Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter from Senator Siewert:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move that, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

"The need for the Prime minister to attend the United Nations Climate Summit 2014, and to recognise that Australia's emissions reduction target is inadequate."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

"The need for the Prime minister to attend the United Nations Climate Summit 2014, and to recognise that Australia's emissions reduction target is inadequate."

As we stand here, in New York today it has been estimated that 400,000 people have been marching for action not words on addressing the real crisis that is facing humanity, and that is global warming. People from right around the world have marched in the last 24 hours. It has been amazing to see the kinds of outpourings from everywhere. There were 40,000 in London and 30,000 in Melbourne. There were marches in Delhi, Rio, Paris, Barcelona, Jakarta and the Pacific Islands—right around the world—with people from different races, religions, backgrounds, countries and ages. We even had a beekeeper in Bulgaria standing up with his sign 'Action not words', with his bees. We had small children in Dakar posting, saying they wanted action on climate change.

All over the world, people are recognising that we are on a trajectory of four degrees of global warming. That is an unlivable planet—an unlivable planet. And that is something we need to consider.

We have a Prime Minister who is in Australia today, and who made his statement to the House of Representatives on a national security matter. The overwhelming emergency of the time is the global warming challenge. Of course we have to take on matters of national security, but national security now needs to be expanded to include the ramifications of the crop failures, the species losses and the deaths that are going to come from extreme weather events, from bushfires, from catastrophic heatwaves, and from the spread of diseases and invasive species. We are already seeing the impact. We are seeing it in Antarctica and in the Arctic. We are seeing the acidification of the oceans. We are seeing sea-level rise. In the lead-up to Ban Ki-moon's summit in New York, there have been endless reports coming out talking about just how serious matters really are.

As a result of that, people are taking this on. They are not only installing renewable energy, putting photovoltaics on their roofs, and engaging in energy efficiency. They are taking to cycleways. They want more public transport. They want to actually get emissions down, because it is healthier and of course it is the security of the planet that we are talking about, and people's lives into the future.

Divestment has now become extremely important. Just today, the heirs of the Rockefeller oil fortune announced, after the New York march, that their $860 million philanthropic fund was now going to divest from fossil fuels, and that follows on from Sydney university a matter of a week or so ago, and the Uniting Church in Australia. There is now growing support for getting out of fossil fuels. Not only that, but China has now capped the quality and the quantity of the coal that it will import.

It is now time for Australia to get with it. The Prime Minister is shaming us by his refusal to attend the leaders' summit in New York. He is going to be there the day after, for a meeting of the Security Council with regard to Iraq and Syria. He should have gone a day earlier so that he could attend. The reason he has not is that he cannot justify the pathetic emissions reduction target of five per cent on 2000 levels by 2020. It is disgraceful. It is even more disgraceful since it is becoming easier by the minute to achieve because, with the slowdown in our economy and the closure of some of our more polluting factories, the task is much easier. It has gone right down from something like 750 million tonnes to around 400 now. So it is easier. We could be going at it in a much more ambitious way than we are.

It is disgraceful that he is not going to be in New York at the summit. It is disgraceful that he is sending the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop, from one of the highest per capita polluting nations on the planet, one of the richest and most able countries to act on this. We already have something like 9,000 megawatts—too much coal fired power. We could shut it down tomorrow. A couple of those power stations could go. It would make a big difference. We could be saying: 'No more coal in the Galilee and Bowen basins. No more CSG.' We could be out there actually doing something and saving our forests at the same time. Instead of that we are prepared to drive the fossil fuel industry to the detriment of the planet, and it is disgraceful.

But let us get to what Australia is going to have to face up to. We have been asked to make a much more ambitious contribution to keeping Australia to a contribution that will secure global warming to less than two degrees. Mr Hockey has been out talking about the G20. He failed to point out to Australians that in the G20 mandate they have said they want to keep global warming to less than two degrees and they believe that a carbon price is the way to do it. We have not heard anything from Mr Hockey about that out of the G20.

We need to make sure that we keep faith with our Pacific Island neighbours as well. They have made the point in the last 24 hours and said:

'We were one of the campaigners for Australia to be on the Security Council, we bought along many of our bodies to do that, on the understanding that Australia-Pacific islands relationship is close, not subject to the whims of one or two politicians from time to time, it is based on stability and long-term relations, so this is very disappointing for us, [that you would] come and be friendly when you want to be on the Security Council, but after you do that, you do your own thing.'

He said that 'betrayal' was too strong a word to use for now, 'but it may not be soon'.

That is exactly how the Pacific islands feel about Australia betraying the planet in doing what it should do on global warming.

By 31 March next year, Australia has to put on the table what our post-2020 emissions reduction target is going to be. The Climate Change Authority said very clearly that we need a 40 to 60 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. That is what the Greens say we should be going for as well—net carbon zero by 2050. That will mean a massive shift in our economy and it will mean massive opportunities in terms of investment, jobs, R&D and a whole range of things.

But the question for the government is: what is your process for determining what the emissions reduction target should be? Under the clean energy package, we legislated to set up the Climate Change Authority and to have them assess the level of the target that is necessary and recommend that to the parliament. The government have no process. What is your process? You cannot seriously stand up in front of the world and say that five per cent is enough and try to pretend that a $2½ billion Emissions Reduction Fund is going to cut it. Nobody will believe you. The Australian community have made it very clear at the marches over the last 24 hours that people want answers. They want action. They do not want any more of the waffle and the climate denial that actually demonstrates what the government thinks. I was interested that Senator Ryan retweeted the march in Adelaide. I thought that perhaps he has had a change of heart, that perhaps he now supports climate action.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't realise I had a fake account.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe it was a fake account. I apologise if it was a fake account. I was momentarily distracted, Senator. I will apologise if that is the case. Around Australia, people want serious action on global warming. They want Australia to stand up. The very future of our generation and generations to follow depend on us doing this in a timely manner. We are running out of time. Before 2020, global emissions have to peak and start to come down or we will go beyond tipping points. We cannot risk doing that.

Time and tide wait for no man, including our Prime Minister. Global warming is accelerating. It needs action. The government need to tell us what is going to be our emissions reduction target up to 2020 and then post 2020. The world is going to ask for that. The Australian community deserve to hear it first.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are some who come to this place and make constructive contributions that add to global discussions that are taking place and ensure that Australia is well positioned in those discussions to put our national interest forward, that we take a strong stance going into them and that we have all aspects of those global discussions properly considered and properly undertaken. Then, of course, we have carping and whining and otherwise from the Greens, who come in here and try to make a political statement about who is representing the Australian government at such a conference and try to make a political point about whether the Prime Minister is there or not, about who the face of Australia is.

The Australian government have taken our representation at this conference extremely seriously. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is charged as part as part of her portfolio responsibilities with international climate change negotiations, is rightly our representative at this conference. From the way the Greens were talking, you would think that we were the only country on earth not to be sending their head of government, that foreign minister Julie Bishop was going to find herself completely at odds in the gathering taking place. That is far from the case. Also not present, other than our Prime Minister Tony Abbott, is: the Chinese President Xi Jinping; the Indian Prime Minister, Prime Minister Modi; the Russian President, President Putin; the German Chancellor, Chancellor Merkel; the Canadian Prime Minister, Prime Minister Harper; the New Zealand Prime Minister, Prime Minister Key; and at least a couple of dozen others if not more.

We are doing the right thing by ensuring we are appropriately represented and that Australia's position is appropriately put at this conference by foreign minister Julie Bishop, who is the person with the responsibility for it. Prime Minister Abbott cannot be in all places at once. I am sure it has not escaped even the Greens' attention that parliament is sitting this week. The Prime Minister has to work out how much time he is in parliament and how much time he devotes to international meetings. It is right, fit and proper that Minister Bishop be the person attending and representing Australia at this conference later this week.

At this climate summit, Minister Bishop will rightly highlight Australia's commitment to our 2020 target of reducing emissions to five per cent below 2000 levels. It is a bipartisan target. It has not changed one jot since the change of government last year. The five per cent target is equivalent to a reduction of some 22 per cent against the business-as-usual emission levels that would have been reached by 2020. It is a significant target. We are working to ensure it is met. As we said prior to the last election, in 2015 we will work through the proper processes of reviewing future targets post 2020. We will go through that in a careful, methodical manner. We will engage appropriately in international fora, based on the types of frameworks that are discussed through those fora.

I look forward to hearing from Senators Cameron and Urquhart, who I gather are participating in this debate, whether the opposition's policy in relation to targets has changed at all. Is it still the opposition's policy to stand by the target of a five per cent reduction by 2020? Does the opposition already have a post-2020 policy in relation to targets or do we still stand as one in relation to what the targets are?

Minister Bishop will highlight the action that our government is taking through the $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund to ensure we meet that target and to ensure we do, as indeed Australia did in relation to the targets under the Kyoto Protocol, meet the targets that we commit to. It would be nice if, in implementing that policy, some of those who come into this chamber and spend a lot of time talking about climate change issues actually allowed us to put in place all of the measures required to ensure the successful implementation of that policy.

Legislation is before this parliament that can expand the terms and operations of the Carbon Farming Initiative to ensure other means and opportunities for abatement are captured successfully by the Emissions Reduction Fund. It is important that that gets passed. I would urge the other parties in the chamber to give consideration to supporting that so we can see real action to meet our targets, to reduce emissions levels, to achieve abatement and to do so without the types of punitive measures we have seen in the past. There are others—and I am I sure will probably hear this from others in this discussion today—who suggest that the Emissions Reduction Fund and the Direct Action policy this government is pursuing is allegedly out of step with the rest of the world. That again is a falsehood, just as the claim that somehow Australia will be isolated in not having our head of government at the climate summit was a falsehood.

It is also a falsehood to say there are no other countries actively pursuing direct action. Direct abatement purchasing, similar to what is proposed under the Emissions Reduction Fund, occurs as part of Norway's Carbon Procurement Facility, Japan's Joint Crediting Mechanism and the United Nations Clean Development Mechanism. Energy efficiency measures, such as energy intensity and efficiency target schemes—the types of measures that could well be accredited under the Emissions Reduction Fund—operate in countries such as China, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, Mexico, Russia, New Zealand, Thailand, Turkey and many states of the United States. Various measures in agriculture, forestry and the land sectors are applied across significant forestry countries. Through the preparatory work for the global rainforest summit that will sit alongside the World Parks Congress later this year in Australia, we are working to enhance global efforts relating to deforestation. So there are a range of direct action measures occurring across many other countries of the world to bring about abatement opportunities and to ensure that they are achieved.

It is absolutely the commitment of this government that, with other countries of the world, we will work through a new global climate change agreement that we hope will establish a common playing field for all countries to take climate action beyond 2020. It has been a problem in the post-Kyoto framework that the talks that were held in Copenhagen, several years back now, collapsed and left the world without a clear framework for dealing with climate change. It is absolutely a problem. Perhaps it is notable that Australia's then Prime Minister did attend the Copenhagen talks—and that did not exactly help get a better outcome. We will work with other countries to try to ensure that we have a framework in place that creates a level playing field for all countries to make commitments and to stand by those commitments—to see those commitments honoured.

Australia has been, and will continue to be, a good international citizen in this space. Where we make commitments, we will deliver on policies that see them through. When a commitment was made around Kyoto, notwithstanding debates about full ratification, successive governments ensured that those targets were met. The commitment made, the bipartisan commitment to the unconditional five per cent reduction by 2020, is one that has stood in a bipartisan manner. As far as I am aware, it is still a bipartisan commitment and it is one that we will ensure is delivered by 2020. As we enter into these discussions and seek to ensure there is that common playing field under which countries can make post-2020 commitments, you can have confidence that this government, when it makes a commitment in those fora, will stand by that commitment and will deliver the policies to ensure that we meet it in future as well. I look forward to hearing in the debate whether the Labor Party's targets have changed at all.

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

I always have a bit of a wry smile when I hear a coalition member talking about delivering on commitments. I think anyone who has seen this budget knows that this is not a government that delivers on its commitments. This is not a government that can be trusted. This is not a government that you can listen to and take anything away from what they say. When you hear Senator Birmingham talking about delivering on commitments, the first thing you have to ask yourself is: what is this government's form, what is this government's history on delivering on commitments? We all know what it is. It is a government which made commitments prior to the election and did not deliver, which engaged in all of the fear campaigns that they could muster on a range of policy issues and have not delivered on one of the biggest economic issues facing this country—that is, the economic issue about ensuring that children in the future will be brought up and live on a planet which is not choking on carbon emissions. That is the bottom line here. Yet we have a federal government which went to the last election with a policy called the Direct Action Plan. Senator Birmingham waxed lyrical about it. Senator Birmingham knows fine well that direct action was put in there to give the then Abbott opposition a fig leaf to say that they were doing something about climate change. Do not take my word for it; take the word of the now Minister for Communications, Malcolm Turnbull, who said that this policy was a fig leaf and who also said that the best thing about the policy was that you could get rid of it quickly.

So this direct action policy, which the coalition say is going to help reduce emissions, has been roundly criticised by scientists, criticised by environmentalists, it has been under critique by the CSIRO and it has been under critique by the Bureau of Meteorology. They all know that it will not work. No wonder the Prime Minister does not to go to the UN Climate Summit—because he would have to be facing reality, he would be mugged by reality. And for our Prime Minister, who said that climate change was crap, it would have to be in a forum looking at the science on climate change, at what climate change is actually doing to the planet.

That is why Labor, when we were in government, said that we had to do something about this. We took advice, which was to put a price on carbon as being the cheapest, most effective way of dealing with carbon pollution. What does direct action do? Direct action actually pays the polluters. Instead of the polluters having to pay for polluting, we, the public, the taxpayers of this country, under the coalition policy, will be paying the biggest pollutes to try to stop polluting. We will be paying. It is an absolute nonsense. Everywhere else around the world people are coming to grips with dealing with carbon pollution. People are accepting the views of scientists around the world. They are saying that there is a huge problem. You can come here and argue about how great economic managers you are. I do not believe for a minute that the coalition are good economic managers. They are not good economic managers. They never have been, even under Howard and Costello. They left us with a structural deficit.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

I will tell you what we have now. We have the biggest, most important issue facing the world—that is, to make the world a place where in future kids can grow up enjoying the same climate that we have, where they can enjoy the capacity to work, to live and to play on a planet that is not polluted by carbon. No wonder the two carbon deniers across there are going on like chooks with their heads cut off. They do not understand the science. They do not want to understand the science. They do not care about the science. They would back the National Party in when they run an argument that you would end up with a $100 lamb roast. You put a price on carbon and they say your lamb roast would cost $100. We know that is nonsense, but that is the misinformation and the lies that this government is so good at, out there trying to run their arguments about why you should not have a price on carbon. I want a price on carbon because that is what the UN is saying we need. It is not just the UN. Business around the world is saying, 'We need a price on carbon. My first introduction to needing a price on carbon was—

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Jobs!

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

Senator O'Sullivan, when you get a price on carbon you can create the jobs of the future. That is the issue. I first came across this it might have been 15 years ago with the president of Ford Europe. When I went to Europe Ford was saying, 'We need to deal with this; this is a real issue, a live issue. Carbon pollution is causing problems and we as a company will have to deal with it.' They were talking about magnesium bodies on cars, aluminium bodies on cars, reducing the weight of cars and different engine blocks. They were talking about diesel instead of fuel. They were looking at electric cars. What could they do? These are the people who are actually out there creating jobs and employing people around the world. They said, 'We need to do something about it.' Big business was saying we need to do something about it.

The reason we are not doing something about it here is that the coalition are beholden to the mining industry.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nonsense!

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

Senator O'Sullivan says nonsense. You have only got to look at what the mining industry say they want and then you will see the coalition deliver. The mining industry says, 'Jump'; the coalition asks, 'How high?'

In New South Wales, they get brown paper bags in the front seat of a Bentley to do the bidding of big business. In the federal sphere, it is about big business and the mining industry handing huge donations to the coalition to oppose a proper tax so Australians can get their fair share of our mining resources and also to oppose putting a price an carbon because it is not in the short-term interest of the mining industry.

I worked—and I am one of the few senators here who have actually worked as a blue-collar worker. I spent a lot of time as a blue-collar in the Hunter Valley working at Liddell Power Station as a maintenance fitter, so I know a little bit about jobs for workers in rural and regional areas. I know a little bit about ensuring that we look after people in this country as a union official. I have done it all my life—not like that lot over there. I know that I need to do something. What we need to do is to make sure that we engage in the industries of the future, that we invest in the industries of the future, and that we look at how we can capture carbon in our coal industry and in our power industry.

The International Energy Agency is saying we need to minimise carbon pollution where we are and we need to maximise renewables. That would be a culture shock for the Prime Minister who does not believe in global warming, who does not believe in the science, and who does not believe in anything other than lies and misrepresentation when it comes to this country. They are a bad government. They do not understand it and the Prime Minister should be there getting some education on this issue. (Time expired)

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I attended the Melbourne climate rally yesterday, and it was an inspiring place to be—30,000 people out there in force: old people and young people across the whole sectors of society.

I was particularly inspired by the number of young people who were there and inspired by the fact that the Melbourne rally was the beginning of a worldwide wave of rallies for climate action. All of those young people were there, because they know it is their future that is at stake. They are wanting political leadership. They are wanting community leadership for real action, not words, on climate change.

One of the things that inspired me the most at the rally yesterday was when the rally organisers announced that the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was going to be attending and marching with the 300,000 to 400,000 people who were rallying in New York.

This places Prime Minister Abbott's refusal to go to the UN Climate Summit in stark relief. It is important that our Prime Minister goes. It is symbolic that our head of government goes, because it states that this is an important action.

Being inspired by those young people at the rally yesterday reminded me of my experience as a young person politicised by climate change. When I learned about climate change as a 20-year-old at university, I decided that I had to take action, because the world needed to be doing something about it. That was over 30 years ago. Lots of things have changed in the 30 years since then. Then the science was in its infancy. The first Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change report was not released until 1990. Then most political and community leaders did not know the science. Renewable technology was in its infancy too, so it really seemed like a wicked problem that we were dealing with. How were we going do overcome this?

What has not changed in the 30 years since then was the realisation that acting on climate change was going to impact on the world and Australia's use of coal, gas and oil. As the years went by, the debate focused on whether we were going to have economic impacts versus environmental impacts; and did we have to choose between keeping our economic development, our jobs and our way of life versus damage to the environment?

Sadly, I think that this is where the government are still at. They are stuck in the past and have not been paying attention to what has changed and the 21st century perspective that it is no longer an issue of the environment versus the economy. If the Prime Minister was up with the times, he would know that we are on track for four degrees of warming, which will be an ongoing global disaster not just environmentally but also economically.

The impacts of four degrees of warming, hotter than humans have ever known before, means: more extreme floods; storms; cyclones; bushfires; melting polar icecaps; hotter and drier farmlands around the world—meaning that billions of people will not be able to grow enough food or have enough water to stay healthy—and lack of food and water causing wars and millions of refugees. This is going to be economically and socially disastrous. All of these impacts are going to have massive economic impacts, which are unacceptable to the Australian and global community, and will be disastrous to the Australian and world economy.

If Prime Minister Tony Abbott would attend the summit, he would learn that every global agency knows that this is so—and that has changed since I have been involved in the climate change debate. Before we felt that agencies like the World Bank, the World Economic Forum and the International Monetary Fund had very different attitudes to climate change than I did as a climate activist. But now, every one of those agencies knows that it is in the world's economic as well as environmental and social interests to be getting deep and meaningful, and urgent action on climate change.

The World Bank released a report in June that said:

Fighting climate change would help grow the world economy, according to the World Bank, adding up to $2.6 trillion a year to global GDP in the coming decades.

It is a sharp contrast to the government's claims that fighting climate change would 'clobber' the economy. If the Prime Minister was there at the Climate Summit these are the perspectives that he would get.

The World Bank report also said that, 'the pro climate regulations and tax incentives would on their own deliver nearly one-third of the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions needed to keep warming below the two degree threshold for dangerous climate change'. It seems that is why the Prime Minister is not going; because he has his eyes and ears closed. He does not want to know; he does not want to hear.

In Australia the government needs to realise the impact of acting on climate change; it means tackling the fossil fuel lobby. That is what our government is not willing to do, because that means tackling the coal industry. It means doing more than the fig leaf of Direct Action. Australia has over one-quarter of the world's coal reserves. We are a huge player in the coal industry.

New research out today about coal identified major financial risks for investors and coal producers around the world, highlighting that there is '$112 billion of future coalmine expansion and development that is excess to requirements' over lower demand forecasts, due to slowing demand growth in China. In particular this research shows that new high-cost mines are 'not economic at today's prices' and are 'unlikely to generate returns for investors in the future'. Companies most exposed to low coal demand are those developing new projects, focussed on the export market. They are the projects—the Galilee Basin and the other coal export projects—that our government should be saying no to if they are serious about action on climate change.

The other thing that has changed—that the Prime Minister would be learning about if he attended the summit, and that we on this side know about acting on climate change—is that renewables are now the most cost-effective way of dealing with our energy issues. We know that the cost of renewables is coming down and we know that not investing in renewables means that we are losing potential for jobs—over 1,000 jobs potentially being lost just in my state of Victoria if, for example, we get rid of the renewable energy target.

It is clear: we need to be taking action on climate change. Australia needs to be a leader in taking action on climate change. We need to be there in New York, putting our case as part of the global community rather than living in the past. The science is clear, we need zero carbon as soon as possible, no later than 2050. The Climate Change Authority's reduction targets of 40 per cent to 60 per cent by 2020 are achievable and reachable, and that is what we need to be aiming for. Our five per cent target, in contrast, is inadequate. Not only is it inadequate for 2020, but there is no potential for it to be expanded beyond then.

In my first speech I laid out six steps that we need to be taking if we want real action on climate change—if Australia is going to join the world community. The first step is to set pollution reduction targets, based on the science; that is what we need to be doing. We need to stop subsidising fossil fuels. Clearly, that is going to be a really big driver, all around the world, in shifting to renewables and away from fossil fuels. We need to be creating more jobs, by boosting clean energy production and energy conservation. We need to start closing coal fired power stations. We have an excess of power; we can afford to be doing it. We should be taking action to close the dirtiest coal fired power stations. Hazelwood and the Alcoa power stations in Victoria are the two key ones from a Victorian perspective. We need to be saying no to new coal and gas exports, coal seam gas and unconventional gas. And we need to be making the big polluters pay. We had a price on carbon; it was working.

I am sure that people at the UN Climate Summit will be learning about the benefits a price on carbon will be having all around the world. Our price on carbon reduced our carbon emissions by two per cent in just a year. Australia used to be a global leader because of these sorts of measures. When I came into this Senate I was proud to be joining a party and a parliament that was going to be tackling climate change with strong action. We are no longer that parliament. We need to be there on the world stage, putting our case for urgent and serious action, and acting on climate change.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that the urgency motion starts off with the need for the Prime Minister to attend the United Nations Climate Summit in 2014. Given that there are myriad challenges that face a Prime Minister of a country at any one time—and we know that there is a challenge facing this country and the greater world at the moment—I would have thought the fact that the Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, was attending this summit sent a strong signal.

She is the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party. She is a very senior person in the government; she is the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The fact that she is already in that part of the world and we did not need to send another person over there sends a strong signal to those attending the conference that Australia takes its responsibility in this space very seriously.

I would like to put on the record at the outset that the Australian government is very supportive of the initiatives of the United Nations Secretary-General to work towards practical solutions with climate action. We are firmly committed to taking practical action to reduce emissions, both at home and abroad. We have a responsibility not only to deal with the emissions that occur in Australia but to encourage those strong overseas emitters to see the sense and the benefit of reducing their emissions as well. As you would know, Mr Acting Deputy President Seselja, Australia is a very small economy and some of the challenges of the larger economies are going to deliver significantly greater results if we are able to reduce the emissions in some of the much larger industrial countries around the world.

Australia has made a commitment to our targets for 2020. Obviously it would be fantastic if our targets were able to be accelerated or increased but we certainly have made a strong commitment to those targets. We have also made a strong financial commitment to the Emissions Reduction Fund of $2.55 billion. This government is taking its role and responsibility in this space very seriously.

The thing that really amazes me is that we stand up here again today and we are not necessarily debating whether we support that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. What we are actually debating is how we intend to deal with it and how we intend to address it. I find it quite distressing that instead of just accepting that the Australian public, on 7 September 2013, did not like the emissions reduction mechanism that the Greens forced on the Labor Party to introduce, the carbon tax. If they just accept that that is not how we want to deal with this particular issue, we could sit down and have some sort of constructive debate about what we should be doing instead of carrying on and debating the merits of climate change time and time again. We do not disagree that we need to take action in this space. So why are we standing in this chamber day after day debating the issues of climate change instead of debating the issues about how best to deliver a response to the issues that we are confronting as a nation and as a world in this space without impacting negatively on our businesses?

We heard through the debate on the carbon tax repeal legislation of companies that were having significant impacts on their businesses, some so significant that they moved their businesses offshore to countries whose emissions reputations and records are much worse than Australia's have ever been. We saw that happen. We also saw the cost of living go up for everyday Australians. We had a carbon tax that basically did not work. It cost a whole heap of money, it caused a whole heap of grief, it damaged a whole heap of sectors of our economy and it did not really work. It really did little more than increase the cost of doing business at the same time reducing competitiveness.

So what the coalition is seeking to do by the changes that we are making is to put in place something that will not just achieve the outcome but that will do so through measures that are not going to send our country broke.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The I rise to speak on the urgency motion: The need for the Prime Minister to attend the United Nations Climate Summit 2014, and to recognise that Australia’s emissions reduction target is inadequate. We woke up this morning to the news that over 300,000 people marched through the streets of Manhattan Island, New York to peacefully protest for global action on climate change. The New York march was the culmination of a series of events right across the globe. Organisers said 550 busloads of people had arrived for the rally, which followed marches in 166 countries including Britain, France, Afghanistan, Mexico and Bulgaria. Back home in Australia, more than 10,000 people took to the streets in Melbourne, 1,500 in Brisbane and many more in other capital cities. The message from these events to politicians and powerbrokers alike was very clear: people want action on climate change and they want it now. The global events were held to herald the start of the Climate Change Summit 2014, which has been organised by the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon. The Secretary-General was clear about the urgency of action when he said, 'The longer we delay our action, the more we will have to pay.'

The climate summit will be about action and solutions to separate progress in areas that can contribute to cutting emissions and building resilience. Areas such as agriculture, cities energy, financing, forests, pollutants, resilience and transportation will all be in the policy spotlight. It will also mobilise the will for a global agreement on climate change ahead of the ahead of the 2015 conference in Paris, where participants will try to agree on legally-binding climate change regulations.

If we are to keep the world within the brink of a dangerous two degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures, world leaders need to work together. Present at the 2014 summit will be the US President, Barack Obama. Joining him will be the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, along with more than 120 other world leaders. These leaders understand that action on climate change must happen. But the Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, will not be joining them. He will not be making time in his diary to address the pressing global issue of climate change despite the fact that he already had a trip to New York in his diary for later in the week. Instead, he is sending Foreign Minister, Julie Bishop, who has already knocked back a United Nations request for Australia to strengthen our climate targets. This is disgraceful and it is further proof that the government is actively hindering global action on climate change. This is the government that has systematically set about dismantling each and every tool that Australia has had in its kit to address climate change and to harness the opportunities presented by a low-carbon economy.

To say Australian government action on climate change has been one of the most vexed in recent times would be an understatement. Of course, both major parties took to the 2007 federal election a policy to implement an emissions trading scheme. But the now Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, put political expediency ahead of the planet's future in 2009 when he led the Liberal and National parties to a 'no' vote on the carbon pollution reduction scheme.

In 2011, the clean energy future package was legislated. Of course, it was for a fixed price for three years then a floating price in 2015. The fixed price component caused the issue with the electorate. For the better part of four years, we have witnessed continued deceit from the now Prime Minister about the impact of the carbon price. Whyalla was not wiped out, lamb roasts did not reach $100 and the Australian economy continued to grow. While the now Prime Minister and a large number of his front bench were telling tall tales, there was absolute silence from those in the coalition who supported a market based mechanism purely for political expediency.

I now turn to Australia's emissions reduction target and the importance of flexibility in this target for international negotiations. Labor's position is that the Australian government should commit to emissions reductions of between five and 15 per cent unilaterally and that there be an international agreement up to 25 per cent. The strategy behind the two targets is to provide a bargaining position at international forums like the UN's Climate Summit 2014. These are the same targets that Labor sought to enshrine in 2009. These are the same targets that Labor legislated for in 2011. As a party of government and not a party of protest, it is vital that the Australian government not only attends important summits like the UN's Climate Summit 2014 but also considers an appropriate bargaining position. It would be a poor strategy for Australia to act unilaterally with large legislated targets before the rest of the world cements its carbon pricing frameworks.

The clean energy future package provided a clear path for Australia to meet a five, 15 or indeed 25 per cent reduction in our emissions. Labor's focus in both 2009 and 2011—and it remains today—is that Australia should have strong emissions reduction targets unilaterally and we should take a strong bargaining position to international forums. Of course, the now Abbott government has trashed Australia's emissions reduction framework, trashed Australia's emissions reduction targets and trashed Australia's bargaining position at international forums like the UN Climate Summit 2014. But this is Mr Abbott's intention. Under his leadership, Australia is the first country in the world to go backwards on action on climate change, with the repeal of the carbon price. The Abbott government has left Australia without a framework to tackle climate change.

And, now, the next frontier is the renewable energy target. The Abbott government appointed a climate change sceptic to head its review into the renewable energy target. This review is reported to have recommended scrapping the RET altogether. And the government's response to that? Silence. The Abbott government is threatening an emissions-reducing, jobs-creating initiative. Labor supports maintaining the renewable energy target. We understand that the RET is a major economic driver as well as a major employer. Renewables support 24,000 jobs and the RET has attracted $18 billion in investment across Australia to date. The Abbott government's own review found that we will pay more for electricity after 2020 if the RET is dumped or reduced.

Labor supports the RET, while at the same time supporting assistance for energy-intensive trade-exposed industry. The clean energy future package saw relevant heavy industry receive a rebate on 97 per cent of their carbon price liabilities. Also at risk are hundreds of millions of dollars that Hydro Tasmania returns to the state government and the $200 million Granville Harbour wind farm, which is set to deliver 200 much-needed construction jobs.

Last week, I hosted Bill Shorten in Burnie and Queenstown in north-west Tasmania. In Burnie we met with the proponents of the Granville Harbour wind farm. They have finance. They have the plans. They have the approvals process underway. The only thing holding them back is the Abbott government's ideologically driven attack on the renewable energy target. This is holding back 200 jobs in Tasmania's north-west—a place where unemployment is a number of points higher than the national average; a place where people are screaming out for opportunities; a place where people see the long-term benefits of renewables and want a federal government that will help with this major project, not hinder it. The Abbott government must keep its election promise to retain the renewable energy target in full.

The Abbott government's Direct Action Plan is a sham, and I would urge all in this place to not support it. There is clear evidence that it is a waste of taxpayer resources. There is clear evidence that it will struggle to assist Australia meet even the five per cent reduction target. To meet our commitment of reducing Australia's carbon output by five per cent by 2020, the government initially allocated $2.55 billion over three years. But modelling by SKM-MMA and Monash University showed this to be $4 billion short of what will be needed.

A recent inquiry for the Senate Environment and Communications Committee failed to find one witness who supported Direct Action as a credible standalone solution to address climate change. Direct Action will hand out grants to big polluters but levy no fine on those who fail to reduce their emissions. Shockingly, Climate Institute modelling found that, if other countries followed the Abbott government's policy lead of Direct Action, the world would be on track for a catastrophic rise of up to 6.5 per cent by the end of the century. Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, needs to recognise that the world is moving toward a low-carbon future, whether he likes it or not. He can either embrace this future and the opportunities it offers Australia, or he can continue to block action on climate change.

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

This is an urgency debate, and I have to say that there could be nothing less urgent than the Prime Minister attending the United Nations Climate Summit in New York. It will be just another talkfest, like the much-vaunted Copenhagen climate change conference was years ago, and it will achieve about as much as the Copenhagen conference achieved—absolutely zero; zilch.

Those supporting this urgency motion seem to place a lot of faith on the fact that a tiny, tiny percentage of the Australian public, of the 22 million people in Australia, happened to attend a protest march in Melbourne on the weekend—a protest march no doubt organised and rallied around by GetUp, who, as I have said before, are just an element of the Greens political party. What a pathetic turnout in Australia—10,000 people in Melbourne at the weekend. And, for that reason, this motion demands that the Prime Minister should go to New York.

There are urgent issues for the Prime Minister to deal with, and they are in Australia—that is, dealing with Labor's $600 billion debt that is costing us something like $33 million a day in interest; dealing with difficulties with our Indigenous Australians; and, this week, dealing with terror aspects and the security of each and every Australian. They are the issues of urgency for the Prime Minister, and I am delighted to say that he is not going to New York for a climate change talkfest but is staying in Australia to address the really urgent issues. He will be going to New York later this week, but that is to again work on the security issues that are so vital to each and every Australian.

This debate should be put in perspective. Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. On the recent analysis that came out just over the weekend, I think we have even dropped in that. The climate change debate is turning into a real farce. I understand that the real debate in New York will not be on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it is affecting the climate but on whether the global cooling that has been going on for some time is for 15 years or 19 years. I understand that is going to be the big issue discussed in New York: global cooling and whether it has been going on for 15 years or 19 years. Then we will be hearing about the sea ice expansion in the Antarctic, which we have been told for years has all sorts of problems. Here we are with, unfortunately for the IPCC, the sea ice in the south increasing. In the north, I accept, it is decreasing, but it simply shows that the science is not confirmed and not settled. I see that the University of New South Wales Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science has said that part of this is because of increased heat in the Pacific Ocean. That was in a peer reviewed paper. A similarly peer reviewed paper that came out a little while later by another university said that the heat was in the Atlantic Ocean. Clearly, the scientists are themselves confused.

As for the Prime Minister not being there, neither will be the prime ministers of India or China, two of the nations that are by far and away the biggest emitters of carbon—and I should add to that: perhaps President Putin of Russia. The American President will be there. Whilst President Obama says a lot, his congress, which represents the wishes of American people, stalled Mr Obama at every turn.

As I said at the beginning of my address, I cannot think of anything less urgent for the Prime Minister to be in New York. I am delighted that the Prime Minister is staying at home to address the issues of real interest to Australians.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Milne be agreed to.