Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Cadell, I agree with so much of what you said: there are often great people in here, and we really should be working together to get the kind of outcomes that the Australian people deserve. It's very sad that you're leaving the chamber, though. We have laid out a vision. We have laid out a vision for one year, five years and 10 years in many of those areas that were traversed throughout this question time.

History is important because we look back on history to try not to do the things that didn't work again and to do more of the things that did work, to learn from that experience. We are faced with accusations that we've killed the housing sector. I have to tell you that you cannot kill the housing sector in 10 short months. It's actually not possible. It's just not possible. The kind of neglect that you have to have to end up where we are now started long before 10 months ago. So, Senator Cadell, I will just remind you that a lot of that history piece is about understanding what's moving forward.

What we did see today was a definite theme across the chamber of just saying no. Those opposite said no to every issue that was brought up. They said no to wage increases as we've gone along. In fact, there was a deliberate policy to stagnate them. That was an admitted intent while those opposite were in government. They said no to action on climate change. In this chamber, they're not alone. There are those on our crossbench and in the Greens who have done the same. They have chosen not to take action to move this country forward to deal with one of the biggest global crises we've ever seen. To protect the future for our children and our society, we must make changes. But no is the answer from them.

They've specifically said no to the safeguard mechanism. That is just bizarre. It is a structure that in 2015 they were fully behind. They put it in place in such a way that it achieved nothing and, in fact, could be held responsible for increasing emissions by letting people off the hook on their emissions, but it is the same theory that they spouted at that time but then failed to deliver on because they did not structure the mechanism sufficiently.

What we've done is taken that, in a bipartisan way, and made it stronger—strengthened it so that it will actually achieve those outcomes, so that it will actually reduce emissions, and so that it will actually get us to our targets and help us save the future, effectively. We've heard a lot in this chamber in the last couple of hours about the IPCC report. And, yes, it is alarming. This is an alarming global crisis, and it is about time we did something about it. But no—that's the word we hear most: no, no, no and a bit more no.

Those opposite said no to $230 average savings to household power bills. Those opposite said no to so many different measures over and over again, leaving us in the situation we're in now, where we do not have sufficient action. There is this constant rewriting of history and the sense that, in the nine-plus years that you were in government, you didn't actually contribute to any of the challenges that we are now facing. So, when you say that the questions through question time are not being answered by the Labor government, I can assure you they are. The problem is you don't like the answer, but that does not mean that the answer was not given.

I will wrap up by saying that we must work together at some degree to get change to make this country better. There is a point where you have to put aside the rubbish and actually get on board with progressive change.