Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today is an important day in the history of this nation. It seems that, contrary to what would seem to me to be best practice, this new Senate is set to go to a final and determining vote on the long-term future of our environment and the way in which our economic and energy choices will enhance or debase that environment. There is no mistaking that this looks to be an historic day here in the Senate. It seems that, with less than 24 hours in the Senate, a key group of new senators will be crucial in determining the policy that will take us on either of two very different paths. One path, careful, informed and mindful of the principal of non-maleficence, will see us join with an international community moving forward decisively to reduce emissions in response to the reality of climate change. The other path, which reveals the depravity of this government, will take us away from that fact into the dangerous world of fear and nightmarish fantasy that they, assisted by vested interests, have constructed for the Australian population. This Abbott government traded in fear and lies in this policy and others before the last election and they have created a context which we are seeing come to fruition in this place today.

I ask new senators and the old to give consideration to the details of this debate as it moves forward. As history is being made in this place today, it will feel just like any other day here. There will be many distractions to call our eyes away from watching this debate closely, but I urge that we not be distracted today, that we not avert our eyes, because we will be held accountable for what we do here today by our children and their children, and indeed by our international community.

I commence today, as I do on all days, with more hope than fear. My hope is that in the debate that follows—which I hope will be a long and a thorough debate— there will be some careful consideration of amendments that take into account the very good work that has been done in the area of climate policy, energy, environment and our economy by successive governments over so many years, by international experts over so many years, and by outstanding academics and advocacy groups who today will be holding their breath and waiting for a good decision for this nation not just for today but also for our future. I could say that I am wearying of having to stand in this place and reveal and talk about yet another policy failure from this sorry excuse of a government. Just once, I would like to be able to praise the actions of those sitting on the Treasury benches for seeing some sense—but today is not to be that day.

It is disheartening in this day and age to even be debating the removal of a price on carbon as a key piece of economic reform that we need to undertake. This is a reform which has been developed over a decade by both sides of politics and by those who are sitting on the crossbenches. Labor, the coalition and other parties represented here have closely collaborated on the development of policy in this area. It seems to be basic common sense that, with human-induced rising temperatures, putting a price on pollution so as to create a price signal to encourage cleaner technologies is undoubtedly a better path forward. But, with the short-term populism and entrenched climate denialism prevalent in some quarters of our polity, such common sense does not seem so common.

Looking back on recent history, we see many have been sacrificed on the political altar of climate change policy. Clearly, climate change is a vexed policy issue deserving of a considered and pragmatic approach. It is an issue which so easily falls victim to political opportunism. Enter Prime Minister Tony Abbott, whose entire political leadership from day one has been framed around undoing and destroying efforts to mitigate the damaging effects of climate change—tearing down and wrecking, rather than building and creating. That is the mantra of those governing Australia at this time.

In opposition, Tony Abbott successfully lowered the tone of debate to mindless repetition, hard hats and fluoro vests, to destroy what had been until then—and we should not forget this, colleagues—bipartisan commitment, a consensus, which simply needed a bit more work around the edges. Sadly, our nation's future has been tarnished by this cheap bit populist who cannot see past the day's news cycle, let alone look to the future for future generations. Never in the field of climate policy has so much been destroyed for so many by so few. That is what I want to prevent happening here today.

To win the news cycle, we have seen Mr Abbott mortgage our future—and that cannot continue. Do not get me wrong: Labor has to own its fair share of the blame in this policy area, for letting a climate denialist into the Lodge. In developing our policy, I echo the recent comments of the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, when he said that Labor failed to sell our climate change policies to the people and we failed to provide enough political breathing room for then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull to engage with his colleagues and deliver a good outcome so many years ago. The Labor Party recognised too late the army of climate denialists—also known as the flat earth society—standing behind Malcolm, sharpening their knives as he worked with Labor in the nation's interest to establish a lasting, bipartisan ETS, but it is not beyond us today.

We as a nation should rue the failure of the Rudd-Turnbull ETS, an ETS whose design had begun under the Howard government, similar to the one the Liberals took to the 2007 election. And sadly, as I look to the crossbenches, who can forget the Greens' political puritanism that sank the CPRS and ensured the context for this day was set up then? As Julia Gillard herself has acknowledged, by not responding to early political attacks on the carbon price, Labor allowed Tony Abbott to frame in a negative light this policy issue from day one. And now we are paying a huge price for the Prime Minister's insane negativity, mortgaging the future of this nation for our children and our grandchildren. To dismantle our nation's first comprehensive response to climate change, at the very time such a response is of paramount importance and urgency, in my view borders on criminal negligence.

The bill before us today has been put to us in a couple of forms. Yesterday it was in separate pieces of legislation. Last night the Palmer United Party voted with the government to bring this legislation back together into one big lump. I am watching and hoping that, as the day proceeds, we will see from the Palmer United Party and all of the people in this room—all the senators responsible for delivering good policy for this nation—a set of amendments that are made with care, to ensure that we do not dismantle the great and visionary architecture that was set up under the last government and that we move away from the self-indulgence which has characterised this debate when it has got to key points in the past.

This bill defies logic. It is akin to a firefighter throwing away the hose as the fire approaches. But here we are and, with our new colleagues in their first week, we must seek to do the right thing, the best thing for our country. We need to give our colleagues a bit of breathing space. That is why I hope the government will refrain from gagging this debate today. To do so would not just be shameful; it would be an abomination of process. This critical issue needs to be fully debated and the amendments of the kind that we seek for our children and their children which we will make law today require our closest and most careful attention. I trust that my colleagues who are here with me in the chamber, especially the new ones who I see sitting here paying attention, are mindful of the portent of the decision making that will be made in this place today.

The coalition's arguments are so weak. They have systematically attempted to dismantle the publicly-funded sources of independent information on climate change in a vain attempt to yet again hide their shame. This government are committed to secrecy, to hiding, to shamefully resiling from facts and, when the facts do not suit them, simply dismissing the people who deliver those facts. They have abolished the Climate Commission, to save a princely sum of $1.6 million. That sum, $1.6 million, no small amount, but is it enough to wage the future of our entire nation and our next generations on? This government says yes; I say no. The commission's brief was to provide apolitical, reliable, independent information for the public. This was at odds with the coalition's desire to shut down informed debate. That is why we must make sure that the debate that continues in this Senate, the detailed consideration of these bills, is not shut down by this government committed to secrecy.

What else have they done? They have gutted funding for the CSIRO and have tried unsuccessfully to abolish the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation thus far. At the end of this day, let us make sure those things are still standing—critical things for the development of our nation and for our future. These are the actions of a government that considers climate change is not real. The things I am speaking about reveal the actions of a climate sceptic Prime Minister, who is on the record as describing climate change as 'absolute crap'.

I note with appreciation the comments made by the member for Fairfax—who I note is in the Senate this afternoon—with Vice President Al Gore in tow, supporting the retention of the renewable energy target, the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. It is good that these things are put on the public record. But for those in the gallery today and for those listening, the debate on this in this place will be fierce. We need to ensure that these elements absolutely remain and, indeed, that the entire architecture set up for the ETS remains in place for us to act with the rest of the world and not to look to the past as this Prime Minister would have us do. These are important foundations of Labor's climate policy and, with the support of Palmer United Party senators, I hope that these elements will survive the onslaught of the climate-denialist Prime Minister and his sorry excuse for a government, particularly on this issue.

The CEFC provides low-cost capital to stimulate investment in emission reduction infrastructure and technology and the Climate Change Authority provides independent advice to the government on the best climate change mitigation initiatives. You would think that these two issues would easily garner bipartisan support, but, as is often the case with the Abbott government, you would be wrong. Thankfully, the Senate that the Australian people gave us is here. It is not an aberration and, no matter how it is constructed in the media, this is the Senate that the Australian people elected. Today we will be doing some of our most serious work. We will be cleaning up the work of successively failed parliaments that have not addressed this issue properly and, once and for all, we will allow Australia to get on in an ethical way as part of an international community responding to the reality of climate change in our time.

As an island nation known for its weather extremes and natural disasters, Australia should be at the forefront of developing policy to mitigate the harmful effects of climate change. With the drumbeat of scientific findings growing louder for decades, this should be a post-partisan issue. The recognition of the need to act has reached a point where even the most strident climate sceptic publications have belatedly acknowledged the reality. Today the consensus amongst climate scientists on the risks of global warming is in the order of 97 per cent. If you went to doctors and 97 per cent of them gave you a diagnosis and three per cent gave you something different, I would say that pretty well everyone here in the gallery today would be taking the advice of 97 per cent over three per cent. That is what scientific evidence does: it provides us with something based on fact rather than the flourish of an argument. Australian people should be aware that the entire scientific community is in agreement on this issue.

Across Australia and the world there is indisputable evidence that climate change is causing detrimental effects to our weather and the environment on a scale that threatens our way of life. The scientific evidence is clear. Unlike the coalition under Tony Abbott, Labor recognises the importance of Australia playing its part in addressing this human induced crisis. We owe it to our forebears, who built this great nation, and to our children, who will inherit it, to do the right thing.

Under Labor, we did respond. We set up the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to provide billions of dollars in low-interest loans to help companies open up new opportunities to invest in clean energy technology and infrastructure, and it was effective. We set up the Clean Technology Fund and the Carbon Farming Initiative to help manufacturers modernise for a low-carbon economy and support new low emissions farming practices, and it was successful. We established the Climate Commission and the Climate Change Authority to provide independent advice on the effects of climate change and Australia's reduction targets, and we were successful. Indeed, we garnered the applause of people all around the world for the efforts made under the 43rd Parliament of this country. We provided further funding to the CSIRO, in contrast to this shameful government that has cut funding to that elite and august body of scientific leaders in this country who have a reputation for par excellence around the world, and we were successful in the innovations that they generated.

Labor's policies delivered the strong leadership needed to help reduce the risks posed by climate change. Our efforts recognised the need for Australia to act as well as the need for increased global cooperation, as evidenced by linking our carbon price to the European market. As the member for Fairfax leaves the chamber, I urge all senators to be mindful of the success that we have already had and the achievements that we have already hard won. Do not let this day pass where we take away from the Australian people the efforts of our hard work and the opportunities in a future where we make our environment, our economy and our energy work as one for the benefit of this country and our fellows around the world.

Indeed, across the world, 90 countries have implemented or are implementing emissions trading schemes of various types, in contrast to the lies that will be peddled by the government. Those 90 countries account for more than 80 per cent of global emissions. Over 90 per cent of the international economy has now pledged to take action to mitigate climate change. The European Union has operated an emissions trading scheme covering 30 countries since 2005. New Zealand has had an ETS in place since 2008. These are the facts that the government will try to hide. These are the facts that the government is willing to lie about. These are the facts that vested interests will try to take away from the public light. But these are the facts that must be on the record in this place today and these are the facts that we must contend with as we work through this package of bills, this complex set of legislation, that will establish the law for this country for a long time.

Our top five trading partners—the US, Japan, China, South Korea and India—have either implemented or are piloting carbon trading or pricing schemes at local, state and national levels. China are currently launching seven pilot emission trading schemes which will cover 250 million people and 20 per cent of their entire economy by 2015, with a view to establishing a nationwide ETS by 2020. Action on climate change through a market based response is clearly a global phenomenon as, the world over, nations work towards lowering carbon emissions through the most efficient means possible.

Australia, this great nation to which so many have come—like my parents who emigrated from Ireland—has faced challenges. We have been mindful of facing those challenges in many policy areas over the course of the last 50 years, but historic days never feel like that while they are undertaken. But make no mistake, Mr President, today is a critical day in the history of this nation. Our new senators may be only 48 hours blooded in this place, but their decisions today, as Australians who rightfully take their place, will be powerfully marked by the legislation we create by the end of this day. I urge you to look to the future, to look to the facts and to look to the reality that we have made too many mistakes in this policy area up to date and that we need to leave a lasting and positive legacy for this country. (Time expired)

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to advise the chamber that this is not my first speech. I rise today to support the repeal of the carbon tax, subject to the inclusion of Palmer United's key amendment, which will require the full cost savings from the removal of the carbon tax to be passed on to all Australians. Palmer United are determined to deliver real results for the people of Australia. Our historic amendment will ensure that Australians genuinely benefit from the removal of the carbon tax. Palmer United care about the people of Australia and will not sit by idly and watch those most in need hurt and suffer at the hands of red tape and broken promises.

There can be no justification for removing the carbon tax if it does not improve the lives of our citizens. That is why as leader of the Palmer United Party's Senate team, along with the support of my Palmer United colleagues, I am supporting the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], subject to the inclusion of the changes proposed by the Palmer United Party to ensure all Australians receive the full and immediate benefit of the removal of the carbon tax. Our key amendment to the carbon tax repeal bill 2013 [No. 2] requires the cost savings from removal of the carbon tax to be passed on to all Australians through lower power bills, which will put money back into the pockets of families across the country, ease the crippling and unfair burdens on businesses—

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The gallery must remain silent. If there are any further interjections from the gallery, you will be ejected.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Palmer United Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and give Australians stronger protection against exploitation from power companies by ensuring the ACCC has stronger powers to enforce and penalise power companies that do not pass on the savings.

Not only does this bill, with the inclusion of the Palmer United Party's historic amendment, deliver a toughened obligation for suppliers of electricity, natural gas and synthetic greenhouse gases to pass on all cost savings resulting from the carbon tax repeal; it also requires suppliers to clearly explain to the ACCC and customers the way in which cost savings have been calculated and passed on to consumers. That is why the Palmer United Party are supporting the bill, predicated on the inclusion of the key changes proposed by the Palmer United Party to ensure that power bills are amended to document the cost savings. Australians deserve transparency and should have the right to see the cost savings calculated in their power bills or associated documents. Without this information, Australians cannot be confident that they are enjoying the full and immediate benefit of the removal of the carbon tax. To ensure our entire country benefits from the repeal of the carbon tax, we must have mandatory requirements that the price of energy be reduced by the saving in carbon tax that no longer has to be paid.

Palmer United are committed to common-sense solutions which grow Australia and support all Australians to succeed, and this is why we must mandate that electricity and gas costs to Australian families, single mothers and pensioners be reduced by the abolition of the carbon tax. There must be reductions in the costs of energy to our industries and businesses to ensure their competitiveness and to bring down the cost of production and the cost of employing people so more jobs can be created and more Australians may find satisfaction and direction that gainful employment brings. The cost of running our schools, hospitals and institutions must benefit from lower energy costs.

There is no justification for the carbon tax. It sets the price of carbon at a far higher price than applies in the rest of the world, higher than the emissions trading scheme in Europe and higher than the emissions trading scheme in New Zealand. Climate change is a global problem and it needs a global solution. Australian families cannot bear the responsibility for this matter when Australia's trading partners fail to act or are not united. For Australia to act alone and impose a tax on carbon at this time has only sought to place a tax on jobs and discourage investment. We must create more jobs and more opportunities for our people.

Removal of the carbon tax, inclusive of our amendment, will help to stimulate the economy, create much needed jobs and help to reduce the financial hardship being endured by Australian families. Everywhere I go in Queensland there is a lack of confidence: a lack of confidence to allow businesses to invest,    a lack of confidence to employ people, a lack of confidence to allow economic growth and a lack of confidence to enable exports to expand. More revenue from economic activity will mean more resources for governments, hospitals, schools and a rising standard of living that Australians want, that Australians need and that Australians must have. And if the day comes when our major trading partners—China, the United States of America, the European Union, Japan and Korea—set up an emissions trading scheme then they will know Australia can act together with these countries to implement a global solution without disadvantaging our people.

Our commitment to the environment is clear; however, we need a solution which recognises and balances the needs of our environment, the needs of our economy and the needs of our people. Importantly, Australia must show leadership but the solution must be part of a global approach which does not unfairly hurt Australia. It has been said that when our trading partners set up an emissions trading scheme, they will require their trading partners which export to their countries to pay an emissions trading tax to their governments upon the import of products from countries that do not have an environmental trading scheme. In these circumstances, if Australia did not have an emissions trading scheme, Australia's exporters would be paying a tax to another country instead of Australia. Australia needs all the revenue it can get to meet the hopes and aspirations of its people. The carbon tax must go and electricity and gas prices must come down. Palmer United's team in the Senate is committed to lower electricity prices and lower gas prices for all Australians.

In 2013, when I was in Queensland campaigning for election to the Senate, I took a short break and visited family in Canberra. While in Canberra I became aware of an elderly couple who are forced to 'house sit' in Queensland each winter because they simply cannot afford the cost of heating their own home in Canberra. Every winter they have to leave the comfort, familiarity and safety of their own home just to survive the cold winter months. What sort of country have we become? As was once said, 'If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.'

I commend this historic bill to the Senate on the condition that the Palmer United amendment is accepted and included in the bill. All of us in this place must do all that we can to make the lives of all Australians better. We must go the extra distance to support our people, to protect our way of life and to assist those most in need—for this is the Australian way. For Palmer United it is the only way.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills. As our leader, Senator Milne, has articulated, the Greens will be and are opposed to the repeal of the carbon package. We believe that the future of our country depends on our addressing the biggest emergency that we face: the climate change emergency.

The package of legislation that this chamber passed not that long ago did set Australia on the path to addressing climate change, and it will be a sad day when this repeal legislation goes through. Future generations will look back and ask, 'What did you do to this country when you repealed this legislation?' And they will condemn this place for that action. This legislation takes us backwards. As I said, future generations will condemn us. While this government try to confect a budget emergency, they lose sight of the fact that we are facing a climate emergency in this country and globally.

The coalition want you to ignore the fact that climate is having an increasing impact on our lives. We cannot say that it is something that will affect us only in future. It is impacting on us now. Just ask the population of Kiribati whether they think climate change is real. I do not think they would be searching around and buying land elsewhere if their homes were not literally washing away. The coalition like to ignore the science but it is irresponsible to jeopardise the future of this planet, its people and its species. Last night in this chamber Senator Macdonald tried to paint the picture that climate change is not occurring. He likes to mess around with quotes on the science, and he misquoted the UK Met Office and he quoted media that was spinning the UK Met Office's results. He tried to imply that the temperature had not risen for the last 16 years. I do note that the particular article Senator Macdonald read from quoted a scientist about a period of time and then put ' . . . ' before continuing to put other quotes in place. In other words, it did not tell the full story. When I looked at what the UK Met Office actually said in that particular quote, they said:

As we’ve stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading … Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous – so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.

And it goes on from there. So, Senator Macdonald and members of the coalition, when you are quoting make sure you are quoting in context. He made other misquotes last night that I will address later.

Acting on climate change this decade is absolutely critical if we are to protect our oceans, our environment, our agriculture and our children's and grandchildren's futures. The most effective and most affordable way to reduce our emissions is to have a price on pollution and a market mechanism like the one contained in the Clean Energy Act and the package of bills that passed through this place not that long ago, which this government, ably assisted by the Palmer United Party, are now rushing to destroy—again, to be condemned by future generations.

Clearly, this government is determined to assist business to wring every last drop of profit out of the fossil fuel dinosaur industry while condemning and putting every obstacle in the way of clean, green energy such as renewable energies and the type of industry and development that both Senator Milne and Senator Ludlam talked about yesterday. We now have cities in Australia competing to see who can be the first to put in solar-thermal. That is the sort of industry we should be putting in place now, not more fossil fuel developments.

Without a price on pollution Australia has no effective action to reduce emissions. We will increase the burden of climate change on everyone and everything in our world. The situation across all of my portfolios is getting worse with the increasing climate emergency. Our farmers, particularly mine in Western Australia, are already feeling the impacts of climate change, as is our marine life and our first peoples living in low-lying areas in the Torres Strait and in remote Australia. They are just a few examples. It is time to listen to the people of Australia, who know our country is facing an enormous threat—the threat of climate change. It is a threat made worse because of the dinosaur policies of the coalition government.

Look at some of the other comments made last night. Senator Macdonald referred to the Scott Reef, misquoting scientists yet again. He implied that the scientists looking at the some of the destruction of the coral around the Scott Reef were denying climate change. You only have to look at the comments they made to realise that our coral reefs are in severe trouble from climate change. I just do not understand why people continue to deny climate change. I do not understand why they do not take into account the impact climate change is going to have on their descendants—on their children, their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren, who perhaps will never be able to see a functional, intact coral reef. There are plenty of other impacts on coral reefs, such as overfishing and pollution, but climate change and ocean warming and ocean acidification are having a devastating impact on our remaining coral reefs. Senator Macdonald last night could have quoted some more of what scientists from AIMS were saying about Scott Reef. They said:

While it is encouraging to see such clear recovery, we need to be mindful of the fact that the coral recovery at Scott Reef still took over a decade. If, as the climate change trend suggests, we start to see coral bleaching and other related disturbances occurring more frequently, then reefs may experience a ratcheting down effect, never fully recovering before they suffer another major disturbance.

Clearly our marine life is coming under increased threat, and the longer we delay action the more its ability to adapt will be being diminished over time.

Thirty per cent of the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is ultimately absorbed by the ocean—a process that results in our seas becoming more acidic. Research released just a couple of months ago on Papua New Guinea's coral reefs conducted by the James Cook Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, the Australian Institute of Marine Science, the Georgia Institute of Technology and the National Geographic Society—all august organisations—found that fish are losing their survival instincts, even becoming attracted to the smell of their predators, that fish swim further from shelter and are more active and that fish appear to have failed to adapt to being exposed to higher levels of carbon dioxide. Clearly we cannot expect our environment to take blow after blow and still continue to bounce back. Clearly increased carbon dioxide levels are having impacts beyond what we even thought they could have. We are even changing the behaviour of fish, and we still do not know all the impacts on the natural environment.

Last summer those Western Australians in Perth knew it was very hot. We had some of our hottest days on record. We had day after day where temperatures rose above 40 degrees. For some it was easy enough to turn up the air conditioning, but for a lot of people it was an enormously stressful time. Among other things, these prolonged hot periods are responsible for a rise in the number of heat-related deaths. The greatest impact is on our most vulnerable—the frail and the elderly—but low-income households are also feeling the pressure. Those who are the worst off in our community are unable to switch on the air conditioner like others do and pretend that climate change does not exist. The clean energy package that the Greens negotiated compensated low-income families for these short-term increases. It was a fair package that took into account the pressures on those who are at the lowest end of the income stream, who find it the hardest to adapt to the changing circumstances. Often they live in rented houses that are not economic to retrofit. This package helped compensate people to enable them to deal with the price on carbon.

We need to move now and not delay our response to some far off date in the future. It is time Australia woke up to the fact that climate change is here, it is real and it is impacting on our lives now. We need to be taking action now. We need to be looking at the changes we make now and how climate change will impact on people into the future. Those living in poverty, single parents and older Australians were helped, and are helped, by the clean energy package. They are compensated. What do we think the impact in the future is going to be as climate change really does kick in? It will be too late then to say that perhaps we should have taken some action in the past. Who is going to compensate those people who are affected? This government are not interested in how our poorest families will cope. We know that they do not care about the most vulnerable people in our country—otherwise they would not be dumping young Australians onto no income support at all; they would not be introducing their cruel budget measures. To cry crocodile tears now that a price may adversely impact on pensioners, on single parents and on our other most vulnerable members of our community is to do just that—cry crocodile tears. They do not care. Their budget clearly articulates that. It clearly picks on single parents, with three cuts in the budget to single parents alone. It deeply affects older Australians, ripping $80 to $100 per week from them into the future. It clearly impacts on people with disabilities, dumping them off DSP and onto Newstart; and, as I said, it dumps young people onto no income support. So do not pretend you care about the most vulnerable people. Do not use them as an excuse to dump action on climate change. That is what you are doing. You are using the most vulnerable in our community to dump action on climate change.

And then of course we have Direct Action. 'Direct inaction' or 'indirect no action' would be a better title for that particular package. It is a high-cost, narrow, government controlled scheme intended to replace the existing market-driven, economy-wide, lowest cost method of reducing harmful greenhouse emissions. There is simply no comparison between 'indirect inaction' and the market mechanism and what the clean energy package delivers. It is not a viable replacement for carbon pricing and it is vastly inferior to existing law. Direct Action is very expensive. It will be a white elephant. It is laughable to imagine that you can replace the comprehensive package that is in place now with Direct Action. It will go back to the bad old days of ill-placed and ill-founded plantations, streamlining and planting a few trees.

The abolition of the clean energy package and the implementation of Direct Action will lead to a $22 billion deterioration in the budget position. When we stop to consider this, it becomes obvious how reckless the government is being economically and with the future of our planet, our community and our plant and animal species. In its mad rush to squeeze every last dollar out of the old dinosaur fuels, this government leaves a huge cost for our children and future generations to pay instead. This budget emergency is a confected panic, designed to justify unbelievably harsh and unfair cuts to our most vulnerable while the government ignores the planet emergency and the climate emergency. This is not the way of the future. If we do not take action now, we will lose entire species and habitats. All that we are gaining is more dangerous extreme weather events that threaten our communities and our families.

In the meantime, what is this government doing? It is facilitating big business and big polluters. It is ignoring the impact of climate change on our community, on our futures and on our fellow species. This government has no credibility when it comes to environmental management—protecting our land, water and oceans. One of this government's first moves when it came to power was to get rid of marine protected areas. But it said, 'We didn't get rid of them, we just got rid of the management plans.' That was cleverly designed to make it look as if the government was doing something. But all they are is boundaries on a map. There is no protection for our marine protected areas. The government is busy handing back environmental controls to the states. It does not care about our environment and our communities; it only cares about handing the keys to the Treasury to big business and to the polluters.

The government took $483 million out of Landcare in the current budget and handed it over to the Green Army. That is not an environmental program. It has taken away other important land management packages such as the biodiversity package. There is a range of programs that have been kick-started with income from a price on carbon. But the sad reality is that most of them have already disappeared or will falter when the government rips up the architecture of sound climate management, of making sure that we are dealing with this climate emergency. This is not forward thinking. This is a government that looks backwards, not forwards into the future. This is a bad step.

Despite the minister's rhetoric—'We have plans in place for land based abatement'—the sorts of changes that are needed will not be delivered. This will undermine the Aboriginal Carbon Fund, which has identified savanna burning and other land management mechanisms that require a decent price on carbon in order to be profitable. This government is not only undermining sound change; it is also undermining the economic development of Aboriginal communities who are not only funded for managing their land but also contribute to reducing our carbon footprint. The tenders offered through the Direct Action program will be much less than what is required to make Aboriginal land management effective in reducing our carbon footprint. It is now extremely clear that the carbon abatement— (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, I raise standing order 191, which I will repeat for your benefit:

A senator who has spoken to a question may again be heard, to explain some material part of the senator’s speech which has been misquoted or misunderstood, but shall not introduce any new matter, or interrupt any senator speaking, and no debatable matter shall be brought forward or debate arise on such an explanation.

Senator Siewert has just either misunderstood or deliberately misquoted what I said last night about the Australian Institute of Marine Science. For the benefit of the Senate, I will repeat exactly the quotation I used last night from the Institute of Marine Science research director, Jamie Oliver:

I think all we can do at this point is say … we are seeing a decline in the reef, and we are seeing that cyclones are playing a major role in that decline … but we don't know for sure whether … it has been as a result of human activities.

That is quite different from what Senator Siewert alleged I said. My point last night was simply that the science is not as settled as the Greens political party would have you believe.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Macdonald. Senator Polley.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to the debate on the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and related bills. So here we are again. This government is so committed to unwinding Labor's hard fought action to combat climate change that it has made repealing the carbon pricing legislation its No. 1 priority. And it is not seeking to replace a fixed price on carbon with a floating price or any other sort of intelligently designed scheme; no, unlike Labor, the coalition instead wants to throw good money after bad with an inefficient and expensive Direct Action scheme.

Late last year I spoke about how, as opposition leader, Tony Abbott consistently stunned observers with his ignorant comments concerning climate change policy. The most notable example occurred almost a year ago when he told open-mouthed reporters in Sydney that 'carbon pricing policy generally was not a true market'. In fact, he went a step further and clarified his statement as follows:

It's a market, a so-called market, in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one.

The stupidity of this comment is breathtaking and a little sad. Our Prime Minister is like the kid in class who not only does not understand what is being taught but feels compelled to convey his ignorance to everyone around him to get attention. I really wish that, instead of trying to grapple with the fundamentals of climate change policy, he would just sit in the corner and eat Play-Doh and leave this to others—because every time he speaks on climate change everyone in the room listening becomes a little bit dumber. But, of course, as Prime Minister he has been even worse; I think we all knew that this was going to happen and this would be the case. As we saw when he was overseas, week after week this government has taken backward steps on climate change and made our great nation a laughing stock on the world stage.

Until recently Australia was a country at the absolute forefront of innovation to combat climate change and we were earning worldwide recognition for our commitment. Now, under this government, we were the recipient of five 'fossil awards' at the climate change talks in Warsaw. A fossil award is handed out to those countries that have basically neglected their duty to combat climate change. We did not even bother sending a minister to these talks in Warsaw despite the fact that prominent leaders from around the globe attended and were ready to work together. On the very first day of the talks we won a fossil award because we had done the most to block progress at the climate change negotiations on that day. It was hardly a flying start—and it got worse. We won another fossil award for seeking to do what the government now looks set to achieve—repeal the carbon price. Countries around the world are looking to price carbon, either through a fixed or floating price, including provinces and states in China and the United States. And then there is Australia repealing progress that was hard fought and vital to the future of the globe. Oh, did I mention that the government won another fossil award for stripping $435 million from the Australian Renewable Energy Fund? It also did not go unnoticed that we dismantled our climate change department, abolished the Climate Change Authority and basically refused to sign up to new finance commitments in Warsaw that were gaining traction with many other powerful countries. We did not impress anyone.

This is how we are being seen now. Previously, countries around the world saw us as a nation committed to action, to progress, to combating climate change intelligently. We were world leaders, we were achieving things and powerful leaders and organisations were taking notice of us. But look at us now! It really is something that those opposite should be ashamed of. My home state of Tasmania was benefitting. Tasmania has an economy that needs all the assistance it can get. But what has this government done? It has taken away those opportunities. It is the equivalent of Daniel Day-Lewis turning around and winning five Razzies this year during Oscar week!

Our change in attitude and action is something that has stunned the international community. The world is watching us and we have failed; we are failing spectacularly. What is worse is that this Prime Minister of ours is not just content to neglect climate change policy at home. Oh no, he wants others to join him. He has even tried his best to start his own 'super friend' group dedicated to inaction on climate change. Several weeks ago our Prime Minister—with a completely straight face—floated the ridiculous idea of a group of leaders mobilising against global moves to increase action on climate change. What a noble pursuit! He himself, without any real consultation or rational thought, nominated Canada, the UK and New Zealand as leaders of the group. But they actually laughed him out of the room; not even his supposed Centre Right buddies stuck up for him!

In fact, our friend across the Tasman, New Zealand Prime Minister John Key, went as far as to say: 'This government takes climate change seriously. That is why we're actively involved in international climate change efforts.' It got worse for him. When Tony Abbott declared that climate change was not the most important issue facing the world at the moment, his own political allies and other world leaders contradicted him. Advisers in the PM's office must have been wondering what they had got themselves into when they signed up to work for this government!

Let me be clear: Tony Abbott is rightly isolated in his intransigence on taking action to address climate change. This country needs carbon pricing to effectively combat climate change; it is as simple as that. Labor's policy of instituting an emissions trading scheme makes sense and is in keeping with global efforts. As I have said before, and as many of my colleagues have said before in this chamber, a floating price on carbon, such as an emissions trading scheme, holds several distinct advantages. It fundamentally alters how businesses consume energy. It uses the competitive forces of the marketplace itself to make Australia less reliant on carbon emissions. This is not necessarily because private enterprises have undergone an ideological transformation about what impact they are having on the planet. Rather, the pure calculus of how to meet their energy needs has been superficially adjusted in favour of renewable energy because pricing carbon is designed to achieve a transition from a reliance on carbon emissions to greater use of newer, cleaner technologies.

When it comes to our role as a responsible international citizen, Australia faces many choices. We can act as a dynamic and progressive middle power taking the lead on global environmental challenges and working cooperatively with others to achieve real change. We can participate enthusiastically and dependably at forums such as the one in Warsaw last year. We can be seen as a country committed to action, a country that cares about matters that extend beyond cynical domestic political calculus, a country that cares, a country that is respected and admired. Or we can revert to the 'bad old times'. We can withdraw, and embarrass ourselves on the global stage. We can confuse and mortify international friends committed to acting on climate change. We can ignore the views of others and snub the opportunity to be part of an international group of leaders. The choice is there, and sadly right now Tony Abbott is—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, I must insist you refer to the Prime Minister by his appropriate title.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister is committed to being the George W Bush of Australian politics. He is ignoring the realities of climate change and arrogantly dismissing the views of our friends around the world, and really he is humiliating us every time he goes overseas. With his smirk, his swagger, his confused diatribes, his stubbornness, he is dragging Australia backwards, and no-one in his party is doing anything about it. As the member for Grayndler said earlier this year:

The problem isn't that Tony Abbott is stuck in the past; it's that he wants the rest of Australia to go back there and keep him company.

Well, I do not want to keep him company, and I do not believe that there are many Australians from any walk of life who would want to keep him company either. We want change, we want commitment and we want proper action on climate change. Australia and the globe deserve nothing less.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In thinking about how to construct this speech, I thought about my two young boys, who happen to be here at the moment. I thought about what I would tell them, when they are old enough to understand, about why a parliament of the 21st century—armed with the knowledge that we have, knowing what we know about the science of climate change—retreated on climate change. Knowing what we know about what it means for our environment—the Great Barrier Reef, the loss of a great many species, the melting of the ice sheets in the Antarctic—how is it that we could have taken this sort of action? Knowing what it means for their health—with an increased frequency of extreme weather, droughts, floods and bushfires—and knowing that the world they inherit will be very different from the world we currently live in, why did we do what no other country around the world has done? When we had the opportunity to take action, when the time came to get on the front foot and tackle this challenge head on, we retreated. How do I explain that to my two boys?

I think it is important that we go back a little to look at how we got here. Climate change is an issue we have known about for decades. In fact, it was first put on the map by conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who recognised just what sort of challenge it presented to future generations. It is an issue around which we have accumulated a growing body of knowledge. It is an issue where the mainstream scientific consensus is all heading in one direction.

People have a view that science is about these 'eureka' moments where we stumble on an answer to a problem that, up until that point, we have been unable to solve. Well, that is not how most science develops. It is a continual process of trial and error. It is researching a hypothesis. It is putting out information to your peers in the scientific community and having them critique that information. It is an iterative process, and we emerge with a scientific consensus on the back of that process. And the scientific consensus at the moment is very, very clear: we have an alarming problem, we need to act and we need to act quickly if we are going to be able to halt some of the most extreme consequences of climate change.

There is that knowledge, and there is that increasing awareness from politicians from across the political spectrum—and we need to recognise that it is a uniquely Australian problem that this is being seen through the prism of partisan politics. In fact, right around the world, it is not a left-right issue; it is an issue of knowledge versus those people who refuse to accept the scientific wisdom of the time. That is what this issue is about. My children will want to know: 'How was it that, at a time when that knowledge was so strong, the parliament refused to act?'

At the start of the last decade, we saw a growing momentum here in Australia for change. We were coming off the back of one of the worst droughts in our history. There was growing awareness around the world. Al Gore came to town and presented his documentary An Inconvenient Truth. We saw marches on the streets. We saw young people become engaged. And we saw both sides of politics take to an election a proposal for an emissions trading scheme—that is, a scheme to price pollution, to put a price on an activity that we are all paying for and, using classic market principles, say, 'If you are going to produce a good or service, and the cost of producing that good or service is borne by the taxpayer, then we should make sure that we internalise that cost so that you are responsible for that pollution and there is an incentive to reduce it.' That is a pretty basic principle in mainstream economics. Both the Howard government and the Rudd opposition at the time took that proposal to the Australian people.

Over the next few years, we saw a dismantling of that bipartisan consensus, and that has led us to where we are today. We saw a conservative opposition become dominated by anti-science, anti-enlightenment individuals prepared to mount an ideological crusade in the face of all the mounting evidence in front of them. We saw a Leader of the Opposition whose pragmatism knew no bounds—a self-confessed weathervane when it came to climate change—gain control of the opposition on the back of opposing concrete action on climate change. We then saw a Prime Minister who, up until that point, had recognised that this was the great global challenge of our era—what he described, quite rightly, as a moral challenge—and who had negotiated an emissions trading scheme with the opposition then walk away from that commitment and refuse to negotiate on that scheme with the Greens. On the back of that decision, we effectively dismantled the bipartisan consensus that existed here and in many other countries across the world.

From that point on, we saw the politicisation of an issue that is beyond politics. We saw a government promise a citizens' assembly on an issue that required government leadership. We saw a Prime Minister and an opposition leader refuse to stand up to the growing challenge that faces us. On the back of that election, we saw new voices elected to both houses of parliament and we finally got going with action on climate change. We saw the establishment of the climate change committee that came up with some of the world's most ambitious and important action to tackle climate change. We saw a fixed price on carbon, moving to an ETS—and, if this parliament accepted it, we would now have an emissions trading scheme in a short period of time, tied in with international carbon markets. We saw the establishment of a renewable energy bank, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—a bank that provides up-front investment for the industries of the future—and we are seeing, right across the country, the wind industry, the solar industry and other new, emerging renewable industries take advantage of that and provide the added benefit of ensuring a return for this country. We saw the establishment of the Climate Change Authority and the Climate Commission, effectively a reserve bank providing independent advice on targets and the most up-to-date science and ensuring that governments were provided with that information outside of the partisan nature of this debate—all important, necessary things but underpinned by the very notion that we have a price on pollution.

Unfortunately, we have now seen a new parliament and a new Senate which are prepared to undo some of those great reforms. How is it that we go from having some of the world's most significant, most ambitious climate change legislation to being the only country anywhere in the world to wind back effective action on climate change in the face of growing evidence of how serious this problem is?

If you look at the tobacco industry and how it took decades for us to finally confront the reality that tobacco was a cause of lung cancer, you can see some parallels in the climate change debate. Fringe scientists—people such as Bob Carter—have been held up as evidence that somehow the scientific consensus is wrong. The mainstream press, when presented with a scientific argument, feel the need to present a counterargument. That is not balance; that is false balance. The role of the press is to get to the truth, not to present two sides of an argument as though each side has equal legitimacy. It is truth that we are after, not some notion of false balance. And that is where we have arrived with the climate change debate.

Of course, we saw the role of politics front and centre. Back in the tobacco days, it was the conservative side of politics which saw this as some part of a global conspiracy to control people's freedoms and behaviours—that the link between lung cancer and tobacco was a myth and that those of us on the progressive side of politics were using it as a vehicle to restrict people's freedoms. That was the argument that was being trotted out 50 years ago. It was trotted out 50 years after the Surgeon General conclusively stated that tobacco causes lung cancer. Yet we had those same elements, those same conservative forces, implying that this was a part of some progressive crusade to restrict people's freedoms. And we are seeing that played out again with the climate change debate. That in the face of science, reason and logic this is somehow all part of some global conspiracy, that we are all in it together—the scientific community, the health community, economists and of course those of us on this side of politics—and that we have entered into some sort of grand bargain because we can think of nothing other than to restrict people's freedoms and liberties. What nonsense! What poppycock! Where have we come to when we are in an environment where science—which is all we have got, the best tool that we have—is being subjugated to a narrow, brutal, conservative and ideological agenda?

In the years to come, my children will look at this issue and at what this parliament has done and they will see those parallels between the climate change debate, the deniers and those people who stood up and took a stand when we needed to take a stand.

An incident having occurred in the gallery

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Di Natale, please resume your seat. Madam, you have already been warned by the President of the Senate that interjecting is disorderly. I will now have to invite you to remove yourself from the gallery.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, what will be told is that we have a government that has a mandate to implement this change. Let me tell you what mandate this government has. It has a mandate to govern, it has a mandate to prosecute its arguments and it has a mandate to negotiate with the parliament. But it does not have a mandate to railroad legislation through this parliament without any opposition. Only yesterday we heard Senator Macdonald compare the issue of climate change to 1930s Germany. Let me tell you what totalitarianism is. Totalitarianism is expecting that, just because you have won an election, there should be no opposition, there should be no Senate and that we should acquiesce to the policies of the government of the day. That is not democracy. Democracy means the government has a mandate to govern and those millions of people who voted for the Greens, Labor or the Independents also have a mandate to prosecute their arguments to ensure that this parliament remains a democracy.

Where was the respect for the Labor Party's mandate in 2007 when it promised to introduce an ETS? Where was Prime Minister Tony Abbott's respect for that mandate when that was taken to the 2007 election? Where was the respect for the mandate of the Senate, also democratically elected? People who vote in the Senate do so intentionally, knowing that they are voting for a hand on the shoulder of the executive of the day. So we will continue to fight until this legislation makes its way through the parliament. The parliament of today will be determining the future of my kids and the future of kids right around the country. We will be making decisions that do not affect us. As Senator Cameron said yesterday, he is not a young man anymore.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am 'youngish'!

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, you said it! But it is his kids and grandkids who will inherit the decisions of this parliament, and they will be asking a question. They will ask: 'When the time came to make a stand, when you had the knowledge, when all of the science was pointing in one direction, why did you vote against that knowledge? What was it that brought you to a decision that meant that you believed you had some sort of divine understanding about a problem that requires scientific understanding and expertise? How is it that you were arrogant enough to believe that 10 minutes on the internet equipped you with the knowledge to make a decision that would affect us, our futures and the future of this planet?' Well, I will tell you something. We will be making it very clear that, when the time came to take a stand—not to retreat but to take a step forward—we did everything we could to do that. That is why we are here, and that is why the Greens have been consistent in our position from day one: we need to act with conviction to ensure that we implement a price on carbon and support for renewables, take action globally and lead the world in what is the great moral challenge of our century. I want to be able to look at my kids and say, 'I did that.' And all of you will have to do the same.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand in opposition to the bills that would seek to pull apart a key economic and environmental plank for Australia's future. I think that what is being proposed by the coalition is an act of not only economic but also environmental vandalism. Climate change is not simply an environmental issue; it is an economic issue for this country as well. The problem we have is that, while we see Europe, Korea, China and now the US moving to deal with climate pollution, we have the spectacle of this country moving back and moving away from taking a strong stand to ensure that we are at the forefront of ensuring the future of this globe. And that is a very important issue for everyone in this country.

You see, my view is that the extremists are in control of the coalition, and those extremists' strings are being pulled by the likes of Gina Rinehart, the billionaire mining magnate, who says, 'I don't believe in climate change,' and says that she does not care about what happens as long as she makes a profit. And, as long as the money keeps pouring into the coalition's election coffers, the coalition will do the bidding of the Gina Rineharts, the BHPs, the Rio Tintos and the Twiggy Forrests. That is what we are faced with here. So we have got the lobby that is all about ensuring that there is not a price on carbon—the lobby that simply put their profits before the environmental good of this nation, before the environmental good of the world, before the economic good of the nation and before the economic good of the world. They take their orders from Gina Rinehart and Twiggy Forrest, because the money is coming through the Western Australian Liberal Party to the Liberal Party to keep running the arguments for their re-election. That is the reality of where we are: it is corporate power that is determining the coalition's position on this. If it were not, why then would you have a Prime Minister, Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who one minute supports climate change and supports a carbon tax and then, when Gina knocks on the door, it is all over, Red Rover—no carbon tax; climate change is not a reality. So you have one of the greatest opponents of climate change going from being a great supporter to being a great opponent. That is the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott.

Then you have all of these minions over here in the government who get their funding for their election through the banking industry. They will not look after the pensioners. They will not look after the poor in this country. All they want to do is get the money into their pockets, and when big business says, 'Jump,' they say, 'How high should we jump?' That is the reality of this mob over here. They do not care about the economy. They do not care about the environment. They only care about the money going into their pockets for their election. That is the bottom line with this mob over here. And they do not care about the community. They care nothing about the community. They do not care what happens to this country as long as big business keeps supporting them financially. That is the bottom line with this mob, and don't the National Party—

Senator Williams interjecting—

Senator Scullion interjecting—

Don't you open your mouth, because you have sold out regional Australia. You have sold out the country—

Government senators interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right!

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have sold out the country! You are the doormats of the Liberal Party, as we well know. You are their doormats. You have got Wacka Williams out there, whingeing and moaning about people getting ripped off, and then what does he do? He caves in on a royal commission. Have a royal commission into the unions, have a royal commission into pink batts, but don't have a royal commission into anything else!

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Cameron should be directed to refer to Senator Williams as 'Senator Williams' and not as 'Wacka Williams'.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Back. Senator Cameron—

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sorry!

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron! I had not finished. Senator Cameron, that is a correct point of order, and in future I would remind you, and all senators, to refer to members of this place and, indeed, the other place, by their correct titles.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will attempt to do that. My apologies, Senator Williams. Senator Williams sold out the country! Senator Williams sold out regional Australia! Senator Williams has sold out those pensioners who are getting ripped off by the banks! Senator Williams has not done the right thing. He talks a big game, but in action he does nothing. And that is because the Liberal extremists have got control, and you are under their control, Senator Williams. The extremists are in control in the Liberal Party. We know that only too well.

Debate interrupted.