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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the attendance of a minister, which has been circulated in the chamber.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to provide that a motion to require the attendance of a minister may be moved immediately and determined without amendment.

On Thursday last week the Prime Minister told the parliament, in response to a question from Greens leader Adam Bandt, that Australia would be participating in the Climate Ambition Summit. He said, 'It will be a great opportunity to correct the mistruths that are often presented.' Yet last night, a story in The Guardian from Katherine Murphy and Adam Moreton saw diplomatic sources say:

There had been a debate among the co-hosts, including Britain … as to whether Morrison should be approved to speak at the summit given the widespread view that Australia is a laggard on climate commitments.

We then had a government source confirming that the final speaker list is a matter for the event hosts. It would make sense that the Australian government might not be given a speaking spot, because the criteria required three things: an increase on 2030 targets, an actual strategy to reduce net zero emissions, and new financial commitments to developing nations to manage climate risks. All the Prime Minister has done is promise not to cheat with a dodgy accounting trick, using carryover credits, and that doesn't fit the criteria. Our 2030 targets remain—

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

I have Senator Gallagher on a point of order.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just referring back to some comments you made last week, my point of order is on relevance. I understand the question that is before the chair is whether or not there should be a suspension of standing orders? It appears to me that Senator Waters is debating the motion that she is seeking to move.

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

Thank you for saying that, Senator Gallagher. I did remind senators last week. You have been going for over a minute, Senator Waters. The matter before the chamber is to suspend standing orders, not the motion that has been circulated. Senator Waters.

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

Thank you, President. I was just providing some context before I come to that justification. As I was saying: no finance commitments, no increase on the 2030 target and no pathway to reach any targets. We are pretty confident that Australia won't be invited to speak. But what we need to hear from the government, and this is why we're moving to suspend standing orders today, is whether the Prime Minister has misled the parliament in his response to Greens leader Adam Bandt's question about whether or not we were invited. We have been informed that the Prime Minister has received a letter specifically saying that Australia is not invited to the Climate Ambition Summit.

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

Senator Waters, I have Senator Ruston on a point of order.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

President, you made quite a clear ruling a minute ago about the substance of the question that is before the chair. Senator Waters seems to be quite happy to completely ignore your direction, and I would ask her to be relevant to the motion.

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

Senator Waters, to her credit, did come to the issue. Senator Waters, I have traditionally allowed people to raise points of order, but from this point forward I'm going to police it from the chair. So I expect the substance of your address to be about the suspension, not about the motion that has been circulated.

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

This is why we need to suspend standing orders: did the Prime Minister mislead the parliament? Surely that is a most serious offence by the highest office holder in this land and an urgent matter that requires debate. Has there been a genuine misunderstanding, or was it an intentional misleading of the parliament? This is exactly why we're seeking to suspend standing orders.

I might add that one of the elements of the suspension that we're seeking today is for the Minister representing the Prime Minister to attend the Senate at two o'clock today to make a statement to advise the Senate on whether Australia is or is not speaking at the Climate Ambition Summit and to table any correspondence. As I said, we have information that the correspondence has been sent, specifically disavowing what the Prime Minister said and saying that Australia is not invited because we're climate laggards. This is a matter that is appropriate for this chamber to be debating. We cannot have a Prime Minister misleading either house of parliament, and it's imperative that this Senate be told what the case is. That's, of course, the reason why we're seeking to suspend standing orders today, and we look forward to the minister coming along at two o'clock and explaining the Prime Minister's potential misleading of the House.

This is a matter of grave importance. This government has pathetic targets that are paling in comparison to other nations. We know the Bureau of Meteorology has warned us we are on track for 4.4 degrees of warming in Australia. That's the death of the reef, that's the death of agriculture, that's an awful lot of human misery and that's probably the tanking of our economy irrevocably. We know that the UK has just lifted its ambition. We know that the EU is finalising its commission to lift its ambition.

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

Senator Waters, I'm granting you some latitude. I think you need to, again, come back to the substance of the matter before the chamber, which is the suspension of standing orders.

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

I'll do that. I'm merely providing the context that the rest of the world is moving and they can see that Australia is not moving. The fact that we have been informed that there is correspondence that Australia is not invited to a climate ambition summit is absolute dynamite in and of itself. The reason for the proposed suspension today is that the Prime Minister said the opposite in the House last week in response to a direct question. He maintained that we had been invited and that we were going to speak. Well, it appears that the Prime Minister has been caught out in a lie, and that's why we want to give the Prime Minister, through his representing minister, a chance to explain that potential misunderstanding—or was it an intentional misleading of the chamber?

The rest of the world knows that Australia is a climate laggard. Australians want action on the climate crisis, and they know there can be a huge jobs bonanza in clean energy. They want their parliament to deal with these matters. Does it really have to take the Greens every day raising the need for climate action for anything to get done? We would love for this matter to be properly addressed today. We would like to hear an explanation from the Prime Minister. It is not okay that the Prime Minister has potentially misled the chamber and held out that Australia's got an invite when we, in fact, specifically have not been invited.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is just another example of the blatant and flagrant disregard that the Greens have for this place, for the chair and for the appropriate and established order of business, which we all respect and operate under. It's a total disregard for other members of this chamber and for the absolutely established process by which this chamber operates. We will not accept this absolute blatant attempt to disrupt the order of business in this place, and I therefore move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question is that the motion be put.

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

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