They are saying: ‘We’re now confronted with the government’s climate change legislation. Let’s put it off so we can deal with the Car Dealership Financing Guarantee Appropriation Bill. That’s more important.’ They are so stuck on used cars that they cannot bring themselves to look at, as a priority, the greatest threat confronting the planet.

What a derelict attitude towards responsibility we are seeing unfold in the Senate, after all the debate—public, global, economic, environmental and in relation to employment—that we have seen on this issue. One way or another, the government is on a mission to get to Copenhagen with a determination from Australia, which it should expect out of the Senate. There should be a result. Senator Xenophon’s proposal does bear on the subtext in this place, which is a potential double dissolution election. That is also being put in front of the interests of the planet, in front of the interests of future generations and in front of us getting on with the business of greening the economy and creating the 800,000 to one million jobs that would come out of that restructure, as the Greens propose it. Double dissolution potential if, come August, this gets voted down would move to March—that is what is concentrating the minds of the opposition.

It is just not acceptable for the opposition to say, ‘We want to go out of this place not having voted on this legislation.’ At least Senator Xenophon is saying, ‘I have some specific alternative inquiries I want to make.’ The opposition are not saying that. They are saying, after 13 years of pig ignorance on climate change, of having our heads stuck in the sand: ‘We want more of that.’ That is a failure for this nation. That is a failure of responsibility. It is a failure of intellect and integrity.

What we are seeing unfold here is a filibuster not just in terms of speechifying and presenting vacuous, repetitive ideas to the Senate, which we are going to see in the coming week, but through procedural moves that amount to nothing more than dishonesty because the opposition are not stating what they are about—that is, they are about not having a determination on climate change legislation. I can tell you that the people of Australia will not be impressed by that. It is no way to treat this Senate. But, even more importantly, it is also no way to treat the interests of Australians, who are galvanised by this issue, who want action on this issue and who want people to be able to state what their situation is—and the Greens have been the first to do that because this is an area of priority for us. We have made it clear, first of all the parties in this place, that the targets should be commensurate with the Bali road map and that we should be going to Copenhagen with an intention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels by 40 per cent if the rest of the world will entertain similar action; and by 25 per cent if they will not. We have added to that. If you go for the 25 per cent, you can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this country by the comparatively cheap alternative—instead of putting $16.5 billion into the big polluters, as the government legislation does—of ending the logging of forests and woodlands in this country and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent; in an industry that is not required, if you look at the wood needs of this nation. But we are not getting to that level of debate. What we are getting to here is boring procedural cat-and-mouse play for a political interest which is all to do with the next election and not with the future of this nation, and that is not good enough.