Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

That is quite the offer. I am disappointed that we are debating this MPI framed in this way. These are very worrying times for me and for all of us who believe that combating climate change is important. Climate science is under attack here and overseas. Every day seems to bring some fresh story of a conservative attack on the scientific consensus that we need to take climate action. This is a time for progressives to work together to achieve real change, but instead what we have from the Greens is, frankly, pretty petty politics in the form of a divisive MPI.

The simple fact is that we are not going to get meaningful climate action from this government. That much is very clear. The only hope for addressing climate change is to change this government and to point out the folly of their position. Instead of deciding to work with us to make that happen, Greens politicians seem much more interested in spending their time attacking the Labor Party, and in doing so they are betraying millions of Australians who want to see meaningful action on climate change.

Labor's position on the Adani mine is consistent. We do not have a special position on this project. Our position is consistent whether we are talking about projects in the Illawarra, the Pilbara, the Galilee Basin or anywhere else. Every project needs to meet the environmental tests. It needs to comply with relevant environmental protections and have the relevant approvals.

We are not interested in propping up mining projects that are not viable. Projects need to make business sense. There are some indications that this project may not. There is a reason that Westpac are not interested in funding these types of projects, and it is not because there was a single protest at one of their events. They stated that it is a commercial decision based on their assessment of the commercial realities, and that is how it ought to be because it is not a great system to have senators making assessments about the commercial viability of individual projects. That is not a pathway for meaningful climate action, and every single one of the Greens political party people sitting up there on the crossbench know that to be true. The market is far better at doing that.

What we are seeking to do now, and have sought to do for more than a decade, is make sure that the policy settings are right so that the market delivers the kinds of answers we want, by putting a price on carbon. The point that Greens senators from the Greens political party need to understand is that this should not be about a single mine in Queensland. What is needed is a proper policy on climate. What is clear is that that is on offer. It is on offer from this side of the chamber and it is not on offer in any meaningful way from the other side of the chamber, and yet we see all of the focus of the Greens political party directed in this direction.

The government's climate policy does not provide meaningful signals to the market, and we are paying a great price for that. This is largely because—to state the obvious—the government actually do not have a climate policy. The situation is not just embarrassing; it is very dangerous. Last night, we had the Minister for the Environment and Energy admitting that his government is essentially giving up on meeting our commitments under the Paris Agreement to ensure that Australia achieves net zero emissions by 2050. We need action. We need to fulfil our obligations to the international community, and the simple fact is that only a Labor government can deliver this. Whatever hopes Australia may have had for climate action under Prime Minister Turnbull have been well and truly extinguished. There can be little doubt that we will not see meaningful climate action from the coalition.

If we want to change the policy, we need to change government and we need a Labor government. Labor has had a consistent approach to climate for more than a decade. We believe that climate change is a systemic problem and it needs a systemic policy response. We believe that there should be a price on carbon, and it is one of our key policy priorities. If the Greens were serious about delivering climate action, they would work with Labor to bring down this government. Instead, the Greens, under the leadership of Senator Di Natale, seem more interested in attacking Labor. I am growing very tired of the continued cynicism from the Greens political party on climate change. When you watch the position that Greens politicians have taken over the last decade, it is hard sometimes not to suspect that they care more about climate change as a campaign issue than they do about obtaining meaningful action from government on climate policy.

Labor in government will take action on climate. That is what we did last time we were in power, with absolutely no thanks to the Australian Greens. When Labor got elected in 2007, we had an opportunity. There was widespread community support for climate action. The business community had swung behind it, and we sought to make the most of that opportunity. We had Treasury develop policies. We tried to build a wide base of support, support that could endure for meaningful climate action. And that opportunity—let us be very, very clear—was scuttled by the Greens. They voted, in this chamber, against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Let us be clear about the history. If the Greens had voted for the CPRS, Australia would have had a price on carbon for almost a decade. The Greens political party, through their cynicism, ruined our chance to be first movers on climate, and we will never let them forget it, and the environment certainly will not.

My great worry is that the Greens' political leadership are gearing up to do it again—to play a spoiling role. We are actually having another moment for action on climate in this country because, despite all of the best efforts by the climate deniers, there is a convergence of business, scientific and public opinion in support of an emissions intensity scheme.

Senator Waters interjecting—

'Where are you?' asks Senator Waters. We could ask exactly the same thing about the Greens on this very question. Experts agree that an EIS is as effective as an ETS in curbing carbon emissions—even Professor Garnaut, who was so instrumental in the design of the CPRS. It has widespread community support from businesses all across different industries and sectors. We have seen BHP, AGL and EnergyAustralia come out in support. The Chief Scientist has come out in support. CSIRO has come out in support. The CEFC supports it. The Climate Change Authority supports it. It even has the support of the National Farmers' Federation and the NSW Young Nationals.

The Greens have had countless opportunities to lend their support to an emissions intensity scheme in public statements, in committee reports and in this chamber, and they have been conspicuously silent. Let us be clear. We want practical action that can gain the support of the widest possible base in the Australian community, and the emissions intensity scheme is the best chance we have to bring that into action, to take meaningful action against climate change in this country. My worry is that, when the time comes, Greens politicians are going to refuse to back an EIS for political reasons, just like they did back in 2009. I am worried that Senator Di Natale and the others in the Greens' leadership group are going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good once again and scuttle growing consensus on climate action. I am worried that the campaign team—because it is all about the campaign—may think that their chances at the next election are better if they can show policy difference with Labor, even if it comes at the cost of meaningful and effective climate policy, even if it means standing alongside Labor against a government that is plainly unwilling to take any action. I am worried that the Greens care more about attacking Labor than they do about critiquing a government that is populated by people who, on a daily basis, deny the science of climate change, a government so desperate to divert attention from their own failures in energy policy that they are willing to take lumps of coal into the chamber in the other place. The problem is we need an effective climate policy to drive long-term change, and that can only come from a Labor government.