David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Duniam, you had a terrible track record over the last decade. But here we see them teaming up and potentially looking to guillotine debate on something that the government won't rule out the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. It's so negligent, when Queensland is on fire in October. We're sitting in this place, supposedly here to represent our states and territories, to make decisions that are in the best interests of people, of Australians, of this continent, not of fossil fuel companies, not of Santos and Woodside, and yet with this bill the government wants to talk about everything that this bill can do except the thing that we know is the reason they've brought it forward at this time—to facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry against the advice of climate scientists and against what Australians want.

Australians love this place. This is our home. We should be living and making decisions like we're going to be here for a long time. This is short-termism at its worst. This is the time when we have to genuinely undertake a transition and we have a government who wants to talk all about the transition: 'Look over here. We're approving renewable projects. How great is it? We're moving in this direction at the same time we're expanding the fossil fuel industry. But don't listen to the scientists. Don't listen to crossbenchers, who are accountable to their communities, who don't take political donations in 2023 from fossil fuel companies.'

A long time ago, Labor said that tobacco is addictive and it causes lung cancer—as someone whose gran suffers from emphysema, I can see the results. So they said, 'Okay, we're not going to take donations from big tobacco, because it's not in our community's best interests.' But if we look at climate change and the fossil fuel companies that are fuelling this, the UN is telling us that between 2030 and 2050 we're looking at a quarter of a million excess deaths a year. On that basis, you'd think that if the Labor Party were genuine about their commitment to the community then they would say, 'We're not going to take donations from the fossil fuel industry—from fossil fuel companies.' Even if they're not being influenced, the perception is that they are. Otherwise, why on earth would they bring in this most stinky legislation? This stinks! I didn't even have to turn on the TV; I knew when we had started the debate because I could smell it in my office! This is terrible legislation.

This is legislation that will do things that might be good when it comes to experimentation and having a framework, but which won't rule out the expansion of the fossil fuel industry. And they'll still keep on taking donations. They'll keep trying to tell us, 'We take donations, but it doesn't influence us,' and, 'This project is definitely not about Santos,' even though they've been talking about this legislation and even though Minister Bowen has been referencing this legislation. We can't even get the minister to give the Senate a straight answer and say: 'Actually, we'll come clean with you: Minister Bowen has been talking about this legislation and here it is. And, guess what? We've got the numbers to get it through, because we've got our mates in the coalition who will vote against everything except loopholes for the fossil fuel industry.'

It is just so incredibly disappointing! It's just so disappointing to have a Labor government talk the talk on climate and get elected, saying: 'We're going to take this seriously! We'll invest in the transition.' That's great, but they're not willing to make the tough decisions and say to the fossil fuel industry: 'You've had your day, but you're not our future and we're going to listen to climate scientists. We're going to put Australians ahead of the profits of the fossil fuel industry.' They can't even say it's ahead of revenue, because when it comes to things like the petroleum resource rent tax, we've got major parties who don't care. They've allowed the gas industry, basically, to help write these taxes and water them down to the point where, last time I checked at estimates, not a single cent was paid for offshore LNG. Not a single cent! Sure, maybe we got PRRT for some oil off Victoria. But for offshore LNG—and we export 75 per cent of it—there's not a cent for Australians. That's our gas; once it's gone, it is gone.

I know that Labor hate it when political donations are raised; at every opportunity they'll try to say, 'It's not because of political donations or the influence of the fossil fuel industry.' But I say to people here: why else would we have a government facilitating the expansion of the fossil fuel industry when we lived through the bushfires, we're heading into a drought, we've got parts of Queensland on fire in October and we're living through the hottest year on record? On record! But it's: 'Oh, well, we've really just got to keep doing this. Sorry, Australians.' There's no good reason not to rule out the use of this legislation for the expansion of the fossil fuel industry.

I'll take Senator McAllister at her word that there is a range of things that are potentially good about this legislation: it will ratify protocols and have some sort of overarching framework for activities.

If that's the intention, accept the amendment that I will move later—which Dr Helen Haines, the member for Indi, moved in the lower house—that explicitly rules out the use of this to expand the fossil fuel industry. It seems like a very simple proposition. Instead, we just hear weasel words. We hear talking around that issue and putting up all these other things: 'How could you vote against ratifying the London protocol? How could you vote against having things in place?' I say to the government: how can you proceed with this? How can you knowingly facilitate the expansion of the fossil fuel industry and then look Australians in the eyes and say, 'We care about you and your future'?

The major parties can point at Independents, who are ultimately responsible to their communities, all they like and say, 'There may be some in this place that disagree on climate.' It's not me. It's not minor parties and Independents. It's climate scientists. It's people who have spent their entire lives working on this, many of whom are devastated by the lack of action from the Albanese government. Many of them have publicly spoken about the grief, as a climate scientist, of having your work disregarded and of considering: 'Do I even continue being a climate scientist if governments aren't going to listen—if the Labor government isn't going to listen? Do I need to do something else to raise concerns for my future and my children's future?'

I know that's a long ramble. I'm sure at some point there will be a guillotine on this. But these are very legitimate questions to ask, because it doesn't seem to me like we're getting any answers from the government to basic things like: who did the minister consult with in the drafting and preparation of this legislation? What we're hearing from the government is, 'Australians don't need to know.'