Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on a matter of public importance, the weak and dangerous climate targets we saw yesterday from this weak and dangerous Prime Minister.

First of all, science has been completely absent in the calculation of this target—if you can even call it a target. The Prime Minister has taken the very sneaky approach of changing the base line here on which to calculate the target. It is like standing on a box so you can claim you are taller. Well, you are not any taller and you have not fooled anyone.

When you convert the so-called target back to the proper base line that most of the rest of the world uses—the one that Australia was using until yesterday—it is actually only a 19 per cent reduction on 2000 levels by 2030. That is less than half of the bare minimum that the actual independent science body says Australia needs in order to play its part in trying to constrain global warming to two degrees. They actually say that it should be a 40 to 60 per cent reduction, so in fact it is less than a third of their positive-high ambition range.

So the science has been absolutely absent in the calculation of these targets, which is fitting given that this government wants to abolish that very body, the Climate Change Authority—the independent science advisers that are meant to say, 'Here is how you avoid dangerous global warming to safeguard our way of life, to protect our economy and to protect our very planet.' No—the Abbott government wants to abolish them. They do not like science and they sure as hell are not going to start listening now—more's the pity.

These targets are a recipe for dangerous global warming. They put us on track to not keep global warming to two degrees, which the world has agreed desperately to try to do because beyond that you reach ecological tipping points from which there is no coming back. Instead, this government's targets set us on a track for three to four degrees of global warming. If there is time later I will go through precisely what that will mean for Australia, and it is incredibly sobering reading.

They have shifted the goalposts to try to make their pathetic target look slightly less pathetic and then they have claimed that Australia is in the middle of the pack internationally. Again, that is absolute fabrication. When you actually compare the targets of other developed nations and comparable economies, we are at the back of the pack. You have heard it said, and that is because it is true. We are below the US, we are even below Canada and we are below the EU. The only nation which is anywhere near close to us is Japan. So we are not in the middle of the pack; we are in fact at the back of the pack. And this is from a nation that has some of the best renewable energy resources in the world. We have some of the best sunshine, some fantastic wave and tidal potential, some pretty good wind deposits and some solid geothermal deposits, and still the Prime Minister is happy for us to be at the back of the pack internationally rather than leading and creating prosperity and the jobs of the future, which is what I thought a Prime Minister's job was.

The tragic thing is that, at the minute, Australia is the world's worst polluter per person. The even more tragic thing is that, if these targets are adopted, we will still be the world's worst polluter per capita. Do the figures. For all of the bluster from the Prime Minister, nobody believes you, Prime Minister, because science has not come into your equation. Instead, 'coal is good for humanity', 'wind farms are ugly' and you want to abolish the independent science advisory bodies.

We have heard that coal is good for humanity from the Prime Minister. We have heard that wind turbines are ugly and in fact we heard at the Prime Minister's press conference yesterday, 'The only way to protect the coal industry is to go with the kind of policies that we have.' That is on announcing his carbon pollution reduction targets. He is actually talking about protecting the coal industry. Please, will somebody get this man a briefing from some scientists? I met today with some of the authors of the IPCC fifth assessment report—some of the leading global climate scientists—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister is one of the most intelligent people of his generation.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection and I again would invite the Prime Minister to perhaps meet with those scientists who are in the building today. In fact, any scientist will do, frankly. It would, I hope, change the Prime Minister's mind. They would, however, have to get through the door, which is currently packed with donors from the coal industry, who have inordinate influence over this government and, I might add, also over the opposition. They need to make sure that it is not the fossil fuel companies but actually the scientists that are dictating Australia's climate policy.

The reason for that is that coal is in fact not good for humanity. We have already seen in the last 18 months that coal mines have sacked 32 per cent of their workforce. The transition is on, folks. Where is your plan to help those workers? Where is your plan to ensure that those folks in mostly regional and rural communities actually have long-term, sustainable employment? There isn't one, yet the transition is on globally.

I welcome that transition. It is exactly what we need to safeguard our planet and to safeguard the industries that we have that are dependent on a healthy climate—like the Great Barrier Reef, which is an employer of 63,000 people in my state of Queensland and brings in a good $6 billion a year to our economy and which could actually provide those sustainable jobs into the foreseeable future rather than the short-term coal industry, which has sacked one-third of its workforce in the last 18 months. But no; the Prime Minister has well and truly belled the cat when he says that his climate policy is the only way to protect the coal industry.

I have talked about the need for a transition plan. Australia has such wonderful potential. The global trend is on. The coal price has tanked, the workers are being sacked and there is no plan from this government to help provide them jobs. The options are there. We could be creating the prosperity, the employment and the economic growth in clean energy production, in manufacturing for clean energy, in public transport, in high-speed rail, in protecting those other industries that need a livable climate like ecotourism and agriculture—the new economy based on innovation and based on our brains, rather than just a dig-it-up-and-ship-it-out, quarry mentality.

Instead, we heard Senator Birmingham say, 'The Greens will never be happy with anything we say.' I have to agree with Senator Birmingham. Until the government bases their policies on science, we will continue to criticise them for ignoring science and being in the pocket of the coal industry.

As I said, I met with those IPCC authors today, and one of them said something very significant that I thought worthwhile sharing with the chamber. They said, 'Climate change is not an issue for the future; it's an issue for now.' The decisions that we are making now, that this government is making now will shape how we all live. They are shaping the fact that we already have a prevalence of increased extreme weather events. They are dooming us to more frequent and more severe extreme weather events, and I want to illustrate that because I get the sense that the government members are just chatting amongst themselves rather than engaging with the debate.

Perhaps I will give them a few concrete examples. In the Murray-Darling, which they profess to occasionally be concerned about, there was a proposed reduction in average flow by 40 per cent—40 per cent less flow in the Murray on a normal year. That is under climate scenarios that already exist.

We know that there will be an increase in category 3 to category 5 cyclones, we know that heatwaves will get more extreme and we know of course that global coral reefs, being incredibly susceptible to climate change—in fact susceptible to even as low as 1½-degree increase, which sadly we are on track to exceed—will collapse. Now that is an absolute tragedy when we can take the actions to do our best to avert that absolute environmental meltdown. Yet we have the jokers on this side who think it is hilarious and who refuse to engage in the actual science and refuse to perhaps cognate the importance of the decisions that we are making here today. Instead they say that they want to try and help the world's poor by trying to flog off Australia's coal. Well, the World Bank disagrees with them. It says that coal is no solution to energy poverty. Since when did this government care about poverty anyway? They slashed our foreign aid budget for heaven's sake. In rural India, they do not have an electricity grid and our coal will be too expensive for them.

What Australia can provide to the world and to ourselves is clean, affordable, renewable energy that will help us meet this global challenge, do our bit and safeguard our economy. I thought those opposite were meant to care about that, but, no, they just care about the old economy, just the donors, not about the potential for jobs in clean-energy industries. That is where the future lies and that is what we will keep fighting for.

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

What an extraordinary contribution we have just received from Senator Waters, gloating about the fact that 32 per cent of the people who work in the coal mining industry have lost their jobs. I am quite sure that the 32 per cent of people who have actually lost their jobs probably would not be viewing her comments and her glee at the loss of those jobs particularly well.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. The senator is wilfully misrepresenting me. I certainly did not gloat; I called for a transition plan so that those workers were not abandoned.

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

You are debating, with respect. Resume your seat, Senator Waters.

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

Gloating or not gloating, the fact that the senator did seem to take some joy and some pleasure and was referring to it in a very positive way, I would suggest, would be something that those workers who had lost their jobs would probably view as rather disappointing from somebody who constantly comes into this chamber purporting to support jobs in this country.

But that is not what we are here today to talk about. We are here today to talk about what is a responsible and an achievable target for Australia to be able to meet its obligations and play its part in ensuring that we have responsible and sustainable industry into the future but at the same time we do not completely and utterly decimate our industries, that we do not end up with a situation in Australia where we just push the cost of doing business here so far through the roof that we become a country that it is no longer possible to do competitive business in. This government is a responsible government and it will come up with a balance between what is in the best interests of our environment and what is in the best interests of our economy so that together we can move forward on both of those fronts so that the triple bottom line gets delivered every time, instead of just putting the entire emphasis on one component of the outcome at the detriment of the others.

Mr Acting Deputy President Back, you were in this place when we saw the extraordinary damage that was done when we ignored the triple bottom line with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. In the initial proposals for the implementation of the economic and social impacts on the communities along the Murray River, the Darling, the Murrumbidgee and all the other rivers that make up the connected basin were completely overlooked in the interest of just making sure that we had the most healthy environment we possibly could. Well a healthy environment is all well and good and it would be a tremendously healthy environment, I would imagine, if there was no longer any capacity whatsoever for any community to exist on the river because the environmental outcomes that were sought were so totally restrictive and over the top that these communities could no longer exist.

What we have seen in the last couple of days is a responsible government come out and say, yes, we understand that we have to play our part in emissions reductions. We have said that by 2030 we will reduce those emissions by 26 per cent, possibly even up to 28 per cent. We have done so on the basis that it will be sustainable, it is a deliverable outcome and it is an affordable outcome. So I think this is a strong, credible and responsible target. It is not some pie-in-the-sky thing that you put out there and say we are going to achieve 50 per cent or 60 per cent, which we know is going to be unachievable without massive damage to our economy and possibly unachievable anyway given the kind of economy that Australia is and the industries that Australia has. So why do we not just be honest and set ourselves a target that is responsible and also a target that is not going to completely and utterly destroy our budget, the budget that has already been destroyed by those opposite over the last six years with the help of Labor's colleagues the Greens.

The other thing too is that what we are proposing here is to achieve a target without putting a punitive tax or a punishing tax like a carbon tax on the Australian economy. I think the one thing that we do need to realise is, as much as we would like to see a clean-energy future with us immediately, the reality is that you cannot just go from where we are today to where the Greens and the Labor Party seem to think that we should be by 2030 with the speed that they are proposing. It is just completely unrealistic, unreasonable and unachievable. The fact is that if we did seek and if we did choose to go to a 40 per cent to 60 per cent target reduction, first of all it is projected that it is going to cost $633 billion to be able to achieve that target. Now I am not quite sure where we are supposed to find $633 billion to achieve this target without completely decimating the Australian economy, without turning us into a Second World or a Third World country. It is the most irresponsible proposition that I have ever heard.

It has also been further predicted that there will be a six per cent fall in national income per capita, a $4,900 reduction in take-home pay and a carbon price that would be in excess of $200. I do not know where that quite fits on the world stage when we are out there quoting numbers about the comparative targets that are being sought by countries that we respect. I mean there is not a country in the world that would have a carbon price of over $200 per tonne. Nearly every coal generator in Australia would be closed, and you can imagine the devastation that that would cause for our regional communities, particularly places like Victoria's Latrobe Valley, the Hunter Valley in New South Wales and Central Queensland—the state that Senator Waters purports to be representing. As you can see, it is all well and good to come in here and put out big flashy numbers that are going to go out there and grab the Green vote on election day when we know that there is absolutely no possibility for it to be achieved without such extraordinary damage to our economy, to our communities and to Australia. It is just the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

I need to reiterate that this government, I believe, has the right balance in place for a healthy environment, an economy that will flourish and communities that will remain vibrant. There are a lot of things that the Australian government is doing to ensure that we take a responsible approach to our environment. I could sit here and quote many things, but I will put just a couple on the record to reinforce that this government has a very good track record in environmental behaviour. The amount of money that we have put into the Great Barrier Reef—the commitment of $100 million to the Reef Trust—is an example, and that is in addition to the $40 million that we announced in the 2014 budget. Between us and the government of Queensland, over $2 billion will be invested in the Great Barrier Reef over the next decade. It is all well and good for those down the other end of the chamber to start rabbiting on, but we only have to realise that a lot of the scaremongering that they came up with over this particular issue first of all did a massive amount to damage the reputation of one of the great icons of Australian tourism and, in the process, provided a whole heap of false information. At the end of the day the benefit to the reef, our commitment to its ongoing sustainability, was reinforced with the decision recently that the Great Barrier Reef did not need to be put onto the endangered list.

Another thing is the money that has been invested into water infrastructure. I mentioned the Murray-Darling Basin Plan at the start of my contribution, but that is not the only water infrastructure that we are putting in place to make sure that we have sustainable water delivery into the future with a minimum amount of impact on our river systems. Of course, in the driest continent on the planet it is extraordinarily important that we make sure that our water infrastructure is such that we do not waste a drop of the very precious water that sustains this country and, particularly, allows us to be leaders in primary production and to grow the food that we would like to think that the rest of the world aspires to have. We need to remember that for all the badgering, bantering and misinformation that gets put out into the public domain—particularly by those at the other end of the chamber in this space—this Australian government has a great track record of delivering on the promises in the environmental space.

Finally, before I conclude I would like to make the point that it is all well and good for us to have all these wonderful targets, particularly in relation to renewable energy and that we no longer burn fossil fuels, but until we can actually come up with a system that allows us to store the power that is generated from our renewable energy sources—wind and solar—we really are being very foolish. We still will require baseload power. Unless we can store this power in such a way that, when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, we have a source of continued and reliable energy we have a situation that is completely unsustainable. If we close all of our coal fired stations down before we are able to store this energy in a way that is cheap enough to be affordable to the Australian community then all we are doing is condemning this nation to a very backward and retrograde place. (Time expired)

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For two reasons yesterday was both was both a fateful and a painful symbolic day in our Australian national life. One reason was Tony Abbott sabotaging the push towards—

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

Point of order. Refer to—

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Abbott—pardon.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You do not need to call a point of order when you are in the chair.

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

I do not; you are right. Order! Thank you, Senator Conroy.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One reason was Mr Abbott sabotaging the push towards marriage equality, but it was also a painful, fateful day and a symbolic day on the fundamental human challenge of climate change. If ever a single day highlighted a government stuck in the past, up against Labor's responsible vision for the future, it was yesterday. If ever a single day highlighted a government wedded privately to climate change denial and political game playing up against Labor's vision to protect our children's future and provide jobs for tomorrow, it was indeed yesterday. If ever a single day highlighted a dangerous and cynical government putting itself ahead of the future survival and security of Australians, as well as humanity more broadly, it was yesterday. Yesterday's emissions reduction target announced by the Abbott government was a cynical political exercise and nothing more. It was a cynical and ham-fisted attempt to con Australian voters that Mr Abbott actually gives a damn on climate change and therefore actually gives a damn about their future health and security. It was indeed a cynical attempt to minimise and neutralise, at least on the Australian political stage, one of the most fundamental issues facing humanity.

This government knows it is losing the hearts and minds of concerned Australians on the crucial issue of climate change, and yesterday was a cynical attempt to con voters with a token one-off dog whistle that said: 'Trust us, folks. We've ticked the box on this climate change stuff. Now let's forget all about it all and talk about other stuff.' But Australians are too smart and too concerned to fall for that.

Independent polling commissioned by the Climate Institute and conducted by Galaxy Research in recent weeks shows that 70 per cent of Australians believe climate change is happening and nine out of 10 of those people accept that human activity like carbon pollution is to blame. That means climate change deniers and sceptics now represent less than a third of the Australian population. Furthermore, 65 per cent of Australians oppose cutting investment in wind farms and household solar, in stark contrast to the Abbott government's savage attacks on those crucial industries and their jobs of tomorrow. Fifty-nine per cent of Australians think our nation should be a world leader in finding solutions to climate change—in stark contrast to the Abbott government unveiling one of the weakest pollution reduction targets in the developed world. And, even before yesterday's weak and token gesture, 59 per cent of Australians believed the Abbott government underestimates the seriousness of climate change. Only 16 per cent think he is actually committed to it.

Labor will take real action on climate change, and we will not be intimidated by ridiculous, deceitful scare campaigns. We will fight to give young Australians a secure and healthy future, on a secure and healthy planet, in a secure and healthy economy that is geared towards the jobs and markets of tomorrow. We will fight climate change through an emissions trading scheme and a renewable energy target of 50 per cent by 2030.

Despite the Abbott government's immediate, predictable and deceitful scaremongering, the vast majority of Australians have shown support and understanding for Labor's vision. Essential Report polling in recent weeks has shown that 65 per cent of Australians approve of Labor's renewable energy target of 50 per cent by 2030. And it showed that even 45 per cent of coalition voters approve of Labor's target. Not only is the coalition's policy a woefully hollow con; it is also scarcely credible.

We and other Australians deserve to see the modelling and the data on which the government has based this poor decision. An emissions reduction target without scientific modelling and methodology to explain it is not really a target at all. It is just a token cop-out. It is just buying political time. Already, expert commentators are suggesting that even the Abbott government's target announced yesterday will be impossible to meet without some kind of market-based mechanism similar to Labor's proposed emissions trading scheme and renewable energy target. In other words, they cannot even achieve their weak, token target without adopting something similar to the very Labor policies they constantly mislead and deceive and scaremonger about. Only last week RepuTex modelling showed that, in the next decade, the Abbott government's policies will see Australia's emissions rise by 20 per cent—not decline, but rise by 20 per cent.

While tragic, the coalition's latest climate failure is no surprise. It continues a pattern of private denial, distraction and betrayal and it endangers Australia's very physical and economic future. The Prime Minister cannot undo the momentum around the globe that is being led by the United States, the United Kingdom, China and so many other countries. Let us just have a quick look at that momentum in regard to the time frame of 2005 to 2030. The United States has made a commitment to 41 per cent by 2030. Germany has made a commitment of 46 per cent. The United Kingdom has made a commitment of about 48 per cent by 2030. So the Prime Minister has to stop deceiving Australians. In contrast, Labor will keep faith with future generations on climate change. We will embrace the jobs and opportunities available with a clean energy future and we will pursue the genuine, proactive policies that help protect and employ Australians for generations to come.

John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government think we may be able to reduce emissions by up to 28 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. They think this commitment balances Australia's environmental and economic responsibilities. They say we can achieve the target through low-cost abatement while still being able to maintain strong economic and jobs growth. Let us hope so.

The Labor Party endorsed the Climate Change Authority's target of 40 to 60 per cent at their national conference recently. The opposition had already flagged its obedience to the wind industry and union owned super funds when it announced its hypothetical, uncosted 'aspirational' 50 per cent renewable energy target thought bubble.

One of the objectives of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 is to 'to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases in the electricity sector'. The RET is already costing electricity consumers in the order of up to $45 million. The RET is a rising stealth tax on electricity which relies on the premise that electricity created from renewable energy infrastructure will reduce emissions.

Are modern-day wind turbines capable of reducing emissions and, if so, at what social, economic and environmental cost? We know all too well the divisive social impact wind farms have on rural communities. The economic benefits of wind turbines flow to offshore, subsidy-hungry wind farm operators. And environmentally? It is not possible to build, operate or maintain a wind turbine without a reliance on fossil fuels. In 2012 the founder of the Greens, Dr James Lovelock, described wind turbines as monuments to a failed society. He said:

I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood … We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs.

Back in 2004 Dr Lovelock told Australia's 60 Minutes:

At the best, wind power cannot provide more than a tiny fraction of the energy needs of civilisation. It's a nice idea. It looks good. It's showy. I think it's one of those things politicians like because it can be seen that they're doing something. But in practice, it's not really a useful remedy.

Those in the chamber who want an emissions target higher than the government's are the same senators who mindlessly advocate for the installation of environmentally destructive, fossil fuel dependent, industrial wind turbines

These senators seem happy to burden Australian families, farmers, manufacturers, food processors and businesses with the extra financial pressures that will come with increased emissions reduction costs. They threaten Australia's competitiveness. Perhaps, too, they just want to look good, showy and like they are doing something.

Why don't those who are howling with selective moral outrage who want to commit this country to an irresponsibly higher emissions target and potentially put Australia's social and economic prosperity at further risk do us all a favour? Don't get in a dirty, polluting Comcar to travel to and from the airport. Don't get on a fossil fuel dependent flight to Canberra when parliament sits 20 weeks a year. Think of all those emissions you will be saving. Do your bit to supplement what Senator Siewert says is the Abbott government's week and dangerous carbon pollution reduction target and stay at home. Lead by example and perform your Senate duties, low emissions style by skype or teleconference. Make some use of the recklessly expensive NBN. Better still, make sure your computer is only powered by electricity that is created by wind turbines. At least that way, we are only likely to hear from you 30 per cent of the time.