Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 14 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 an urgency motion has been received from Senator McCarthy relating to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and climate change policy:

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

That the Senate:

(1) notes:

(a) Monday 2 December 2019 marks ten years since the Senate failed to pass legislation for a comprehensive economy wide climate change policy, the Rudd Labor government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS);

(b) that implementation of the CPRS would have resulted in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions being between 27 and 81 million tonnes lower in 2020 than currently projected, would have delivered additional cumulative abatement of between 63 and 218 million tonnes over the last 10 years, and would have placed Australian emissions on a sustained and long term downward trajectory;

(c) in addition to Labor senators, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills were supported by Liberal senators Sue Boyce and Judith Troeth;

(d) despite the constructive negotiations engaged in by Mr Malcolm Turnbull and Mr Ian Macfarlane, the Liberals and Nationals opposed the bills under the leadership of Mr Tony Abbott;

(e) the Australian Greens joined with the Liberals and Nationals and also opposed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, guaranteeing its defeat;

(2) recognises the decision by the Liberals and Nationals and the Australian Greens to join together and oppose the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme precipitated:

(a) a breakdown in consensus on policy in Australia to address the challenges of climate change;

  (b) a decade of policy instability preventing necessary investment in energy infrastructure leading to increases in energy prices and increased emissions; and

(3) calls on all parties to end the political opportunism and work together to agree an enduring solution to the challenges of climate change.

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.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate:

(1) notes:

(a) Monday 2 December 2019 marks ten years since the Senate failed to pass legislation for a comprehensive economy wide climate change policy, the Rudd Labor government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS);

(b) that implementation of the CPRS would have resulted in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions being between 27 and 81 million tonnes lower in 2020 than currently projected, would have delivered additional cumulative abatement of between 63 and 218 million tonnes over the last 10 years, and would have placed Australian emissions on a sustained and long term downward trajectory;

(c) in addition to Labor senators, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills were supported by Liberal senators Sue Boyce and Judith Troeth;

(d) despite the constructive negotiations engaged in by Mr Malcolm Turnbull and Mr Ian Macfarlane, the Liberals and Nationals opposed the bills under the leadership of Mr Tony Abbott;

(e) the Australian Greens joined with the Liberals and Nationals and also opposed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, guaranteeing its defeat;

(2) recognises the decision by the Liberals and Nationals and the Australian Greens to join together and oppose the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme precipitated:

(a) a breakdown in consensus on policy in Australia to address the challenges of climate change;

  (b) a decade of policy instability preventing necessary investment in energy infrastructure leading to increases in energy prices and increased emissions; and

(3) calls on all parties to end the political opportunism and work together to agree an enduring solution to the challenges of climate change.

This week marks 10 years since the coalition and the Greens voted down Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and where do we find ourselves? Emissions are still going up, power prices are going up and the promises of the CPRS, which were lower emissions, better jobs for Australians and lower power prices have not been delivered. The implementation of the CPRS would have resulted in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions being between 27 and 81 million tonnes lower in 2020 than currently projected. The CPRS was supported by Liberal senators Sue Boyce and Judith Troeth. As printed in The Guardian today, my colleague Pat Conroy, the shadow minister assisting for climate change, gave a speech at the ANU. He is right when he said:

The Coalition and the Greens bear a heavy responsibility for the fact that, a decade later, Australia still does not have an effective policy to tackle climate change by reducing emissions.

The Greens' decision to side with the Liberal and National parties to defeat Labor's CPRS in the Senate in 2009 was a massive error of political judgement with far-reaching consequences. We are facing a climate change emergency in this country, and this is undisputed. There is widespread agreement among experts about the risk posed by climate change and about the policy responses needed to reduce Australia's carbon emissions at the lowest cost to our economy, and yet there is now a breakdown in consensus on climate-change policy in Australia.

In the Northern Territory, Darwin already has an average of 22.2 days per year over 35 degrees Celsius, up from 5.6 days a century ago. Without rapid cuts to greenhouse pollution, in 2030 Darwin is likely to have 132 days—that is, four months—over 35 degrees Celsius per year and 275 days, or eight months, over 35 degrees Celsius each year in 2070. We have a rich ecosystem of plants, animals and sea life in the Territory carefully cared for by First Nations rangers. First Nations people have been looking after this land over nearly 60,000 years.

I want to talk about my community in the Gulf country for the Yanyuwa, Garawa, Marra and Gurdanji peoples. The mangroves around the seabeds of the Yanyuwa sea lands are dying. Each time we go out on the water with the rangers, even when I took my family out there and when I took a group of school students out there, the dramatic change in just a few months and certainly over the last 12 months really frightens us. It certainly frightens the elders because we haven't seen anything like it. When I speak to some of the old people about what's going on there, there are lots of thoughts but we are really fearful for country. Urgency really is needed in many of our places but I speak particularly in this instance about the Anyuwar seabed and mangrove country.

Traditional owner Patsy Evans visited the site in the Gulf of Carpentaria recently as well and said: 'This is bad, worse, unbelievable. I can't even believe what is happening here.' She said she wanted policymakers to see how climate change was affecting the land near the Limmen river area, 750 kilometres south of Darwin. She said that we should go out and see what's happening, be aware, look at it and don't make decisions where you are. Here I am passing on her call—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McCarthy, excuse me, just resume your seat. Senators, I would urge to at least show some decency when Senator McCarthy is talking about her mob and the traditional owners of this land.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When Patsy Evans was out there in the Limmen Bight area, she talked about that area of land and of her concern. She says, 'Go out and see what's happening.' She's talking to everybody, saying: 'Go out and see what's happening. Be aware, and look at it. Don't make decisions where you are.' That urgency that she feels, and other traditional owners feel—not just in the gulf region but right around the Arnhem Land coastline across to the west, they are seeing the changes and are raising these very same things, especially the rangers who are working on country. So I'm certainly passing on the call of Patsy Evans: find out what's happening in remote Australia and see how climate change is having an impact, not just down here in the south. We have seen tremendous examples, which are just frightening, for people in the south. But please, make sure you're checking out what's going on in northern Australia.

Mangroves are a vital ecosystem. They are nurseries for the mud crab, barramundi and prawn fisheries—or they once were, where it was really abundant. But, sadly, in the Gulf of Carpentaria, the once vibrant mangrove forests consist mainly of dead trees and dusty earth. It is truly unbelievable. The few live seedlings coming through are exposed and vulnerable to damage from the fallen dead trees. And that means no bush tucker for people who may live many kilometres from the local stores—but just because they want to go out there and look after country. Ms Evans also said that through the mangroves you get a lot of bush tucker, mud mussels and shells. But they're all dead, and it makes her feel really sad. Well, she's not alone with that. It's something that all the communities are talking about.

In Darwin Harbour there's a small island called Bare Sand Island, or Ngulbitjik; it's shaped like a teardrop. Here Australian flatback turtles have chosen their natural breeding ground. And the waters around Bare Sand Island support significant numbers of foraging green and hawksbill turtles. While the island provides an ideal habitat for breeding, with only a few jabirus and some weedy plants posing a threat to the species, still only one in 2,500 hatchling turtles is expected to survive to adulthood. Both species are vulnerable to extinction under Australian classification. Global warming poses serious threats to sea turtle populations, since sex determination and hatching success are dependent on the nest temperature.

Young and old people are feeling the stress of climate change inaction from this government. According to a national survey of young Australians by Mission Australia into young people, the number of people who said the environment was a key national issue has more than tripled, from 9.2 per cent to 34.2 per cent in just one year. In the Northern Territory, it's gone from 10.3 per cent to 27.3 point per cent, and this is causing great stress to our youth. According to a 2010 report, 'Impact of climate change on the Northern Territory', if current emission rates continue, climate change is predicted to cost Australian households roughly $20,000 per year, and that's not including the impact of extreme weather events.

Industry such as cattle exports will be affected, and also tourism. The NT's cattle exports are projected to decline by 19.5 per cent by 2030, and that's all due to climate change—19.5 per cent. In Kakadu National Park, on the land of the Mirarr people there, 80 per cent of Kakadu's beautiful freshwater wetlands are predicted to be destroyed in the next 50 years. The low flood plain makes it vulnerable to even a minimal sea level rise. In Central Australia, outdoor tourism during summer is already becoming hazardous. It's just too hot—simply too hot.

We are facing a climate emergency in this country, and there is a breakdown in consensus on climate change policy in Australia. People are waiting for action on climate change. The people across Australia—especially when we see students and so many people come together calling on legislators, wherever we may be—are calling on all of us and saying: 'Please act—please. Look after country.' It's a call that's echoed by First Nations people when they look at country and see the dramatic changes, see the different flood levels just in the Katherine region, the Arnhem region and across to the west. When you hear the old people talk about changes in weather patterns you know this mob have seen things that are unexplainable in terms of some of the areas, but we know that it is a climate emergency out there.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to address this matter of public urgency that's been brought forward. I'm glad that Senator McCarthy did talk about the mental health impacts, because one of the concerns that I do have—and this is regardless of whether or not one believes in human caused climate change or that the climate has changed for other reasons—is the impact of some of the dialogue on young people, some who have written to my office, some who I have seen interviewed, some who appear in various reports, who are suffering high degrees of anxiety because of the nature of the language and wording that is used, which sometimes is quite inappropriate for children of their age.

One of the concerns I have with the whole climate change debate—and I speak here about the validity of science as someone who has a science degree and has worked in an engineering environment for most of my life—is if you take the time to not just read the political summaries from the IPCC but actually dig down to the underlying scientific reports what you find is that, in the vast majority of cases, the scientists do their job. They highlight the fact that there are a range of variables, and for some variables they're not quite sure about their impact. They look at the modelling and they give various degrees of confidence in the modelling. They give various outcomes depending upon which variables you accept, which you don't and how you vary the impact of those. And sometimes the impacts that may come out would be very small, but they say a different set of assumptions and combinations might make them very large. That is science at work: observation, measurement and appropriate reporting. But the summaries are often going to the extreme to try and capture a headline or to drive action. We see that reflected in some of the actions of the people who superglue themselves to roads—and all the rest of it—trying to get the attention, but the flow-on effect for young people, particularly primary school aged students, who aren't equipped at their age to distinguish between rhetoric or advertising or a scare campaign or fact, is that some of these kids are suffering significant anxiety. I encourage people on all sides of this debate to choose their words carefully for the audience that they are dealing with. And for young people to be having nightmares about an impending apocalypse and end of the world, essentially in their lifetime, I think is irresponsible on the behalf of the people who are putting that information in front of them.

Senator McKim interjecting—

Senator McKim scoffs on the other side of the room, and I'm not saying you shouldn't talk about it if you believe that climate change is caused by man and Australia taking action on its 1.3 per cent will have an impact, by all means, argue for that, but argue with the policymakers, argue in public forums, but don't put it on the shoulders and in the minds of young children is what I'm saying, because it does cause harm. They are not the policymakers. They are not the people who are leading industry or environmental movements—

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They are the generation that is going to have to suck it up because of your inaction.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Road Safety) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So there we have, yet again, the kind of action and the kinds of words that actually cause the problem. It's interesting that, with the bushfires that are currently occurring, it is the Greens who resort to that sort of language. And I quote here from an editorial in The Australian in November this year:

Aside from the deaths and suffering wrought by the disaster, it was the callous, cynical politicking of climate change activists, especially Greens MP Adam Bandt, party leader Richard Di Natale and West Australian senator Jordon Steele-John, that has left a bitter aftertaste. Their blaming Scott Morrison and his team for the loss of lives dragged politics to a repulsive low. It is time for a dose of icy water.

Climate change did not cause the fires. Drought and even deadlier blazes have been part of Australian life for more than a century. Climate change, many scientists argue, intensifies the dangers. But even if Australians eliminated all of the nation's greenhouse gases (about 1.3 per cent of the global total) and pandered to extremists who wanted meat consumption, grazing and flying reduced markedly, virtually nothing would be achieved. Mitigation must be global. And global emissions are rising, significantly.

My point is well made here in the chamber today by the Greens, who continue with this kind of hyperbole and extreme language that is doing harm to young people, regardless of your view on this debate.

Today we come to the motion moved by Senator McCarthy about carbon pricing. One of the comments that has frequently been made is that we'd all be better off if that carbon pricing scheme had gone through. Bearing in mind that affordability of power is one of the critical things for Australian families, Australian small businesses and, particularly, Australia's manufacturing industries—where energy intensity coupled with high prices mean that many of these industries, the workers who support them and the supply chains that support them are at risk with high prices—I quote from a report from the Parliamentary Library into energy market challenges. Again, the Parliamentary Library is not a partisan body; it is an independent group of researchers, who say:

Between July 2012 and June 2014 there was a period of relative stability and declining wholesale electricity prices in the NEM as a result of the repeal of the carbon price arrangements.

So what we see is that pricing carbon drives up price. There are a whole range of other factors that come to bear. Certainly, instability in the market and driving out base-load providers who can't amortise their costs, because of the spot prices that can be achieved by renewables—heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, I might add—contribute to rising prices, but so, clearly, do carbon prices.

One of the final things I want to highlight is paragraph (3) of Senator McCarthy's MPU, in which she:

… calls on all parties to end the political opportunism and work together to agree an enduring solution to the challenges of climate change.

I was very pleased to see that Mr Joel Fitzgibbon MP, who I regard as a friend in this place, gave an address in which he refers to lesson 5 for Labor. He says:

… Labor needs to reach a sensible settlement on climate change. How many times are we going to let it kill us? Indeed, how many Leaders do we want to lose to it?

Australia is responsible for around 1.3 percent of global emissions, nothing we can do alone can have a meaningful impact. But act we must … as a wealthy nation…

Further on, he says:

But what would be the outcome if Labor offered a political and policy settlement to make 28 percent the target by 2030? The focus would then be all about actual outcomes, and the Government would finally be held to account and forced to act.

A political settlement would also restore investment confidence and for the first time in six years, we could have some downward pressure on energy prices.

He then goes on to say:

Based on recent history, 28 percent would be a meaningful achievement, certainly a better outcome than the one Labor's last climate policy is now achieving.

The good thing that I can report to Mr Fitzgibbon is that, according to the ANU and scientists Professor Andrew Blakers and Dr Matthew Stocks, a study they've produced indicates that Australia is, in fact, on track to meet those targets here in Australia, which is good news. I welcome also Mr Fitzgibbon's support for states like Victoria to end their ban on fracking, because we need various suppliers of energy in order to mitigate the high costs and uncertainty around dispatchable power.

So, in response, not only does the coalition have firm targets that have been set but we're taking meaningful measures to actually reach the targets, to make sure that dispatchable energy is available when Australians need it and to drive down the cost of electricity through a range of sensible measures in both dispatchable power and renewables—in which, as the ANU said, we're seeing investment at record levels—as well as bringing in measures to firm up or stabilise that power supply. (Time expired)

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, here we are: the planet is burning and the science is telling us that we have 10 years to radically reduce our carbon equivalent emissions, or humanity and nature will collectively face a calamity. And what does Labor do? They come into this place with a carefully orchestrated campaign and attack the Greens. We have a government made up of climate deniers and we have the Greens in this place, focused on the government and holding them to account for their lack of climate action, but what does the Labor Party do? They come into this place and run a carefully orchestrated attack on the Greens.

This is ancient history and it is revisionist history. It's so long ago that half of the current mining lobby was actually still in the ALP caucus at the time. That's how long ago this was. This attack by Labor on the Greens, while the Greens focus on the government and on holding the government to account for their calamitous climate policies, is nothing more than a fig leaf to cover up for Labor's love affair with coal.

And why does Labor love coal? Because they take the millions of dollars in donations from the big polluting corporations. The hypocrisy of Labor's attack! Seriously! If they think a price on carbon is such a good thing, why won't they join us to vote for one today? Why won't they take a price on carbon to the next election? This owes far more to them trying to cover up for their love affair with coal. It says a lot more about them, I might add, than it does about the Australian Greens.

Bipartisanship on climate can't mean starting up friends of resources groups with climate deniers, like Mr Craig Kelly MP. But that's exactly what the Labor Party is doing. I have to say that there are far too many in the press gallery, in the media in this place, who are buying Labor's spin. They're buying Labor's spin because it suits their predetermined narrative on centrism. I say to those many, many journalists in this place who are calling for centrism on climate policy that there is no centrism on climate science, there is just the climate science. There is no centrism on climate physics or climate chemistry, there is just the climate chemistry and the climate physics. And if you're not with the science, and in this place that is everyone bar the nine Australian Greens senators, then you're against the science. You are either acting on the basis of climate science or you're acting in denial of the climate science. And to those people in the press gallery: you're either writing in favour of those of us who are sticking up for the climate science in this place or you're writing in denial of the science.

So I say to those people in the media—and there are far too many of them—that this is not a time for centrism. This is not a time for meekly going into the night. This is the time to stand up and fight against every single person in this place who is not acting in accordance with climate science and who is not setting policy in accordance with climate science, and that is everyone bar the Australian Greens. (Time expired)

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to respond to two of the previous contributions before I get started. First of all, I listened to Senator McKim squeaking away down the end there for four whole minutes. I'm not surprised that he booked himself for just four minutes to try to defend the position of the Greens political party. The reality for Senator McKim's vacuous call for bipartisanship and determination to forget the Greens' political failure 10 years ago is that we'll never sign up to a bipartisan position with you lot. We will never do it because you're incapable of understanding where working people are. Your job as you see it is lecturing to ordinary people, pompously bloviating away like the bunch of windbags that you are with resolution after pointless resolution in here and no action out in the community. I'll tell you what, when you come to this place—

Senator McKim interjecting—

Well, you can go around in circles back in your office like a blowfly. Keep it up!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, Order. Senator Ayres, address your comments through the chair.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened carefully to Senator Fawcett's contribution and his concern about the impact of this debate upon young people. I tell you what: if you're worried about the impact of this debate upon young people, you've got to concern yourself, in my view, with three things. Firstly, you've got to be serious about the science of climate change. There is no room for equivocation. There is no room for denialism. With the greatest respect to Senator Fawcett, arguing about the ins and outs of what assumptions may underlie a particular report takes the country nowhere. The overwhelming bulk of evidence says one thing: climate change has been induced by increasing emissions over time and it's dangerous for the future of the planet. Secondly, there is a point about making sure our language is precise. It should be precise, but it shouldn't be dishonest and it shouldn't try and hide the truth from young people.

The third component is making sure that we're taking action. That's where the Morrison government has failed. That's where the Turnbull government failed. That's where the Abbott government failed. The point of the resolution is that the culpability lies down there with the Greens just as much as with the government. The culpability lies with the Greens political party as much as it does with the Liberal and National parties and the climate deniers. While they say the things that people who are worried about the climate need to hear, they should be judged by their actions.

In truth, with that vote on the CPRS in 2009 something broke in Australian politics. The Rudd government had a mandate for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I know this; I worked in regional Australia around the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I worked with blue-collar workers and manufacturers, and there was universal support amongst industry for a scheme that gave them certainty. Since then, we have had a descent into chaos. We've had a lost decade on emissions. The report released today shows that, if the CPRS had been endorsed and had become government policy, emissions in Australia would've been on a downward trajectory since 2009. Four hundred and fifty-nine million tonnes would've been emitted this year, instead of 540 million tonnes. That's 81 million tonnes less emissions in 2019. In the decade 2010 to 2020, there would have been just less than 220 million tonnes emitted by Australian emitters, and that would've been a significant achievement itself. It would've been a more profound achievement to have emissions going down, not up, and a more profound achievement to have a downward trajectory, not the ongoing increase in Australian emissions that characterises our economy. We've had a lost decade of investment. Australia should have been a winner in the global race for jobs in the renewable sector. Between 2000 and 2010, there were queues of investors in the Australian economy queuing up in solar, in wind, in solar thermal—in all of the energy efficiency measures. That's billions of dollars worth of potential investment that has evaporated in the decade 2010 to 2020.

We now have a government that has no energy plan. Jobs have gone and potential jobs have gone missing. We've had a lost decade on global leadership. Australia has gone from being a leader in global climate change discussions, setting an example and leading the way on jobs, to being a pariah, a laughing-stock in international forums. In our region, the Pacific step up is hollow indeed if we don't get right action on climate change. Australia has been left isolated, vulnerable and less safe in the Pacific because of the failure to act on climate change. In the industries that I come from, the manufacturing industries, we've had a lost decade. We've had decreases in jobs, energy policy uncertainty and investment evaporating. Opportunities have gone. The auto industry in Australia, which had a bright future with green cars, low-emissions vehicles and 40,000 jobs, is gone, goaded offshore by this government. We've no energy policy. Renewable energy jobs are disappearing out the window.

The Greens political party don't really understand at a deep level what it is that they did. They are more obsessed with student style politics than with what the business of this place actually should be about. For the Greens political party, politics is all about what they think, not about listening to working people. It's all about what they believe, not what they can achieve. It's all about the slogans—the 'we did it' memes—not about long-term reform.

The CPRS was bad for Australia and bad for Australians. It's left the country with higher emissions and higher power prices. It's damaged Australia's standing. It's cost us hundreds of thousands of jobs. It's cost us billions of dollars worth of investment. But the vote was good for the Greens political party. It was an achievement for them. A political failure for the country is a political achievement for the Greens political party. It's big at the dinner party table—it allows them to continue to posture—but it is a disaster for the country and it is a disaster for people who care about climate change. It's a bit like the cavalcade to Queensland that they recently executed: smug, vacuous and self-focused.

What has happened to the Greens political party? I remember Ian Cohen, who was actually a substantial figure in the environment movement, who had actually done a few things before he got to the New South Wales parliament. I vividly remember him on a surfboard riding the bow wave of US ships as they entered Sydney Harbour. He was actually committed to the cause of peace and the environment. You won't find anybody like Ian Cohen on the Greens political party benches now. It's just former student politicians: smug, self-focused, bloviating, completely and blissfully unaware and uncaring of the consequences of what they do. For Australia and for the world, the failure of the Greens political party on the CPRS, their incapacity to put the country and the environment first, has had very real consequences for Australia, for our climate and for developing consensus. They are just as much to blame as the government is for the political failure. If you're worried about the kids who are out in the streets, marching about climate change, then you've got to respect the science, treat them with respect and actually do something about making sure that the government is pointed in the right direction and doing something about climate change. You don't see kids in Denmark, in Germany, even in the United Kingdom with the same levels of anxiety as they have in Australia. It's because the government isn't acting and because these guys in the Greens have aided and abetted that political failure all the way.

Sam McMahon (NT, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator McCarthy for this motion. She is my colleague from the Northern Territory. I respect her immensely and we agree on quite a few topics. But in this instance she is wrong. As a new senator, I came to this place with high expectations of the people I would be working with. I am pleased to say that my National Party and Liberal Party colleagues have all been very welcoming and supportive. I feel privileged to be able to say that my experiences with many of you across the floor have been no less rewarding. But I am confounded by repeated iterations of bills that seek to promote an agenda for a cause that has already been acknowledged by this government.

We do not virtue signal, glue ourselves to infrastructure or produce fake tears on television. That sort of behaviour is reserved for those of you who do not have any policies and who instead rely on hollow symbolism. Instead this coalition government is taking real and meaningful action to reduce our impact on the environment. We are getting on with the job because that is how you get things done. There is nothing productive in drawing people's attention to your misuse of terms like climate emergency. This coalition government has in place strong targets as part of coordinated global action to reduce our emissions by 2030. These targets will see a reduction of 50 per cent in emissions per capita and a 65 per cent reduction in the emissions of our economy. These targets are well considered and they are designed to be achieved without destroying our economy and without flinching at ridiculous claims of climate change that have zero basis in either fact or science.

Longer term targets are not a substitute for real action. That's why we are developing a national hydrogen strategy. We are already investing $140 million, including $50 million for the $496 million hydrogen energy supply pilot project in the Latrobe Valley, $5.7 million for the power to gas trial in New South Wales and $22 million for 16 hydrogen research and development grants—real action. We are also investing across the research, development and deployment spectrum to reduce emissions, including $50 million to identify and develop biofuels and lithium. Real action that delivers real results—that is how this coalition government operates.

To date, our track record is an enviable one. We are meeting or exceeding our targets. Indeed, we are on track to overachieve on our 2020 target by 367 million tonnes of carbon. For perspective, you need to consider that this represents a turnaround of 1.1 billion tonnes on the position we inherited from Labor in 2013. Those across the floor would surely agree that this is an incredible achievement—and we did it without the carbon tax. For further perspective, you must also consider that the total emissions from industry in Australia barely amount to one per cent of world emissions. Our footprint is incredibly small, it's minuscule; but we continue to tackle the problem, and we tackle it in earnest because we choose to and because we believe we should. Our policies are successful policies. We know this because not only are we meeting or exceeding targets; we are also seeing record levels of investment in renewables, more than double the per capita investment of the UK, Germany or France. In my home of the Northern Territory, investing in a $20 billion solar farm in Tennant Creek has recently been talked about—and we can be so magnanimous with this energy that we are going to generate that we are actually going to run an extension cord to Singapore so that they can use it. Recently, during a trip to Alice Springs, I was speaking with people on solar energy in Alice Springs. Alice is a solar city, so much so that people that are putting solar installations on their houses now are being restricted in how much energy they can feed into the grid because there is so much solar in the centre of Australia.

Details of our achievement of record levels of investment were confirmed in the report from the Australian National University. This report confirms that Australia has spent 11 times the global average on renewable power. We're hardly ignoring the problem. We have a clear plan to meet and beat our 2030 target through our fully funded Climate Solutions Package, which has mapped out to the last tonne how we will meet our targets. We are doing this while all the while supporting farmers, businesses and Indigenous communities. We're helping them reduce the amount of greenhouse gases, and doing it through the Climate Solutions Fund. We're bringing new electricity generation products online, such as Snowy 2.0 and the Battery of the Nation. We are supporting households and businesses to improve energy efficiency and lower their power bills.

Just last week, we saw new data released that shows that emissions per person and the emissions intensity of the economy continue to fall and are at their lowest levels in nearly three decades. Emissions for the year to June 2019 are down 0.1 per cent. Once again, we did this without a carbon tax. We don't take these actions because someone stands in front of cars in Brisbane, or because there was a caravan of people that travelled from Tasmania to Queensland, or because some people waved signs and banged on bongos outside of Parliament House. We are motivated to do what is right. When this coalition government wants to see action, we take action.

The same cannot be said of those across the floor. In the brief time I have been in this place, I have witnessed the Greens senators engage in what can only be described as a campaign of obstruction, with a constant stream of nonsensical motions, divisions and inane commentary. I must congratulate them on recently achieving a new low standard that most certainly surpasses all their previous efforts to demonstrate supreme absurdity and egocentricity. Across vast areas of New South Wales and Queensland massive bushfires destroyed vast quantities of natural flora and fauna, properties, businesses, pets, livestock and, terrifyingly, human lives. Normal Australians would pull together and work towards helping those in need at times such as this. Senators for the Australian Greens instead chose that moment to harangue the hardworking people who are fighting the fires and to berate people suffering the loss of their livelihoods, the loss of all their belongings and worse. They accused us of being arsonists. Arsonists are people who deliberately light fires, fully with the understanding that it will cause destruction, devastation and death. That is a depraved, sociopathic way to refer to your colleagues in this place, and also trivialises the very real crime of arson.

Recently Professor Andy Pitman at the ARC Climate Centre repeated his statement regarding the perceived causal links between climate change and bushfires. There is no link—nil, zero, none—between the perceived climate emergency and these bushfires. The Greens will undoubtedly reference an opposing view, and they're entitled to do so. I also note an absence of temerity in their convictions as they collectively dodge, evade and hide from the offers Senator Roberts has extended to debate on the subject. Cowering from your own convictions is not what Aussies do. (Time expired)

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

'To err on the side of danger is a stupid thing to do.' Those were the words of Professor Will Steffen when commenting on the paper he and other leading scientists have just had released in Nature about our climate emergency. He continued, 'Our reaction time has to be fast, and to decarbonise by 2050 we have to really move now.' So, why are we faffing about and debating the failure of the severely flawed 'continue polluting regardless' scheme from 10 years ago? It was bad legislation then and it would be bad legislation now. It allowed for unlimited dodgy international permits and we would now be paying out billions of dollars to the big polluters as we realised we needed to increase the scale of ambition from what was anticipated in that legislation then.

What we need now is for the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party to join with the Greens in acknowledging the scale of the action that is needed to tackle our climate emergency. People want us to work together. Whether it's the student strikers, the scientists, the workers or the firefighters, they want us to work together. They do not want to see partisan attacks by Labor on the Greens. If Labor is determined to look backwards, it could actually look back to the successful policies that were introduced by the Gillard government, in alliance with the Greens, and commit to reintroducing a price on carbon. The price on carbon introduced during the time of the Gillard government was extremely successful in reducing our carbon pollution.

Looking forward from here at the reality that we face now, the scary reality we face now, is most important. We are calling on Labor and the government to join with us in taking the action that is necessary to tackle our climate emergency, and that is to rapidly end the mining, burning and export of coal, gas and oil. Anything else just does not cut it. Anything else is selling out the Australian community. It's putting us in danger, as well as the global community. Anything else than a rapid shift away from coal, gas and oil is condemning us to a future of extreme fires, to the creeping cancer of sea level rise, to ongoing drought, to crop failures, to the death of the Great Barrier Reef and to seeing far too much of our precious wildlife hurtling towards extinction.

It's not too late to turn this around. We can still act and we can still have hope, but we have to act now. The time for faffing around and being too clever by half, with attacks on the Greens, is well and truly over. The time to have action on our climate emergency is now. (Time expired)

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to begin today by acknowledging something that Senator Rice said, which is that we do need to work together on this issue. It's interesting to hear a member of the Greens political party say that, because that is not what they have tried to do on this issue. That is why today we are talking about the 10-year anniversary of the defeat in the Senate of the CPRS. We need to make sure that people know that working together was something that the Greens political party was not interested in doing 10 years ago, and it's something they're not interested in doing here today.

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On one side of the chamber, we've got climate change deniers at war with science and firefighters. We can see from the interjections from the senators at this end of the chamber that they don't like to be reminded of what they did 10 years ago. They would rather put a fancy slogan on a T-shirt and head out there and point their finger at people in regional Queensland and tell them what they should be doing with their future. Well, I'm not going to cop that, because I stand here representing every single Queenslander, and that means people in every single part of regional Queensland. That's an uncomfortable thing for the Greens party to understand, because they want to slice and dice and divide our community.

The urgency motion should be a wake-up call to the government and the Greens, a reminder that their fight against Labor, the determination to stay in government on one side or to stay relevant, is hurting working Australians. By voting against the CPRS, the Greens voted against a mechanism that would put Australia's emissions on a downward trajectory beyond 2020. Instead, as a result of their actions, we are now on a trajectory that will see emissions rising until at least 2030, according to government projections. And whilst the Greens supported Labor's Clean Energy Future package two years later, the political damage was done, and we haven't recovered in this country from that debate.

A decade of policy instability has prevailed, preventing necessary investment in energy infrastructure and leading to increases in energy prices and increased emissions. More broadly, Australia's lack of action on climate change has had real economic impact for our communities—often, the members of our communities who can afford it the least. The living standards of Australians are going down, and emissions and electricity prices are going up. I want to talk about these economic impacts because they are something that people in this place forget to talk about.

We have seen higher electricity prices all across the country. Again, the attempt to rectify this situation by the government resulted in the undoing of Malcolm Turnbull for the second time. This is not a comfortable policy area for the government, because they are bitterly divided. And we have seen higher insurance costs all across the country, and there is a particular warning that, if the climate change risks are not addressed, then we will see the number of uninsurable addresses in Australia double by the turn of the century. People will be uninsurable, and some of them are already uninsurable in parts of North Queensland. Insurance companies want mitigation funding to resolve this, because they recognise that climate change is having an economic impact on people in regional Queensland.

We have seen uncertainty for the manufacturing industry. I know that the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia likes to talk about the manufacturing industry, and how the government's policies are helping the manufacturing industry, but the truth is, when you go to talk to the people working in the manufacturing industry in Far North Queensland, that the lack of a national energy policy is hampering new investment in technology for reduced emissions and for business growth. The government wants to talk about jobs and supporting industry, but how many jobs are the government putting at risk by not putting an energy policy in place?

The other economic impacts of course are the potential and current impacts on the Great Barrier Reef. The Great Barrier Reef is an economic powerhouse, contributing more than $5.6 billion each year to the Australian economy, and providing around 70,000 jobs. That's a huge number of jobs, and we know that the outlook for the reef was downgraded this year.

I make no apologies for taking on the government, and I make no apologies for taking on the Greens on this issue. The Greens political party promoted the anti-Adani caravan as an opportunistic tactic to boost their Senate vote in Queensland. We have wonderful spokespeople in regional Queensland on these issues, and instead of listening to them and instead of giving them a voice, both parties are trying to drown them out. They want to continue to divide the community and, 10 years later, what do we have to show for it? (Time expired)

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Kevin Rudd may well have said that climate change is the greatest moral hazard to affect our politics. I'd like to say that climate change has been the great political schism that has divided and confounded those on the Centre Left and the far Left of Australian politics for exactly that same period.

What we have seen this afternoon, and what we saw in greater clarity this morning, is the real consequence and the real lessons learned from Labor's election review, published just a short time ago. What we can see is the Left of Australian politics grappling with some pretty important issues. One of those issues is what priority they give to employment opportunities in this country. In particular, what priority will they give to employment opportunities in regional parts of our country? And nothing demonstrates that more than Labor's failure in Queensland—not just its failure at the federal election but its historic failure in the general election. Labor secured very, very few senators and Labor got its lowest vote in Queensland on record. This is a demonstration that, for Labor, aided and abetted by the Greens—and I'll come to that in a moment—this issue of climate change is causing them no end of grief. Why would they come into this chamber to talk about an anniversary that highlights the division on the Left of Australian politics? Why would they do that, unless it was some part of their existential grieving and learning?

What we've seen today is Labor pitted against the Greens. If the Greens were really interested in acting with the moral authority they talk about in this chamber and they talk about outside, they would abandon their blind faith in Labor, stop preferencing them at every election, go out there and say to Australian voters: 'You know what? We're actually not in bed with the Labor Party, so we would like you to choose who you might give your preferences to.' Walk out there, Senator Whish-Wilson, Senator Siewert, Senator Faruqi, with a split how-to-vote card. Why don't you put 'vote for the Liberals, vote for jobs' on one side? Why wouldn't you put 'vote for Labor' on the other?

What we've seen today is not the end of a debate but the beginning of a debate. Mark my words, 2020 will be marked by more conflict, more gut wrenching and more policy wrenching between the Labor Party and the Australian Greens. I don't know about Senator Canavan and I can't speak for Senator Brockman. I'm not going to get in your way. But Australians have made their priorities crystal clear—that is, they put current and future employment opportunities very high on their agenda.

In the debate on the motion of Senator McCarthy this afternoon, there has been lots of talk about what may or may not have happened and then there's this call for bipartisanship. The first point I would make is that if that was a call for everybody, it should be tripartisanship, not bipartisanship, because there are two parties of government—ourselves and a party that sort of joins with Labor in securing its legislative agenda more often than not. But in order to achieve a bipartisanship or a tripartisanship commitment, it requires a couple of key fundamentals—that is, you have to have a common view about the principles and you have to have a common view about what it is you're working towards or what it is that you're seeking to protect.

The coalition's position is very clear. Firstly, we put a high value on current and future employment opportunities, not just for today's Australians but also for future generations of Australians. Secondly, we put a high value on credible standards that we can take into the international community to meet or exceed our international obligations. We put a very high price on evidence and not just on emotion. When we think about what the coalition's attitude is to climate change, it's believable, it's credible and it's consistent. In the last general election, we saw Australians make a very clear choice. They trust believability, they trust credibility and they trust consistency. The coalition's record is characterised by strong targets. It has an enviable record that— (Time expired)

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a Labor motion, an attack on the Greens, on a policy debate that is nearly 10 years old. I want to remind Labor senators in here that this has been brought forward on the first day of the last week of the year, the last chance we have in this parliament to hold this government to account. May I remind Labor senators that this year they lost an unlosable election, an unlosable election that was supposed to be a climate election. The message today, for anyone who cares about acting on climate and climate breakdown, was out the front of Parliament House this morning. It said: 'Morrison, your climate crisis destroyed my home.' That was from Belinda and Dean from the Northern Rivers, with a few scraps of their burnt-out home, standing in front of this building, saying, 'Do something about this crisis.' Their message was: 'We want all politicians to listen, cooperate and listen to the science.' What do they get from the Labor Party? Bickering over a 10-year-old policy failure.

This is a political strategy by the Labor Party. It's all about the Labor Party. It is a huge distraction, a deliberate distraction from the fact that they have no policy on climate. You cannot support coal and you cannot support oil and gas in a time of climate emergency and have a climate policy. It's all about the Labor Party trying to peel votes off the Greens. In fact, I suspect it's not just about the Labor Party; it's about one particular Labor senator in this chamber: Penny Wong.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. Refer to the senator by their appropriate title.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Penny Wong: that's what this is about. This chamber shouldn't be used as a personal vanity project for any senator. This is a time of climate emergency, and the millions of Australians out there who voted for Labor and the Greens because they wanted action on climate are going to be bitterly disappointed with this strategy from Labor. Labor have had no mojo at all in the debate since the election, and this is what they bring to the Australian people in the last week of the parliament before we go into a summer of more marine heat waves, more loss of our fisheries and our marine ecosystems and, unfortunately, a higher risk of more bushfires. And we found out today from the Climate Council that, yes, we've had the driest spring on record. We now have the worst drought on record, and this is what we get from the Labor Party: they're playing cheap, petty politics when Australians want us to get on with the job, join forces and fight for climate action.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion has expired.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

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