Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, four proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senate Siewert.

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The complete failure of the Turnbull Government to develop a climate and energy policy, resulting in Australia's emissions increasing since 2013 and contributing to an increase in global carbon pollution in 2017.

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.

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

As climate change talks commence in Bonn, a report released on Monday shows that global carbon emissions have risen in 2017 by two per cent on 2016 levels. This means the world will belch 37 billion tonnes of CO2 this year alone. Let's reflect on that. We have seen an increase in global carbon emissions at a time when the science is telling us that we urgently need to reduce emissions.

On the Turnbull government's watch, since 2013, Australia's emissions have continued to increase. Since 2013—I say that again—our emissions have continued to go up and up and up. We are now facing the loss of the Great Barrier Reef. We are seeing global climate systems completely disrupted, record storms through the Atlantic and records broken through each year, and yet we see our emissions here in Australia continue to increase. Why has that occurred? It is because we have a government with no plan to cut pollution, no coherent climate policy and no coherent energy policy. This is a government totally captured by the fossil fuel interests of its big business donors. The government has ruled out a renewable energy target. It has ruled out a clean energy target, despite commissioning the Chief Scientist to conduct a comprehensive report on it. It has of course ruled out the most efficient mechanism by which to reduce emissions—that is, a comprehensive, economy-wide price on carbon pollution.

We now have the introduction of the farcical National Energy Guarantee, a policy designed to put a handbrake on renewables and to keep dirty coal-fired power stations open. In one of the most bizarre turns this year, we saw the Prime Minister instruct one of the big energy operators to keep a dirty, polluting coal-fired power station open, as the centrepiece of the government's climate policy. This coal-fired power station would be more at home in 1960s Russia than it is in a modern, 21st century economy. Sadly, the LNP is absolutely hell-bent on appeasing the coal lobby and, of course, on appeasing its own vocal right wing, led by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. It's prioritising its big corporate donations from the fossil fuel industry over a livable climate, over our precious places like the Great Barrier Reef. It seems its intention is to make sure that the dollars just keep rolling in and that vested interests are kept on side: 'We've got to have the money flowing, even if we lose the Great Barrier Reef, even if people are in climates and environments that are uninhabitable.' It seems that the dollars are much more important than our children's and our grandchildren's future.

We are seeing now in Bonn that Australia is trashing our international reputation. We are an international pariah right now, receiving a Fossil of the Day Award, following on from the prestigious awards that we were able to win at the previous climate talks and the ones before that. ANU Professor Frank Jotzo says that the possibility of achieving Australia's 2030 Paris climate target is now slipping away, slipping further from reach. This is a disgrace. The science is telling us in which direction we need to be moving, and we have a Liberal Party taking us in precisely the opposite direction. Our neighbours are so frustrated by Australia's behaviour that we had the leader of Tuvalu publicly declaring, 'Australia is stuck in the Dark Ages with its reliance on dirty fossil fuels.'

We are at crisis point. We have an opportunity to take our economy out of the 19th century and into the 21st century, with a solution that is good for jobs, good for prices and, most importantly of all, good for the environment. We Greens have a plan to do that. We've got a policy that sets out a plan to transition communities so that Australia can go from being the worst per capita polluter in the world to one of the best, least-polluting countries. We can do that by making sure that we produce at least 90 per cent of our energy from clean, renewable energy resources. We can do that by 2030. Of course, we need to stop the Carmichael Adani mine in its tracks if we are to have any chance of meeting the climate targets that we agreed to in Paris, if we are to have any chance of achieving that two-degree temperature reduction that the climate so desperately needs.

Queensland are about to head to the polls. They know the Greens are the party standing between them and the construction of the Adani coalmine. They know that we are the only party that have committed to ensuring that this mine does not get built—and that means no taxpayer funded handouts, regardless of whatever form they take. We were pleased to see, under pressure, the Queensland state government indicate they would refuse to support the NAIF loan, but this is the same party that has supported secret royalty deals to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. That is taxpayer money going to support a project that will cook the planet. It is the Queensland Labor Party, of course with the support of the LNP opposition, that wants to give that Adani mine unlimited access to groundwater in the Great Artesian Basin. It is the same party that wants to continue to see that rail line being built, that port being built and the risk to the Great Barrier Reef as that coal is shipped through to go on to continue to fuel dangerous climate change.

Queenslanders now have a choice. In a few days time they have an opportunity to put in place three wonderful, outstanding representatives—Kirsten Lovejoy in McConnel, Amy MacMahon in South Brisbane and Michael Berkman in Maiwar—to send a very strong statement to whoever should form government in Queensland at the next election that the community does not want to see that Adani mine built. Today we learnt that the former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce and Minister Canavan have written to the Chinese government and said, 'If private financiers won't fund it, we want you to fund it.' It's another secret deal that we see this government entering into, with the Chinese government, begging for support for that coalmine. In a few short days the people of Queensland will have an opportunity to make such a strong statement about where their values stand. The only thing that stands between them and the Adani coalmine is the Australian Greens. Vote for Kirsten Lovejoy, Amy MacMahon and Michael Berkman and say to the next Queensland government, 'This cannot be built.' (Time expired)

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance proposed by Senator Siewert of the Greens. I have to say, I'm not surprised by the breathtaking level of economic illiteracy on display. As everyone in this place knows, Australia's carbon footprint is a minuscule percentage of global emissions and, even if we were to slash our carbon output to zero, it would have no impact on global temperatures.

The government is taking strong action required to protect Australian industry, to protect Australian jobs, to keep the lights on and to comply with our international obligations. Those opposite would rather see working Australians out of a job as those jobs are moved offshore to countries with much cheaper electricity than Australia, often with electricity that's generated by burning Australian coal! The irony of that should not be lost on anybody.

When the South Australian Labor government demolished coal-fired power stations, the stations were having no impact on global temperatures but the government were condemning their state to a second summer of brownouts, potential blackouts and energy rationing. Obviously, it's almost impossible—it's very, very difficult, indeed—to keep a viable manufacturing sector going if you have those sorts of pressures. Conversely, the government have a plan to make our electricity supply more reliable and more efficient while, at the same time, meeting our international emissions reduction obligations. Through the coalition's National Energy Guarantee, we are bringing to an end government subsidies for renewable energy, which will bring us back to a technology-neutral energy policy which will allow energy providers to invest in the reliable, baseload capacity that Australians need.

The National Energy Guarantee is made up of two parts, integrating both energy and climate policy. The first is a reliability guarantee that is set to ensure a reliable level of dispatchable energy is always available from ready-to-use sources such as coal, gas, pumped hydro and, potentially, batteries. This guarantee will be set by the experts—the AEMC and the Australian Energy Market Operator. The second is an emissions guarantee, which will be set to ensure we continue to meet our international commitments. The level of this guarantee will be determined by the Commonwealth and enforced by the Australian Energy Regulator. The National Energy Guarantee is a practical, workable, pro-market policy to increase the affordability and reliability of our energy system whilst also meeting our international commitments.

Once again—and I think this is a very important point—we have to highlight that the policy is technology neutral. Our policy allows energy providers to make decisions on the source of supply whilst maintaining reliability. 'Reliability'—it's another word for keeping the lights on. I reiterate: there will be no subsidies, no taxes and no emissions trading scheme. This policy will provide power generators with the certainty they require to invest in the latest technologies—whatever technology is most efficient and effective for meeting their obligations. It could be batteries; it could be the next generation of low-emission, high-efficiency coal-fired power stations. Who knows? One day we might see a fourth-generation nuclear reactor or some new technology that, quite frankly, nobody in this place even knows about yet. These cutting-edge, low-emission technologies can produce cheap, reliable energy for Australians while simultaneously reducing our dependency on gas and our vulnerability to fluctuations on the price and supply of LNG.

Our policy isn't based on ideology; it's based on a deliberative evaluation of the evidence. The government doesn't engage in knee-jerk, ideological policymaking. That is why we commissioned the Finkel review into the future of the national energy market, following the disastrous statewide energy blackout experienced in South Australia in September 2016. It's simply not acceptable that, in a First World country as prosperous and energy-rich as Australia, we'd find ourselves in a situation where we cannot keep the lights on just because it happens to be a bit warm. We're used to it being a bit warm.

In addition to implementing the National Energy Guarantee, the coalition is already implementing a number of Finkel review recommendations in conjunction with state and territory governments, including the energy security obligation, which provides the necessary support services that have traditionally come from coal generation and assist in stabilising the system as the level of intermittent generation increases. We're also implementing a requirement that there be a three-year notice of closure, requiring large generators to give notice before closing their facilities. This gives the market time to plan and invest in the system. Whilst some will jump up and down, bemoaning the end of the renewable energy subsidies, I would remind them of the words of Australia's Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, who described this plan as 'a credible mechanism'—this is from the country's most authoritative voice on energy matters.

When we're thinking about the guarantee, we should look at who is out there supporting it. We have seen support for the plan from across a wide range of industry groups and industry sectors. We've seen it from the BCA, ACCI, AiG, Manufacturing Australia and the Energy Users' Association. We've seen it from employers like BHP, BlueScope and JBS meat processors—large energy users. We've also seen support from the energy industry itself: Origin, AGL, EnergyAustralia and Energy Networks Australia. We've seen it from the irrigation sector. We've seen it from the grocers. We've seen it from the mining industry. We've seen it from the forest products industry. We've seen it from groups involved in infrastructure. We've seen it from the Grattan Institute and from energy consumers. The CEO of BCA, representing more than one million Australian jobs, says:

It is the most practicable, workable thing we've seen in business for quite some time.

The CEO of BlueScope, Australia's largest manufacturer, said:

It turns the game around—where now, the effective functioning of homes, businesses, schools and hospitals is the priority.

That's a very important point. We need to get back to reliability again. The effective functioning of homes, businesses, schools and hospitals is the priority. Surely no-one in this place would say that should not be the priority of anybody setting Australia's energy policy going forward?

We've also seen from the coalition government a significant amount of work in this space on the domestic gas supply. This affects the eastern states much more than my home state of Western Australia, where we are very fortunate to be very gas rich. In fact, part of what the coalition government is doing is undertaking a feasibility study in an east-west pipeline to see whether the vast resources of gas in Western Australia can be economically transported to the eastern states, which would obviously open a new market for Western Australian gas but would also add to the reliability and put downward pressure on costs in the eastern states, which currently have some of the highest energy prices in the world.

On the east coast itself, the coalition government secured a deal with the gas producers that will cover projected shortfalls in domestic gas supply in 2018 and 2019. This has already delivered results, with Origin committing to put 41 petajoules into the domestic gas market starting 1 November 2017 through to 2018. Again, we're making sure there is enough gas for Australia. This is about providing the reliability of supply to keep our manufacturers in business, to keep the turbines spinning and to keep the power going into people's homes, people's businesses, hospitals, banks and schools. This is a very positive outcome and it was a welcome relief to Australian households and businesses who have been struggling with the lack of supply and high prices.

The long-term solution, as I've said, is the National Energy Guarantee. We obviously need to keep working on the detail of this policy with the state and territory governments, but this is a plan that will deliver real benefits to the people of Australia. This is a plan that will deliver a reliable energy supply to the households and businesses of Australia whilst meeting our international obligations—again, very important. We are meeting our international obligations and I'm very proud to be part of a government that is doing so.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that the first two speakers have summed up many of the debates that we've had in this place since I arrived. Senator Di Natale, in his contribution, started by referring to the current international conference that's being held on energy and climate in Bonn and talking about the information which has been widely circulated—many people have read it—in terms of concerns about where our world is going in the international response to energy and concerns going to our future. Senator Brockman, when he started his contribution, after he made the traditional slap at the Greens for their economic knowledge, made the point, and we've heard this so many times in this place, that we are a low emitter and that nothing we can do here will have any impact on the international stage. The natural consideration that came from that, although Senator Brockman did not say this, is: why should we do anything? I've been here through many debates about what our role is, what we should be doing about climate change nationally and what our energy policy is. It seems to me that those two represent the extremes in the debate. There does not seem to be any understanding of a common response to the issue. That's one of the real issues. Senator Siewert's proposal says: the failure of the government to develop an effective energy plan. Certainly the shadow minister in our party, Mr Butler, has talked in many places recently about the series of attempts there have been under this government to come up with a plan and that still, in November 2017, we do not have a detailed plan before us.

I'll give a little bit of the history first because I looked it up and I feel as though I should mention it. In terms of the process, the emissions intensity scheme was talked about in 2014-15. It was a proposal from the Australian Energy Market Commission, AEMC, in 2015 which was the result of a large amount of consultation about what should be the national energy plan. By and large, that's what went to the last election: modelling to ensure that there was an emissions intensity scheme according to the different baselines, making an emissions reduction target of 45 per cent by 2030. The idea was that this would respond to concerns raised by industry, by households and by the wider community about exactly how our energy system fits and what the best way to operate it is. Importantly, I think there is a growing awareness of the way the world operates in terms of emissions—that it doesn't matter where the emissions come from; they still build up, so we cannot segment ourselves in Australia or in New Zealand or in Bonn. We have to look at the overall issue, because we cannot hide from the international impact.

This has been brought home to me very clearly, as I believe it has with you, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, when we have had the opportunity to talk with people in our Pacific areas. I've been very, very impressed by the range of discussions I've had with our Pacific neighbours, not only with people in government but also with people in the wider community, in civil society. Farmers that I have met in different areas openly discuss issues of climate change and how it impacts on their livelihoods and on their life. In the Pacific, we have seen land being lost to the sea. There's no firmer argument to the fact that something is happening than actually seeing that your own backyard is disappearing. A call has been made by our neighbours that we do have an international responsibility. That's part of the wider discussion. This is not something that you can separate and put to the side. This is part of the discussion we must have in Australia about how we develop a plan and what the international and domestic obligations are going to be. We cannot hide from that.

As I mentioned, the emissions intensity scheme was plan 1 on the agenda, and the government moved away from that. They said that it wasn't going to happen and that they would move in another direction. That was when we first heard about the intention to refer a general investigation to the Chief Scientist. We discussed that in this place. I can remember having discussions about what the role would be, how the Chief Scientist would consult and the public way in which he would go out and seek a range of views on how to develop an effective energy policy from the scientists, from the users, from the community and in fact from anyone who wanted to be involved, because this was a public process. The information on what was going on was put out to the community and people had the opportunity to put in submissions. Then, based on those submissions, there were a range of public hearings and discussions. That is a format with which we are familiar; it was very similar to the way we operate in the committee process.

The response across the board again proved that people in the community wanted to be involved in decisions about our energy policy. They were not backward in coming forward, in bringing forward a whole range of ideas and concerns. Not all agreed. We never have full consensus in this space, but it showed that people were thinking about these issues and wanted to be involved, but they wanted their government to listen and they wanted their government to come up with a plan. Out of that came the quite detailed Finkel review process. We debated that in here, Madam Acting Deputy President. I feel certain we had a bit of a go at each other—probably; that is the way it works. We debated how the Finkel process would operate, how his recommendations would be implemented and why there was an expectation that change would happen. That was an agreement. There was a recommendation from Finkel particularly around renewable energy targets, the sources of our energy, how it would operate, taking into account all the concerns that had been raised and the best minds who work daily in this space.

Then the government moved away from that process as well and we heard there was going to be another process. We heard that through someone coming into the chamber and telling us that there was going to be another iteration of a plan. Senator Brockman mentioned the details of that plan in his contribution. I was pleased, because he had 10 minutes, but we only have an eight-page document in front of us to cover all the intricacies of the plan in public knowledge, and I think he did a really good job. I think he mentioned most of the public awareness and knowledge of the so-called NEG that's now before us as the plan that's going forward. I remember clearly at our recent Senate estimates process that we were asking a range of questions about exactly what the new plan was and what modelling was being done on how it would actually work. What we need to have is not theory, though it's very important to have a solid base of theory.

I look across to the One Nation team and I expect to see Senator Roberts there because he was such a strong contributor to the debate and he kept asking for empirical evidence. He wanted evidence around plans, which is an absolutely valid issue. You need to have evidence. You need to have documentation. Whether you accept the evidence is another issue, but you need to actually have detail which you can consider and work out what the future plans are going to be. That's what we don't have now.

In the proposed new plan that the government has gone out marketing very strongly in the community through the media, there is not a lot of detail and there certainly is not modelling of exactly how we are going to balance Australia's energy needs; how we will look at the way we are going to work with our energy; as Senator Brockman rightly put it, how we are going to keep the lights on, which is the basis of what people are concerned about; how we are going to do that in the most efficient way; how we are going to keep prices down, which of course is the overwhelming fear element that's always run in these arguments about maintaining low prices; and at the same time how we are going to meet our international obligations, because we still have strong international obligations.

I'm concerned about the information that has come out from the Bonn conference. People are worried about whether Australia is going to be able to maintain the obligations that Prime Minister Turnbull made at the original Paris conference. We have made a commitment that we are going to be part of an international reduction of emissions so that we can respond to the international issue of climate change. In the last week at the recent conference the Prime Minister attended, he reaffirmed that we were going to be continuing our role in that process. But what we don't know from the plan before us is how that is going to happen. In taking up Senator Siewert's notice of motion we are working on— (Time expired)

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will say that Senator Moore is right: Senator Roberts is sorely missed in this place, especially when it comes to debates to do with climate change. He was the only one in this place who really had a clear understanding and knew how to debate this issue.

I believe that a lot of people have been led down the garden path so far as climate change goes. I remember Professor Tim Flannery making comments over the years like: 'We will never have floods again. This whole country is in drought. Therefore, we must build these desalination plants.' So what did we do? We went out and built all these desalination plants to be left in mothballs, costing taxpayers approximately $31 million a year—that's for one—to have them in mothballs. We were listening to these professors who went and bleated their beliefs—it was never the case—'The fact is we've got these rising seas and waters and all this flooding will happen.' Well, it's yet to happen.

We have used climate change as a furphy. People have no understanding of it. Over the years I've listened to sceptics, to people that are scientists who are saying it is happening and to scientists saying, 'No, it's not happening.' These scientists have been employed by certain organisations because they've got a job now; there's a lot of money in it. Taxpayers are funding this to the tune of billions of dollars. It's become a political football. Even in our educational system, we are actually pushing this agenda. It's being used as a political football without clear science.

None of us, not even I, can get up and speak with regard to science. Do I know exactly what's happening? No, I don't; I have to rely on others to try and give the right information. How many times have we heard now that they've taken the temperature out in deserts or in concrete jungles and have come back with a temperature gauge and it's not the case at all? I'm not denying there is climate change, but is it man-made? Has anyone stopped to think about the volcanic eruptions that are happening or the earthquakes that are happening? Have we actually been looking at the factors? What about the atomic bombs that have been let off in this world? Has that had an impact on it?

The oceans actually make about 97 per cent of emissions, and we're talking about a small, minuscule amount that's supposed to be created by humans on the planet.

Labor's policy of 50 per cent renewable energies by around about 2030 is absolutely ridiculous. We are not going to cope. If you head down that path, we are going to end up as a Third World country. We are feeling the effects of it now. People are struggling to pay their power bills. In Queensland, 430 people a week are unable to pay their bills and are being cut off by their power suppliers. I've just come back from India. If you think you've got problems here, go over to India—the smog that's in that country there. They're burning fires to get warmth because they don't have coal-fired power stations or the coal that they need to give themselves energy, so they're burning anything on the streets to get warmth and cook their food.

Here in Australia we have energy resources. We have an abundance of coal and gas, but we don't keep it for our own needs or energy here in Australia—to keep our own manufacturing industry going and so the pensioners can turn on a fan or heating when it suits them. We are destroying our own country because you're headed down this path where we've got to appease everyone else without protecting ourselves.

Renewables will come. There will be a time for that when we actually have the technology to be able to store the energy. But to head down this path, destroying families, businesses, industries and manufacturing when most of us in this place have no idea what we're talking about when we're making legislation—I think you have to look at the factors and start looking after our own country first without being led by those who have more to gain by selling their own product. They don't understand and they don't give two hoots about the people in this country who are struggling to keep their heads above water. What I'd say to the Greens and about the Adani— (Time expired)

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

What a pleasure to follow Senator Hanson, who has made a sensible, rational contribution to this debate, like my colleague Senator Brockman earlier. It's pleasing to see some rationality and common sense coming into this whole debate.

The Turnbull government is focused on keeping the lights on and getting more affordable power to Australian households and businesses. Senator Hanson has just indicated how many people and businesses cannot afford to use electricity because of the cost of power, particularly in my home state of Queensland. Why? It is because the Queensland Labor government own the generators, and, for years, they've been gouging the price—adding to the price—to try and prop up their budget. 'Forget about the households or the small businesses. We need to try and balance our budget.' They've chased any other investment away from Queensland, so that's why power prices are so high in Queensland.

Our approach is driven by engineering and economics, not by ideology. It brings together the advice of the very best experts in the field, whereas from the Greens you get all the mantra, ideology and stuff they've read in left-wing papers around the world. It doesn't make any sense. They can never argue the case. They don't understand the issue. They just mouth the rhetoric and put that out as policy.

The Turnbull government has adopted the National Energy Guarantee, which is a practical, workable, pro-market policy to increase the affordability and reliability of our energy system whilst also meeting our international commitments. I have to remind everyone: Australia is one of the few countries—under Liberal governments, I might add—that has actually met its target from Kyoto and previous targets from Paris. We do that without subsidies. There are no subsidies, no taxes and no emissions trading schemes. The Turnbull government is focusing on this because the provision of affordable power is so important to every mum and dad and every household right throughout Australia, but more particularly so in my home state of Queensland.

You've heard the Greens in this debate and elsewhere talk about how these carbon emissions are destroying the world and destroying the Great Barrier Reef. I keep asking a question, and none of them will ever tell me the answer, because they can't. The question is: how come Australia's share of the world's emissions, 1.2 per cent—keep that figure in your mind—is going to change the whole climate of the world? In fact, when I questioned the Chief Scientist, Dr Finkel, about that and asked, 'If we stopped our emissions by 1.2 per cent, which is everything in Australia, what difference would that make to the changing climate of the world?' his answer was, 'Virtually none.'

Senator Williams has done some research into this with the help of the Parliamentary Library. He has shown me figures, and the Parliamentary Library has got them, where new power stations in China alone—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Coal-fired power stations.

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

Coal-fired power stations; thank you, Senator Williams. New ones—these are not existing ones—have a carbon emission of something above 2,000.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is 670 million tonnes.

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

It is 670 million tonnes. But, in units, it's somewhere around 2,300, I think. Australia, just to keep these figures in mind, has 73. These are new, coal-fired, emission-generating units. In China alone, they are above 2,000; in Australia, we are under 100. Yet the Greens are saying: 'This is what we've got to do in Australia. We've got to shut business down and export jobs overseas.' They say we've got to do all this so we get a warm, fuzzy feeling and so we can go to the green international conference somewhere around the world and say, 'Oh, look, Australia's cut its emissions by 50 per cent.' The Labor Party, unfortunately, have fallen for that gag as well. It will mean nothing to the changing climate of the world. Don't take my word for it; ask Dr Finkel. It will mean absolutely nothing if we cut it by 20 per cent, 30 per cent, 50 per cent or, according to Dr Finkel, 100 per cent, and yet the Greens would ruin every manufacturing-job-creating exercise in Australia.

That's why they're so opposed to the Adani project. The Adani project won't, in any material way, export carbon, and what it does will have absolutely no impact on the changing climate of the world—absolutely none. But it will create jobs in Queensland—particularly up my way—it will create wealth in Queensland, and it will enable the Queensland government, whoever's in power after Saturday, to almost pay their bills, because of the royalties that will come in from the mining of this clean, abundant, natural coal we have not far from where I live. It's waiting there to be tapped. When it's tapped, it won't impact upon the changing climate of the world and will certainly not have any impact on the Great Barrier Reef. But it will create jobs. It will provide electricity for the starving millions in India—but that doesn't seem to be a concern of the Greens in this particular debate.

I say to the Greens: please explain. I keep asking them. I've been doing this for, I think, 10 years now, when this issue of climate change first came up. I've been asking the Greens to explain to me: if Australia—which emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions—cuts its emissions by 50 per cent, how is that going to change the changing climate of the world? None of them will ever answer me. Why? Because there isn't an answer. Or there is an answer, but Dr Finkel has given it; Dr Finkel said it won't make any difference whatsoever. But it does make a difference to people I know—people up in Townsville who desperately need the jobs and who desperately need the work from Adani. For the small businesses that run off that—the accommodation, the houses and restaurants and all of those people that will benefit from the Adani project—it means big things to them.

So I plead with the Greens: give me an answer. I keep asking them. Senator Roberts, when he was here, used to keep asking them, but they always ignored that. They go on about how horrible we are, how we don't understand, how the latte set in Sydney think we are all troglodytes—yes, thanks to the Greens' propaganda. But give me an answer to that. Australia, I keep repeating, emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. China each year—or week, was it? I forget what it is, but let's say each year—exudes more carbon with its new power stations—not the old ones, the new ones—than Australia has been emitting for years.

I say to the Greens: how come it's okay for China? How come it's okay for India? How come it's okay for Russia? They're all okay, but poor little old Australia emits practically nothing, makes no impact on the changing climate of the world, and yet the Greens political party—and Labor, I'm sorry, have gone along with them—think there are a few votes in it from the ignorant latte set around the leafy suburbs of Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. Those people might vote for the Greens and the Labor Party. The Labor Party and Greens keep fighting each other for that cohort of votes.

But ask any of the people at the latte place next time you go there, Senator Rice—ask them how is it that Australia's emissions are somehow going to destroy the Great Barrier Reef? I'd ask you to ask that. They'll just open up the Green Left Weekly and read out the propaganda that pops out of the paper, but none of them will understand it. None of them will ever be able to argue the case. Sure, if the rest of the world stop their carbon emissions, so should Australia; I've never challenged that proposition. But, until they do, why does Australia destroy itself and the jobs of its people and its standard of living for a meaningless ideological, warm-feeling approach for the latte set in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane?

This is a debate which I think more and more Australians are starting to understand is just ideological claptrap from the Greens, regrettably being now mirrored by the Labor Party as they fight for Greens votes. (Time expired)

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

I also rise to speak on the matter of public importance, and I think it is with great pleasure that I follow One Nation and their friend Senator Macdonald in this debate.

I note Senator Hanson said, when she first started speaking, that today she spoke with reluctance, as it was normally her colleague the former Senator Roberts—who was of course found by the High Court to be ineligible to be a senator, a dual citizen—who swamped the chamber with his ridiculous theories and conspiracies. The speech that we just heard from Senator Hanson sounded just like something her former colleague would have said: full of conspiracies and lacking any empirical evidence. You can love coal, but to love Australia you should embrace all energy options. If you don't like things because of their colour, don't discount something because of its colour. Listen to the real scientists, listen to the energy industry and let's get people across the country back into work in our energy industry. Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost in our renewable energy sector since 2014 because of scaremongering and short-term anti-scientific policies. But we can do better, so get your head out of the smog and let the cool breeze of windmills and the warm glow of solar panels improve the energy security for this country.

This matter of public important reads:

The complete failure of the Turnbull Government to develop a climate and energy policy, resulting in Australia's emissions increasing since 2013 and contributing to an increase in global carbon pollution in 2017.

This is certainly an important matter of public importance for us to debate.

But, before I get into my argument, I just want to point out that there appears to be a drafting error in the motion. I hate to be semantic, but if we're going to attack the Turnbull government for their abject failure on climate and energy policy then we have to get our facts right first. According to the data I've seen—the empirical evidence, as former Senator Roberts would say—emissions actually decreased from 2013 to 2014 by six megatonnes. It's an important point. It demonstrates the worth of this chamber resisting attempts in late 2013 to repeal the carbon price, a carbon price that provided certainty to industry and investors, and the total emissions allowed in the Australian economy and let the market resolve how best to produce the energy.

I've also had to point out a much bigger mistake than a drafting error from the Greens, and it was back in 2009. Under the leadership of former Senator Bob Brown, the Greens voted against Labor's original Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. As it is today, climate change was an urgent policy area back in 2009. The commitment of the Labor Party to take action on climate change was a key factor in the 2007 election. Yet, for their own reasons, which make absolutely no sense, the Greens voted with the Liberals and Nationals. They voted with the member for Warringah, Mr Abbott, and opposed Labor's action—action that would have introduced a mechanism to ensure that prices were affordable, that our electricity infrastructure was reliable and that we promoted technology that is sustainable, low carbon and, where possible, carbon free. I say the reasons made absolutely no sense because, when the Greens finally did support Labor on climate change action in 2011, the mechanism within the legislation to reduce carbon pollution was almost identical to that in the earlier 2009 bill.

While there was that delay of two years, all that was really achieved was the creation of space for Mr Abbott to launch his dangerous, ill-informed scare campaign—a scare campaign that his former senior adviser Peta Credlin finally admitted earlier this year was all about politics and nothing about economics or the environment. It's important to point out that this delay of two years enabled Mr Abbott to take the leadership and commit the next five years to repealing the carbon price, only to fail to replace it with any credible climate change or energy policies when it was finally repealed.

So when the Greens get up in this place and say, 'We must take urgent action on climate change,' I do agree with them, but I remind them of their ideological move in 2009 that is a big part of how we ended up with such a failure of climate and energy policy in this country. While the Greens failures are clear, the failure of the Turnbull and Abbott government is much, much worse. Under their watch, Australian emissions have increased and we've been left without an energy policy for over four years.

The member for Wentworth once famously said that he would not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as he was—I emphasise 'was'. In his lust for power, this Prime Minister has thrown out everything he once stood for publicly. He's thrown out his long-held, leather-jacket-wearing commitment to action on climate change. He's thrown out his support for renewables. He's thrown out his support for Australia as a leader in this space. Who do we have instead? We have a desperate Prime Minister, a hapless Prime Minister who has abandoned reasonable policy processes. He has abandoned his beloved proper cabinet processes and rushed out his so-called National Energy Guarantee without any analysis or modelling by the Department of the Environment and Energy and without adequate consultation with industry or with the states.

This is a timely matter of public importance because just yesterday the Global Carbon Project reported new data showing global CO2 emissions have risen for the first time in three years. Coinciding with that report on Monday, 15,364 scientists from around 180 countries signed an article appearing in BioScience that stated unequivocally:

To prevent widespread misery and catastrophic biodiversity loss, humanity must practice a more environmentally sustainable alternative to business as usual.

I repeat: over 15,000 scientists from around 180 countries have said that business as usual will lead to widespread misery and catastrophic biodiversity loss unless we stop what we're doing and curb our per capita consumption of fossil fuels. Unless we change the behaviours more broadly, our earth will become uninhabitable. This isn't an ideological dream. This is the revisiting of a study from 1992 by eight climate scientists who are supported by over 15,000 other scientists.

The report from 1992, which was at that point signed by more than 1,700 scientists, entitled World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, warned that humans were on a collision course with the natural world. The updated article, released on Monday, found that, across nine indicators, humanity is failing our planet, and Australia needs to do its bit—Australia needs to lift its game. This is something that our Prime Minister once understood. This shouldn't be a partisan argument. There have been Liberal members for the environment who have, in their own way, demonstrated care for our world. Yet, somehow, here we are, with the so-called most progressive Liberal Prime Minister in history, who has completely abandoned Australia's role as a strong middle power and completely abandoned the notion that Australia should do our bit to combat climate change.

Weeks after the launch of his National Energy Guarantee, the Prime Minister can give no guarantees about its effectiveness, no guarantees on its price, no guarantees on its reliability for energy supply and nothing on the sustainability of our energy sector—nothing. All that we know is that, under Prime Minister Turnbull's National Energy Guarantee, power bills will keep going up and up and thousands of jobs in the renewable energy area are at risk. As it stands, the Prime Minister's plan will strangle the renewable energy industry for a lousy 50c in three years time, and that 50c saving isn't even guaranteed.

On our investment in renewables, it's worse than business as usual. The National Energy Guarantee is so bad that Australia's energy mix will be comprised of only 28 per cent renewables by 2030. That's seven per cent lower than the Chief Scientist said would occur if we did nothing at all. It's a bizarre and dangerous policy, but it is true to form for this government. Under their watch, one in three renewable energy jobs has been lost and confidence and certainty in that sector has been shattered.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is, once again, not my first speech. When considering the wording of this matter of public importance, I can't help but think that the use of the words 'complete failure' in relation to the Turnbull government's policies on climate change is awfully kind of my colleague Rachel Siewert of WA. When I think about the policies of this government in relation to climate change, the phrase that comes to mind used to be 'disappointed but not angry'. Well, I sit here this afternoon in this chamber thoroughly angry, and I believe that I speak on behalf of most of my generation when I say that.

Those in the Liberal-National section of this chamber, in particular, don't often talk about youth issues, apart from when they find that there have been proposed attacks which will affect the very many vested interests which fund them, and then of course they speak at length and with great emotional detail about the need to protect my generation from the intergenerational theft which is either the current tax at hand or the current spending proposition. I would like to ask this chamber whether it can think of any greater act of intergenerational theft than failing to act on climate change and whether it can think of any greater act of intergenerational theft than letting the vested coal and various fossil fuel interests which seem to run this government rob my generation of its future, of a safe and healthy environment in which to raise our kids—because I cannot.

Further to this, I cannot think of any greater act of theft than to deny my generation the opportunity to reap the benefits of the third great industrial revolution of our species. I'm talking of course of the transition to the renewable economy. We in the WA Greens have done extensive work on this issue, and I pay great thanks and respect to my former colleague Senator Ludlam in referring to the work he did on how we might transition our part of this ancient continent to 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030. Among the many findings of this work, it was discovered that this process would create no fewer than 156,000 new jobs. That is 12,000 jobs a year, with 25,000 jobs in the solar PV industry alone. These are the kinds of things that are being sacrificed upon the altar of the coalition's allegiance to the various fossil fuel interests which now seem to so comprise their support base.

I would add also that we cannot discuss the issue of climate change at this current time without discussing the issue of the proposed Adani coalmine in Queensland, which again Senator Canavan seems to be such a huge fan of that you would have thought Adani had personally made sure that he wasn't a dual citizen in the end anyway. This proposal seeks to do nothing less than put the world's largest coal port through the Great Barrier Reef—one of the great natural wonders of the world, something which we in Australia are lucky enough to hold in trust for the entirety of mankind, for the entirety of humanity. It is ours to steward. Yet we treat it with such disrespect and disregard. We would put at risk 69,000 jobs within the state of Queensland on the vague promise of 1,500 jobs in the construction sector. And let me inform this chamber, as somebody from WA, that jobs in the construction sector and phases of the mining industry quickly disappear as we transition to the more automated aspects of the industry. They disappear and leave nothing in their place.

So we would risk this natural wonder. We would risk tens of thousands of jobs for 1,500 jobs, which will be gone as soon as they've come, to support a company which is linked to everything from multinational tax avoidance to the most horrendous types of environmental abuses, all because the Minerals Council tells those in the coalition that it's a good idea, all because the mining lobbies are in your ear 24/7 and all because nobody—I'm sad to say, on either side of this chamber that doesn't sit in the Greens section of the crossbench, or some of the more enlightened crossbench senators—has the courage and conviction to clearly stand up against this group and say no. This is not exclusively a failure of the coalition. It is also a shame shared by the Labor Party at a state and federal level. They campaigned for the Queensland election on the platform of saving the Great Barrier Reef and have only now withdrawn their support for the billion-dollar taxpayer subsidy to this tax-dodging multinational corporation because of a legal loophole they found themselves in. It is a disgrace.

This government's policy in relation to climate change is a disgrace. It is an act of intergenerational theft. While I am in this chamber, I will not let it go by without it being called out for what it is.

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

The time for the discussion has expired.