Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Australian Greens: that speaks volumes, doesn't it? 'We cannot support the direction that the opposition'—and I should say the crossbench—'wants to take the bill in'—in the direction of greater transparency and climate literacy. Senator Johnston, climate change actually is a thing. It really actually is a thing. It does exist. I know it is hard to believe, but it actually really does. And I will indicate at the outset that the Australian Greens will be supporting these amendments. I do not think the Labor Party goes nearly far enough, so I will have a bit more to say about climate change, as, I suspect, will Senator Milne, when we come to move the next Greens amendment. My understanding is that what the Labor Party has sought to do here is simply reinsert the existing language from the existing act and put it back in where it belonged—that is, up to date, to this time—and that it has had climate change as one of the material factors it needs to evaluate when it is seeing projects roll in. That washes back through the states and territories so that they know that this is something that Infrastructure Australia cares about even if they do not and that they need to make an effort to justify it—not simply mitigation, but adaptation as well. Is this project going to survive the age of climate change? Does it massively increase greenhouse gas emission? It is not perfect. I do not think it has worked particularly well, which is why the Australian Greens amendments go so much further. But it is extraordinary that the coalition sought to remove it as a material fact. What is it about this government that has washed out the Public Service, the experts, everyone from CSIRO to the Bureau of Meteorology and bowled over ARENA, smashed up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, changed the renewable energy target. What are you doing? And, more to the point, Senator Johnston, why are you doing it?