Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Collins I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) the Morrison Government's complete capitulation to the hard right of the Liberal and National Parties by abandoning emission reduction as a goal of energy policy, and its refusal to legislate the Paris Climate Change Agreement Targets,

(ii) comments by former Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, who stated at his final press conference "in terms of energy policy and climate policy, I think the truth is that the Coalition finds it very hard to get agreement on anything to do with emissions. That's the truth", and

(iii) that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government policy inaction is driving up electricity prices, and that solutions, including an Emissions Intensity Scheme, a Clean Energy Target and a National Energy Guarantee, have given way to crippling policy paralysis;

(b) observes that the Abbott -Turnbull-Morrison Government refuses to act, citing any and all excuses to delay, when everyone knows it is internal Coalition division and weakness of leadership that are really to blame;

(c) agrees Australia must cut carbon pollution by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, and reach net zero emissions by 2050, consistent with Climate Change Authority recommendations regarding our obligations under the Paris Accords of keeping global warming to well below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels; and

(d) recognises, that in order to drive down prices and pollution, Australians need and deserve real leadership on energy and it is clearer every day that they will not get it from the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government. (general business notice of motion no. 1051)

This motion very clearly outlines and recognises that this coalition government has given up and that this new Prime Minister doesn't care when we talk about energy policy and climate policy. Over the last fortnight a number of Morrison government ministers have repeated the lie that Australia is supposedly 'on track' to meet its international climate commitments. The truth is that the Liberals have no climate policy and no way to contain let alone reduce Australia's rising carbon pollution levels. They have a target of a five per cent cut in emissions by 2020. They have committed to the Paris climate agreement, with a 26 to 28 per cent reduction by 2030 on 2005 levels. But the coalition government's own data—snuck out just days before Christmas—showed that there would be a zero per cent cut in pollution by 2020. The same government data showed that there would be only a slim four per cent cut in pollution by 2030, missing our international obligations by a whopping 24 per cent.

And of course this was all before the Liberals completely junked the emissions reduction component of their National Energy Guarantee—the thing that now is dead—walking away from any plan to cut pollution in the electricity sector, which is responsible for one-third of all of Australia's emissions and has the lowest cost of cutting pollution. I really can't put it any better, though, than the way it has been set out in this motion: that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's policy in action is driving up electricity prices and that its failed solutions, including an emissions intensity scheme, a clean energy target and the National Energy Guarantee, never came to fruition but have all given way to this crippling policy paralysis.

At every step of the way, throughout all of the different versions of an energy policy that the government has put forward, Labor have been willing to work with the government for a genuine solution to the energy crisis. We were willing to negotiate on an emissions intensity scheme, but Tony Abbott vetoed that one. We were willing to work with the Chief Scientist's, Dr Alan Finkel's, clean energy target, but Tony Abbott vetoed that one. We were willing to work with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on the National Energy Guarantee, but, under pressure from anti-renewable members of the coalition party room and without even talking to Labor, he decided to abandon that policy—the one that he had recently said was 'essential' to solving the energy crisis.

Businesses, industry and all the experts have been clear that renewable energy is the only way forward for Australia's energy system. Renewable energy is the cheapest way forward—the cheapest form of new energy. It will create thousands of jobs. It will drive down pollution. But it has been year upon year upon year of a different version, of a different policy, being put forward by this government, all of which have failed, and it has led us to this point of complete policy paralysis, where we don't have any energy or climate policy at all.

If we look at the NEG, the National Energy Guarantee, and its 26 per cent emissions target, it was already inadequate to fix this energy crises. But now, with the government having nothing—no policy, no ideas, no leadership and no hope—what can the Australian people and what can Australian businesses and industry really have to guide them forward? The international community is becoming increasingly alarmed at Australia's complete lack of responsibility and, indeed, of credibility, particularly when the European Union and our neighbours in the Pacific, as we recently heard at the Pacific Islands Forum, are demanding that this government take action to reduce pollution and not just repeat the empty promises that we have heard.

What has been clear over the last fortnight is that this new Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has the same position as Peter Dutton when it comes to action on climate change. Prime Minister Morrison saying that Australia is committed to our Paris target is worthless. He is merely paying lip-service, given that he has no policy to actually back that up. Australia and the world's need for comprehensive mitigation of the effects of climate change has never been greater. On current trends, the UN estimates that climate change will displace up to 200 million people by 2050, creating an unprecedented refuge crisis. The government have committed Australia to some of the weakest emissions reduction targets in the developed world. They have tried to de-list part of Tasmania's World Heritage area. Carbon emissions have been increasing the whole time they have been in power, and they are still putting those who have an ideological bent against the climate science into federal parliament.

I remember way back when Senator Duniam was about to start his term in this place and he told The Examiner newspaper that he was yet to be convinced that climate change is man-made. He is not alone in his thinking within the Liberal Party. So many of them still deny the science. It is something that former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was only too well aware of—so well aware that, even after all the compromises the former Prime Minister made, they still rolled him. They still couldn't bring themselves to agree to a policy on energy that included emissions reduction. And the NEG died. I share with you the former Prime Minister's own words on that—indeed, words that have been written into this motion—where he said:

In terms of energy policy and climate policy, I think the truth is that the Coalition finds it very hard to get agreement on anything to do with emissions. That's the truth.

That is what the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said at his final press conference as Prime Minister. Yes, that is the truth, Malcolm Turnbull, and that is why I think between now and the next election we will see the absolute continuation of policy paralysis when it comes to emissions reduction, strong investment in renewable energy and Australia's commitment to our Paris climate agreement targets. All of us in this parliament must realise that we have to step up and take serious action to deal with this deep energy crisis gripping this nation.

Labor is ready to do that. We have been ready to do that for a very long time. We want to do that. Our households and our businesses know only too well that wholesale power prices have doubled in the four years of this government, primarily because of the policy paralysis and uncertainty that has gripped this nation. Labor has tried again and again to work with this government, but it's now clear that it will not provide the leadership needed to solve this energy crisis. Fortunately for Australia, the choice is clear going forward: Labor is for renewables and for lower prices; the Liberals are for more coal and for higher prices.

During the last Labor government carbon pollution decreased by 11 per cent, but carbon pollution has indeed increased by six per cent under this changing Liberal coalition government. That gives you the stark difference between Labor's commitment on energy policy and emissions reductions, and this shambles of a government. We have real policies with real outcomes for Australians. We are committed to cutting our carbon pollution by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 and to reaching net zero emissions by 2050 as is consistent with our obligations, under the Paris accord, of keeping global warming well below two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Our position is to transition Australia's energy system, with 50 per cent renewable energy by 2050 at its core. We know what that will do; it will drive investment in renewable energy. Coming from Tasmania I know that very clearly, because of Tasmania's expanding wind farms. In fact 30 sites in Tasmania could potentially have more wind farms if we had an energy policy with the right parameters in place to allow that investment in renewables.

Labor has that policy. We want to drive that investment in renewable energy. That isn't only good for our carbon emissions and a reduction in energy prices; it is good for jobs and investment. I don't think anyone in this place can say they do not support that. Whatever the other side's ideological bent against renewable energy is, how can they deny the jobs and investment that will come with the creation of more renewable energy and the various technologies that keep coming forward? Labor will also implement sector-specific policies for energy, transport and agriculture to ensure we deliver on our pollution reduction obligations in a way that maximises our economic and job opportunities. We remain convinced that if we can cut our pollution, as we were doing when in government, and transition to a clean energy economy, then it can only be good for our country and what we have signed up to.

We have only to look at our neighbouring countries in the Pacific, which are crying out for us to make this happen, and also other countries further afield. I saw just the other day that California is going to use 100 per cent clean energy by 2045. I was recently in Europe, and I passed so many wind farms. In such a small land mass—that is, when Europe is compared to Australia—they are maximising that opportunity for renewables in every part of Europe as it stands. Yet here we are still having those same old, tired debates on whether the Liberals can believe the science and whether or not they have to continue to roll another Prime Minister because he is just a little bit too pro-renewables and just that little bit too pro the Paris agreement.

We then have the dumping of the Paris agreement. How far did the former Prime Minister go only a few weeks ago—with the killing off of the NEG, the National Energy Guarantee, and the dumping of the Paris climate targets—for those ideological right-wingers within the Liberal Party to be happy? Well, they still weren't happy, and the former Prime Minister is now gone. We are now all the worse for it because we now don't have anything. We don't have a NEG. Even though it wasn't good enough, it gave us something to start with and to build from after the policy paralysis of so many years. Even though the government's own projections have shown pollution will keep rising all the way to 2030, they have no policy to even meet the weak 26 to 28 per cent target that they held. What this means is we will have pollution going up in every sector.

We need to take stock here of where we find ourselves as a country and how far backwards we've gone. I remember my time in this place when Labor was in government and the day we introduced the carbon pollution architecture, those clean energy bills that gave us that road map forward and that road map to be part of transitioning our economy into a clean energy economy. It was a momentous day. I remember it was a momentous day for then Minister Greg Combet as well and for all of those Labor colleagues. Yet look how far backwards we've gone. With the change of government in 2013 and all of the various leaders that they've had since, we have gone so far backwards not just on our rising pollution and not just on the rising energy prices but on the fact that we as a country stand for nothing now when it comes to energy, when it comes to our commitment to emissions reduction and when it comes to the future for our children and playing our part in reducing our emissions on this planet. That is shameful; it is incredibly shameful. It is shameful because we will have long been gone from this place. We know from the science that if we do not reduce our emissions and if temperatures continue to rise, we are going to be in real trouble as a planet. How can we deny that? How can we just turn our backs and do nothing?

Look at the way Australia, even domestically at the moment, is suffering. Look not just at those households that obviously have rising energy prices, which is bad enough, but at our farmers who are suffering the drought. Listen to our farmers. Listen to those Pacific islanders who are trying to mitigate rising sea levels. The climate is changing. There is global warming happening. At this present time, as we speak, I think there is a typhoon that's about to be experienced over the Philippines. We've also got hurricanes and weather in the southern states of America. All of this is continuing to happen and all of it is a contribution of the changing climate that we live in.

We need to act and ensure we are doing as much as we can to contribute to the reduction in warming—that is, the reduction of two per cent. We are not on track to do that in this country, and we have every single means to do it. We've got more sun here, I think, than nearly any country in the world. We've got such a huge land mass. We have such an opportunity and there are such opportunities to create future jobs from it. Yet, here we are in this place, and in the other place, stuck in a policy paralysis because of a few hard-right-wingers within the government who just want to put their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away. Every time we bring a policy idea forward—our opportunity to contribute in a sensible, negotiable way with the government—they don't want a bar of it, because they simply do not believe in it.

This complete capitulation by the Morrison government to the hard Right of the Liberals and the Nationals by abandoning emissions reduction as a goal of energy policy and its refusal to legislate the Paris climate change agreement targets means only one thing. It means that the sooner we have an election the better. The sooner that this lot are voted out of office the better so that we can move forward and ensure that we do have the right energy policy for this country and that we do indeed start to get back on track in reducing our emissions. The sooner that day comes the better for all Australians.

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

I can see the fight now between the Labor Party and the hard Left of the Greens, especially the one coming up in Tasmania. Who is going to go the furthest to the left to see what they can do to win a vote or two? It is about time some facts, some realistic points of view, were put forward in this chamber on this whole energy and carbon emissions reduction scheme. Let's go back and look at 2010. Remember the promise by the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'? Of course, in that election the coalition won 73 seats and Labor won 72 seats. But along came Independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor. What did they demand—especially Tony Windsor? He demanded the cross-party, multiparty climate change committee, or whatever you want to call it, and out of it, driven by Tony Windsor, came the carbon tax we were never going to have. What did it do? It did absolutely nothing except put costs up for the Australian people to the tune of $9 billion in a year—and growing. It was going to go up every year.

Here we have a situation where we put the price of electricity up—and that's going to save the planet? That is absolute rot. Dr Finkel told us at Senate estimates what would happen if Australia reduced all of its emissions—the whole lot. What effect would it have on the planet? Basically nothing at all. Months ago, I brought to the attention of Senate, and so did my colleague Senator Macdonald, details of the new coal-fired power generation being constructed around the world—I know them off by heart. A unit is one generator and plants like Bayswater and Liddell in the Hunter Valley in New South Wales are four-unit generating plants. They have four generators, four cooling towers and so on. Eight months ago, China was constructing an extra 299 units of coal-fired generation to add to their 2,107 units already in production. Those 299 units will produce 670 million tonnes of CO2 a year—that's just the extra 299 that are under construction. Australia produces 550 million tonnes of CO2, so the extra coal-fired generators being built in China will produce more CO2 than the whole of Australia, through everything. There were 621 units under construction at the time: 299 in China, about 132 in India, 34 in Vietnam, 32 in Indonesia, some in South Africa, 10 in Japan and even some in Germany. In Australia we have a total of 73 units of coal-fired generation—just 73. Around the world, 621 units are being constructed, and somehow we're going to change the planet! It is ludicrous. All we do is shut ours down and put the cost up.

I will give you an example, Madam Acting Deputy President Kitching. When Hazelwood's coal-fired generator closed in Victoria, the electricity prices in Victoria went up 176 per cent, and they went up 102 per cent in New South Wales and 86 per cent in South Australia. We talk about renewable energy, and I have no problem with renewable energy. Renewable energy is a very good thing. However, it's got to stand on its own feet. Let me give you the examples. Senator Singh was talking about all these wind towers that we can build in Tasmania. Say that you construct one wind tower, just one—a three-megawatt-per-hour generator—and that that wind tower spins for eight hours a day, 365 days a year. Surprise, surprise—the owners of that wind tower get a $700,000 subsidy in renewable energy certificates before they sell one watt of electricity. They get $700,000 just because it's standing there and spinning for eight hours a day—not selling electricity.

What did they do in South Australia? They constructed these wind towers everywhere. I grew up down in Jamestown and I know that they're all around the hills there. Because of those huge subsidies, they can sell electricity cheaply into the grid. And what happened? The coal-fired power station at Port Augusta went broke and, along with that, the coalmine at Leigh Creek was shut down. I was at Leigh Creek in early June, and that town is on the slide, big time.

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

Jobs for workers gone!

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

Yes, jobs for workers. I can't believe how the CFMMEU can ever support the Greens party or the Labor Party. They're the people who are against everything the CFMMEU believes in when it comes to mining, coalmining and coal-fired generation. So let's shut it all down! Then we know what happened next in South Australia: the lights went out.

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

The lights went out!

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

But it gets worse, Senator Brockman. Who pays for these renewable energy certificates of $700,000 paid for each wind tower every year? Of course, under the Renewable Energy Target of 20 per cent by 2020, or 33,000 gigs—we reduced it to that, thank goodness; it should have been reduced more—the law is that everyone who is hooked into an electricity grid pays for it, from a food-processing abattoir at Inverell, Bindaree Beef, to the poor old widowed pensioner who can't afford to turn the heater on in the middle of winter because she can't afford to pay the electricity bill, and every business and every household in between. That's who pays for it. For what? It's for the owners of those wind towers, mainly foreign companies, to take the money back overseas to increase their living standards and to reduce ours.

And what do they do in the face of emissions reductions? Virtually nothing! I was amazed when I visited a wind farm a few months ago—just one wind tower standing there. There are many, of course, but I'm just referring to one now. The tonnes and tonnes of cement that go into cementing that tower into the ground are unbelievable. And, of course, cement is a big emitter. Then there is the steel, the copper and all the metals in it. Some say the life of a wind tower is 25 years. Some say it takes 15 years of generating electricity before it even becomes carbon neutral—15 years! That wouldn't surprise me at all, given the steel and the cement that goes into it.

I remember when the carbon tax came in that, even though the cement industry received a 95 per cent discount, we were going to bill the cement industry an enormous amount of cost because they produced cement in Australia. We produce about 10 million tonnes of cement in Australia. When we do, we produce 0.8 of a tonne of CO2 per tonne of cement. In China, they produce one billion-plus tonnes of cement a year. When they produce one tonne of cement they produce 1.1 tonnes of CO2. So let's shut down the cement industry in Australia, have it all processed and produced in China, where they produce more tonnes of CO2 per tonne of cement than in Australia, and somehow that's going to save the planet. No, that simply puts workers out of the jobs and shuts businesses down. This is the whole crazy thing.

I will ask a simple question here about new coal-fired generation. What do you think they are going to burn in those new coal-fired generators around the world? You've got it, Madam Acting Deputy President—they're going to burn coal! You guessed it! Spot on! Go to the top of the class! They can burn coal from Indonesia or from China—brown coal, high-ash, poor-quality coal—and put out a lot more CO2 emissions. Or they can actually buy coal from Australia—the older black coal that's far more efficient. But no, the green religion, the green movement, linked with the Greens and the Labor Party, doesn't want to see any coalmines expand in Australia. They want to see the coal-fired generators around the world use poor-quality coal from China, Indonesia and other countries that will put more emissions into the planet's atmosphere than using Australian coal. How stupid is that?

It annoys me immensely that here we are in a country—I will give an analogy, Mr Acting Deputy President Leyonhjelm. Welcome aboard. Mr Acting Deputy President, go and check out the price of diesel around the world. If you go to Iran, diesel is 7c a litre. It's about $1.55 in Australia today, with the low dollar and higher world price of oil. Go to Saudi Arabia and the price of diesel is 13c a litre. Ask why. I will tell you why: because those countries are wallowing in oil. Wherever you dig—well, not quite—you strike oil. They've got big supplies of oil; hence, their fuel is so cheap. Compare that to Australia. What are we wallowing in? We're wallowing in energy: gas, coal, uranium—you name it. We'd have more energy per capita than any other country in the world. But what are our electricity prices? They are exorbitant. This is brought on by the renewable energy target, forcing coal-fired generation out of production, reducing supply, forcing prices up and many other things, like some of the things the state government have done.

Back in 2011, the crazy Labor government in New South Wales brought in the gross feed-in tariff, paying 60 cents per kilowatt hour to generate, while the bill was only about 22 cents per kilowatt hour. What a way to cream the system and make money. Wealthy people could put photovoltaic solar panels on their homes and get paid a fortune while the poor people paid for it. This is the Labor Party policy. You've got the gold plating of poles and wires, and the return is ridiculous on that. You can blame every state and every federal government of all political persuasions of the last 10 to 15 years for the price of electricity in Australia. Here we are now making an absolute effort to bring the prices down.

One thing has to happen for sure: the supply of electricity has to increase. We need baseload reliable supply. But, no, the green religion, as I call it—the Greens extreme-left socialists, fighting for that green space with the Labor Party—has a simple theme: 'Come follow me and I'll lead you to the land of poverty.' It's all about shutting down our businesses and reducing our living standards. As far as emissions around the world go, it makes no difference at all. If you were concerned about emissions, we'd be selling good-quality coal out of Australia to these new coal-fired generators being built, many of them in Asia, which would put less emissions into the atmosphere. But, no: talk about a coalmine being opened, and the green movement and the environmentalists will be going through the courts and so on. GetUp!, the lefty socialists, are pouring their money in and promoting the green religion so that we can't help the planet when it comes to emissions by giving them good quality coal.

It's amazing how living standards are under threat because of the price of electricity in this country. I know an abattoir very close to us where we live at Inverell that is now paying $70,000 a week on its electricity bill. It was $80,000, but they got a better deal. Luckily, the prices have been coming down a little bit. What are their competitors in Brazil and America paying? Nothing near that. But they have to compete on the world stage, with the costs going up all the time. I won't even get into the payroll tax. As for those over there—the fight for the green religion between the Labor Party and the Greens—they are going to go to a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030 and reduce our emissions by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. It's not going to do a thing except help send the country broke, make us less competitive on the world stage, put people out of work and shut businesses down.

There are some amazing quotes on this proposal by those opposite—the green army, we can call them, over there fighting the Labor Party—especially by the extreme left and the Greens. In May 2015, CFMEU president, Tony Maher, said:

… an increased Renewable Energy Target of 50 percent by 2030 will increase the cost of electricity for manufacturing and ordinary households while being a poor tool to reduce Australia's overall warming emissions.

How true. In January 2017, Ben Davis, secretary of Bill Shorten's branch of the AWU, said:

… the rush away from coal and gas-fired electricity power stations … is a little unseemly in its haste because we are potentially crucifying hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers.

How true that is. Putting the price of energy up in a country that's wallowing in energy, sending businesses broke and having people lose their jobs—that's a great way to go! While coal-fired generation is being built all around the world in most countries, we have stuck to our 73 units, and of course the green religious movement is trying to shut them down. On 25 June 2018, the Business Council of Australia said:

The emissions target of 26% is appropriate and achievable. 45% is an economy-wrecking target.

How true it is. On 27 November 2015, the National Farmers' Federation said the ALP's proposed target of 45 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 would hinder agricultural competitiveness and economic growth. The Minerals Council of Australia said:

The minerals sector is concerned at the Federal Opposition's proposal for a 45 per cent reduction in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

The target is not based on detailed economic analysis of its impact on growth, living standards and energy costs.

The proposed target has the look and feel of an ambit claim.

That is the point. Over there in the Labor Party and the Greens, you don't care about growth, you don't care about jobs, and you don't care about the cost of living and living standards. You've done it before. In 2010, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard said, ' There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' and what came about?

On 27 November 2015, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said: 'Labor's newly announced proposal to double cuts to emissions to 45 per cent by 2030 with a long-term target of net zero emissions by 2050 was not backed by a credible plan that protects economic growth.' This is the thing: you are going down a path of saying: 'Let's all go back to the Stone Age and live in the caves. We'll give you three sticks a week to cook your food and keep yourself warm.' Then you'll wonder what's going on with living standards. That's what you're doing—you're taking living standards and reducing them in Australia. If it were going to achieve something, you'd understand it. But, as Chief Scientist Dr Finkel said, it's going to achieve nothing. It is amazing: three human beings, simply breathing for a year, produce one tonne of CO2. China, with about 1.4 or 1.5 billion people, produce almost as much CO2 as the whole country of Australia, including our industry, just through the population breathing—not doing anything else.

It will get worse. The green religion will attack agriculture and they'll attack transport, nothing surer. It will be interesting to see what senators Gallacher and Sterle have to say when they say, 'Let's go after the transport industry.' A big country like ours has to transport so much agricultural produce and everything else, and they say, 'Let's hit that up big time with taxes and costs and shut it down. There is talk about winding back our sheep numbers and cattle numbers to save the planet. This is outrageous. People have to eat, you know. The first rule is: if you don't eat, you die, with other things in between.

Dr Finkel said that, at 1.3 to 1.4 per cent of the world's emissions, we're not going to change the planet. This is simply a political game being played by the left-wing green movement. There is a fight for the green vote between the Greens and the Labor Party—the Greens so-called partners in crime when it comes to this. As I've said before, the CFMEU have donated money to the Greens. The CFMEU stands for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. What do the Greens say? They hate construction—we all know that. We can go and live in the caves. Forestry—they hate forestry. They don't want timber jobs. They want to see every tree stand. They want to shut them up in national parks and let the bushfires burn them, killing the animals as well. Mining: well, as I always say, the only people the Greens hate more than the farmers are the miners. They hate mining. And then there is energy.

The CFMEU has donated money to the Greens party of New South Wales. That is unbelievable. That a union would donate money to a political party that opposes everything that union believes in is just incredible. When it comes to the CFMEU—or the WMEU, with the maritimes now tied up with them as well—where do you stand on coal-fired generation? Where do you stand on coalmining over there? No, you are silent; you are mute. In Victorian by-elections, 'No, there'll be no coalmines there.' When we get to Queensland, the opposition leader and others will say, 'Yes, we're big supporters of coal.' It depends where they're speaking. Who do you believe? What is the truth? What are the facts? This whole energy argument has been an absolute farce.

As I said—and I agree with what Dr Finkel said at Senate estimates—if we think that we are going to change the planet we are very, very wrong. While others are producing more CO2, building more coal-fired power generation and putting more vehicles—what is it, five million extra vehicles go on the road in China a year, as they raise living standards?—we're going to change everything. No, we are not. What we are going to do is reduce our living standards here, make us less competitive around the world, wind up businesses and cause unemployment and the effect on the climate will be absolutely zilch— (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.