Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, 25 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Whish-Wilson:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The urgent need for the Morrison Government to announce science-based 2030 targets, to protect Australian exporters from overseas carbon border adjustment mechanisms."

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 clocks accordingly.

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

At the request of Senator Whish-Wilson, I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The urgent need for the Morrison Government to announce science-based 2030 targets, to protect Australian exporters from overseas carbon border adjustment mechanisms.

In the last few weeks and months, everything about the global fight on the climate emergency has changed: 2030 targets, net zero commitments, coal and gas exports and now carbon tariffs. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced last week that he wants to use June's G7 meeting to forge an alliance on carbon border adjustment mechanisms. While this government is trying to secure a free trade agreement with the European Union, the EU ambassador has urged us to embrace 'more ambitious and emboldened' climate policies. Japan, a country that accepts 40 per cent of Australia's LNG exports and over a third of our thermal coal exports, is set to make a decision by July on its own carbon border adjustment mechanism. In the platform that he took to the 2020 election, US President Biden said that his administration will 'impose carbon adjustment fees or quotas on carbon-intensive goods from countries that are failing to meet their climate and environmental obligations' and 'will also condition future trade agreements on partners' commitments to meet their enhanced Paris climate targets'.

We already know that this government has turned Australia into a global pariah when it comes to climate action and that we face the scorn of the international community when it comes to doing our fair share to reduce emissions. Prime Minister Morrison was refused an invitation to the UN Climate Ambition Summit late last year. The former Prime Minister of Tuvalu has said that the Prime Minister's actions at the 2019 Pacific Islands Forum communicated the view that Pacific leaders should 'take the money then shut up about climate change'. This government has spent the last two meetings of the Paris Agreement begging the rest of the world to let Australia cheat on our emissions accounting by using Kyoto-era carryover credits, something that no other country is intending to use.

But now it looks like Australia's exporters will have to wear the consequences of this government's go-slow approach as well. We don't know how far the consequences could go. Maybe there'll be tariffs based on the carbon intensity of our goods, and all of the exporters who rely on our dirty coal based electricity, which this government refuses to transition off, will get whacked with a big fee. Maybe the tariffs will be general and impact all exporters, which could see even low-carbon exporters hit with tariffs due to this government's inaction. We don't know yet and, given the nature of these global trade agreements, there is every chance that we won't have much of a say.

What's so sad about this is that it doesn't need to be this way. We had a price on carbon, and it worked. We brought down energy emissions by 12 million tonnes in just the two years before it was repealed, the only time prior to COVID that that's happened in this country. We are blessed with the resources of the sun and the wind. We have the engineering and technical know-how to rapidly transform our economy. But politics—the politics of the big parties and the big coal and gas corporations who pay for their campaigns—continues to get in the way.

We have two options available to us: we can continue to double-down on our fossil fuel obsession while the rest of the world leaves Australia behind, or we can do our fair share to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, adopt science based 2030 targets and make a proper plan to meet them. There are no other options.

You hear from the government that somehow we can close our eyes and wish it all away. Minister Taylor has said that he's dead against carbon tariffs. I'm sorry, minister, but that's not how it works. You can be dead against them all you like, but, if we want to be part of the global community, we can't just unilaterally decide to shirk our responsibility on emissions. That's the choice—a job-rich transformation to a low-carbon economy or a poorer, hotter, more dangerous and more insular Australia.

This government faces a series of very serious threats over the coming months: President Biden's April climate summit, the G7 meeting in June, the 2021 Pacific Islands Forum and, finally, COP26 in Glasgow in November. And, while talk of 'preferably by 2050' might be a balm for those who want to delay action, it is what we do and say over the next decade that counts. It is science based 2030 targets and the next decade that will be debated at the Biden summit, at the G7 and at COP26. The decisions that this government makes over the coming months will set the course for not only the future of the fight on climate change but the future of Australia's role in the world. The eyes of the world are on us, and, if this government fails again, there will be consequences.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it's great that the Greens have moved this motion this evening in the Senate, because it once again highlights the difficulty that the Greens political party seem to have in conceiving the concept of democracy. It's, I thought, a pretty simple system we have here—a tough system, but a simple one—where we have these things called elections in our country every three years for the federal parliament. There are certain policies put forward by different political parties at those elections. The Australian people choose which of those parties or groups they'd like to rule them, and those policies then are generally, hopefully, implemented and promises are kept, hopefully, and passed through this place.

But, of course, the Greens don't like what the Australian people have said over the past decade, so now they're hoping, wishing, praying and trying to get through this place that we encourage other nations to rule us. We encourage other countries to tell us what we should do here in this country and how we should govern ourselves! The Greens would effectively disenfranchise the Australian people and say, 'Your views are simple, your views are not sophisticated enough and your views don't accord with a globalist agenda that other countries have adopted, so they should be imposed on you regardless of what you vote for or who you support.' That is the position of this motion. The position of this motion says that we should—and Senator Waters just outlined it there—adopt carbon taxes and carbon prices very soon so we can avoid other countries trying to force us to do something through carbon adjustment border mechanisms, or otherwise just put tariffs and taxes on us. So, because the Greens haven't been able to convince the Australian people to impose a tax on themselves, they are wishing and hoping other countries impose a tax on this country. How un-Australian can you get! Whatever your views are on what we should do on climate change, how could you credibly sit there and be wishing and praying other countries tax Australia? That is what this motion calls for. Anyone who supports it—the Labor Party supports it—are supporting other countries taxing this country, taxing our jobs, taking away our income and making us poorer as a nation because of it.

Let's just go through the record here. Let's just spell out the track record of the last decade in terms of putting forward policies of this nature, putting forward carbon taxes and carbon prices or whatever you want to call them—there have been lots of names, which I'll go through. Let's go through and see what the Australian people decided, because this did start about a decade ago when then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd adopted the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the CPRS. At the time, he did have it for a while. Then it became a bit tough for him—it was the 'greatest moral challenge of our time' then wasn't. But we went to the election in 2010, and the Labor Party effectively lost—it was a draw really—and then they had to get the support of some country Independents to govern. The Australian people weren't happy with the CPRS. Rudd had sort of got it rid of it before, and Ms Gillard then stood at that election saying, 'There'll be no carbon tax from the government I lead.' The Australian people voted for parties. Neither party had a carbon tax in their policy. In fact, the then leader of the political party that became the Prime Minister explicitly said she would not impose a carbon tax. Anyway, that promise was broken. The Labor government at the time went against the will of the Australian people. They imposed that tax, which played a big part in the fact that they got smashed in the 2013 election. They lost on a policy of a carbon tax—another loss for a carbon tax.

In 2016 Mr Mark Butler—long may he rest now he's no longer the shadow climate minister—took forward an emissions intensity scheme to the election. It was another loss for the Labor Party. It was defeated at the 2016 election. The Australian people rejected that too.

And then a couple of years ago, in 2019, Mr Bill Shorten took forward a policy of a 45 per cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030. It was a bit unclear whether it would be through a carbon price or a carbon tax, but it was a significantly larger emissions reduction than the coalition policy had committed to in Paris, and again—again—it was rejected by the Australian people.

So we're zero from four for a carbon tax or a carbon price over the last decade, yet still we hear the Greens—and, I don't know, maybe Labor here this afternoon—wishing, hoping and praying that a carbon tax will be imposed on the Australian people by hook or by crook, by whatever means they deem necessary.

Instead of cheering on other countries imposing taxes on our own jobs, our own income, our own wealth, our own people, we should be standing up for what we're doing right in this country. The hypocrisy of other nations that would seek to do these things! I think the chances of these border adjustments are very remote, for the very simple reason that if other countries adopt them they'll have to apply them to themselves. To be in any way consistent they'll have to apply them to themselves. In Europe, where a lot of these calls are coming from, 21 of the 27 countries are not on track to meet their Paris commitments. So what are they going to do? Are they going to reintroduce tariffs within Europe? Are they going to get rid of the EU? They're applying this policy, and it's being applied to members who are not meeting their climate change goals; well, there should be a reimposition of tariffs among European countries for those countries that are laggards, that are not meeting their targets. In fact just last week a French court ruled that the French government are not meeting their Paris commitments right now. Are they going to apply these taxes to themselves? I don't think they will. These seem like empty threats.

You then go back to the Kyoto agreement, which came due last year. The Kyoto agreement commitments were made in 1997, I believe. I might be getting that date wrong. It was sometime in the late 1990s that the Kyoto agreement was finalised. Countries made various commitments to cut their emissions by 2020. A lot of countries didn't meet the target. We did. Australia met our commitments and our targets, but Canada didn't meet their targets and New Zealand didn't meet their targets. Are they going to impose carbon adjustment border mechanisms on themselves? How are they going to tax their own products? I don't know how they're going to impose tariffs on their own products—an internal tariff would be an interesting thing to impose—but that would be the rationale under this scheme. We should be fighting against this hypocrisy and pointing out that that kind of behaviour cannot be tolerated at all, at any international level.

If we believe in an international rules based trading system and in free trade—which has come under a lot of pressure in the last 20 years for reasons well outside this debate—and want to continue to support it, where does all this go? What happens when a country turns around and says, 'If you keep culling your kangaroo herd we're going to impose a carbon adjustment border mechanism on you'? How much more national sovereignty will be impinged based on countries threatening or imposing tariffs on other nations? It is at the heart of the Westphalian system that countries should not be able to dictate the policies of another nation. For that reason I cannot see this particular proposal getting past first base. It hasn't yet. There has been a lot of talk and there have been a lot of threats, a lot of smoke and mirrors, but really it would completely destroy the system of nation-state governance and cordial relations between ourselves if it were to come into place, because it would go well beyond climate change if it were to happen.

Finally, I want to focus a little bit on the inherent absurdity of a lot of these proposals to save the planet through global action right now, in the current environment. I imagine that if these mechanisms were to come into place—if carbon tariffs were to be put in place—they wouldn't apply just to Australia; they would have to be applied to other countries too. I wonder how they're going to be enforced and checked. I wonder how other nations will determine whether a particular country is breaching its commitments and therefore deserves to have a carbon tariff imposed on it. I say that particularly in the context of what we've seen in the past week.

In the past week we've seen the international observers from the World Health Organization who travelled to China—and they spent months in China trying to uncover the origins of the coronavirus—come back empty handed. Indeed, it has been revealed this week that there are hundreds of blood samples that China is not sharing with these inspectors. They have not been able to come to any really worthwhile conclusions about the origins of the coronavirus.

According to those in this chamber who are taking the threat of carbon tariffs seriously, apparently in the future climate inspectors from, say, the IPCC—unlike those health inspectors who failed—will have no problems enforcing and disciplining countries like China and finding out whether they really are meeting their net zero targets. Does anyone believe this absurdity? Does anyone believe that China is going to allow climate inspectors into its country to determine how many coal-fired power stations it has and how much emissions it is producing? No way. Hell would freeze over before that would happen.

This whole motion is built on a mountain of absurdity. Senator Waters mentioned at the end of her contribution that there are only two options: we cut our emissions or we become subject to all of these tariffs. I would posit a third option: we listen to the Australian people. That's another option.

Senator Brockman interjecting—

A radical option, Senator Brockman, would be that we listen to the Australian people, let democracy decide what we do in this country and make it very clear to other nations that we will not have any truck with other countries who want to impinge on our democratic, sovereign and independent rights as a nation to decide the policies that are imposed on the Australian people. We accept other countries' rights in that regard and we expect the same in return.

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

It's always a pleasure to speak on these motions that are drafted by the Greens. Sometimes I wonder whether Senator Canavan drafts them himself and sends them to the Greens so that he can have an opportunity to speak about his favourite subject, which is all the things the Greens are doing wrong—not what the government is doing right. While I don't agree with every aspect of this urgency motion there are parts that I agree with and that we need to discuss in this place.

I do agree that policies should be science based, and that is a real problem for this government. We've been recently dealing with the pandemic and we've had alternative facts from members of this government—alternative facts about cures, processes, the coronavirus itself and vaccines. This government has been unable to deal with members of its caucus who can't accept science, who rally against science and who see science as something that should be debated. The Deputy Prime Minister said in an interview that sometimes facts are up for debate. But science shouldn't be up for debate when it is so crucial and so important for public health.

We know there are members of the government who rally against the science of climate change. They rally against the science that is about protecting public health. Climate change is a risk to public health. This government has members sitting on the benches over there. I have sat in committees where scientists have been attacked, derailed and questioned about the science that they are presenting. It is extraordinary to witness that sort of behaviour from a government that should be applying the best possible science to its policy making. We know that that doesn't happen, and that's why this government has really struggled to make any headway when it comes to climate action and when it comes to dealing with carbon emissions. It's why there is a real risk of not getting our health response to this pandemic correct.

I do agree with the part of this motion that says that this is an urgent matter. It's urgent because there's not enough certainty for businesses and workers. There's not enough urgency about a plan for targets, carbon emissions and our energy market. Businesses are looking to the government for guidance. They want to make decisions about the future. These businesses aren't making 12-month plans; they are making 10-year plans and they need to know from this government what parameters they will be working with. But, unfortunately, we know what happens with the LNP is someone comes up with an idea, then the Nationals come over to the joint party room and say, 'That's not going to happen. We don't want to do that,' and everyone gives up and walks away. I do agree with the inference in this motion that it would be much better for workers, for jobs, for our trading exporters if members of this government, particularly the Nationals, were kept as far away from energy and manufacturing policy as possible, because all they have managed to do is hold back our regions and industries.

We know that parts of regional Queensland—the parts of our country that members opposite talk about all the time in terms of protecting jobs and standing up for the regions—are parts of our country that could have a jobs boom when it comes to renewable energy and getting our energy mix right. We have in Far North Queensland a real problem when it comes to jobs right now. I have spent a lot of time in this chamber arguing that this government should step in and support tourism operators. They are not doing what they should be doing when it comes to supporting tourism operators. But what the government also haven't done is, over the last seven years, given a town like Cairns a plan to diversify its economy. They haven't been able to say where other jobs might be able to come from. We know there might be another pilot strike, might be another COVID-19, but, for seven years, there has been no diversification of jobs.

When it comes to renewable energy, we can create jobs in Far North Queensland. We have wind, we have solar and we can create thousands and thousands of jobs if we get the settings right. We've got a fantastic wind farm in Far North Queensland called the Mount Emerald Wind Farm. I visited it recently. It's got 53 wind turbines. Every single one of those wind turbines was manufactured overseas. I look at this huge construction and the workers that take so much pride in maintaining that facility, but it’s a missed opportunity that we haven't been able to manufacture those wind turbines right here in Australia. So we are talking about targets, talking about plans, talking about the federal government walking away from net zero emissions in 2050. On this side of the chamber, we're talking about the jobs that are going missing.

It's the businesses that don't have certainty. It's the businesses that are crying out for cheaper energy prices so we can manufacture things like wind turbines, so we can build trains in regional Queensland, so we can build and maintain ships in regional Queensland, but they can't do it if they don't know what the energy setting policies will be over the next five, 10, 15 years. We ask these business, these fantastic family and local businesses, to make long-term investments in our regions. But without knowing what the policy settings will be, they are unable to do that, and the Morrison government has repeatedly refused to commit to a target of net zero emissions by 2050, declaring that the government's plan is to achieve net zero emissions in the second half of the century. You really have to wonder why they are unable to commit to this target alone. The Deputy Prime Minister and members of the National Party have made it clear that the reason that they don't want to commit to a 2050 target is that they won't be in parliament in 2050. It's that sort of short-sightedness that really irks members of the public in regional Queensland. It is that sort of short-sightedness that has led to a situation where we don't have diversification of our economy in regional Queensland. Jobs in renewables could boom by 44,000 jobs by 2025 but only with the right policy. With the right policy support, renewable energy could employ as many as 40,000 Australian workers, almost doubling the 25,000 workers in the sector right now. But that is only with the right policy settings, only with a commitment from this government and only with the establishment of a robust and secure workforce.

In Far North Queensland we know that when it comes to science, saving jobs and taking action on climate change there is no better example of what's at risk than the Great Barrier Reef. Right now we are trying to support business operators whose hearts are breaking at the moment. In the last week or so I've spoken to tourism operators who are really struggling. They are really struggling because this government has shown a complete lack of concern about their businesses. Grown men are crying. Their hearts are breaking because they know that their businesses are at real risk if this government isn't able to support them.

The risk going forward through the pandemic is that, if we don't get our climate action settings right, the impacts on the Great Barrier Reef will be irreversible. Without flights with international visitors coming into Cairns right now, our tourism businesses are struggling, but if there's no reef to visit then those planes will stop forever. We need to back-in these businesses and local jobs. The only way to do that is by giving some certainty around targets.

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

I welcome the opportunity to talk about energy security and energy affordability. The European Union has threatened to impose a tariff on our exports to punish Australians for not having destroyed as much of our economy as the Europeans have destroyed of theirs with ruinous renewable energy. At the same time as the EU is in the grip of record cold, solar panels over there are covered in snow and windmills are frozen solid. Germany, the home of the Greens, has just opened a new HELE coal plant, Datteln 4, which has 1,100 megawatts of reliable base-load coal power. It is proving the difference between keeping the lights on and sitting in the cold and dark. Heating and cooling are not optional to the elderly and the infirm. Energy security and energy affordability are essential.

The welfare of Australians must be our foremost consideration in energy policy, yet in Australia the Greens insist on pursuing a strategy that will create a hostile energy environment. The old parties—the Liberals, Labor and the Nationals—have joined in. In Western Australia the Liberal and National parties have announced a plan to close their coal power plants by 2025, in four years time. The New South Wales Liberals and Nationals are closing the Liddell coal power plant in 2023. What's ALP policy? They want to shut down half of our coal-fired power by 2030. At least, I think that's right. The ALP policy changes depending on who's telling the story and where they're telling the story.

Every major party has the same policy: to close our base-load power plants without first building replacements. One Nation is the only party with an energy plan that will provide for Australia's energy security now and in the future. We will build a 2,000-megawatt hydroplant near Townsville and microhydro across the grid. One Nation will build high-efficiency, low-emissions—HELE—coal plants in the Hunter and at Collinsville in Queensland. One Nation's plan will bring back manufacturing and jobs and deliver employment security and higher wages—in short, a better standard of living for all Australians. I'll say it again: One Nation is the only party of energy security and energy affordability.

I want to mention a phrase used in the Greens motion: science based 2030 energy policy. In December 2016, Senator Ian Macdonald said, 'The science has never been debated in this parliament—never—until Senator Roberts raised it.' I can still say it's never been debated, because no-one will debate it. It's been 515 days now since I first challenged in the Senate Senator Waters, the current Greens leader, and Senator Di Natale, the leader at the time, to a debate on the empirical scientific evidence of their claim and on the corruption of climate science. Not once have they provided that evidence. Not once have they accepted a debate. It's over 10 years now, nearly 10½ years, since I first challenged Senator Waters, at a debate at the powerhouse in New Farm on Thursday 7 October 2010. Senator Canavan talks about Nationals policy. They went to the last election with a policy for coal, and every policy since has said nothing about coal. One Nation is the only party of energy security and energy affordability.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another day, another motion of urgency from the Greens where it's all about ruining Australian business and ruining jobs and all about virtue signalling. It's clear to all senators, I believe, and to all Australians that the Greens are not a party of action. They are not a party of government. They are a party of protest and a party that relies solely on selling fear, knowing that they will never ever have to come up with a plan that works—and this motion today shows exactly that.

This motion is not about the Greens providing suggestions on how the Morrison government can achieve zero emissions; they are solely suggesting that the Morrison government makes virtue-signalling announcements. This government that I'm a part of is focused on results, not on hollow promises. All this motion today does is encourage foreign countries to impose tariffs and taxes on Australian businesses, with the likely effect of destroying Australian jobs, Australian industries and Australian families. The actions of the Greens today, in providing cover and support for foreign countries to apply tariffs on Australian products, are despicable. The Greens should be ashamed of themselves, because what do the Greens get out of putting forward a motion such as this? Maybe it's a headline, a social media post, a tweet, and providing cover for foreign countries to tax Australian businesses.

What is really disappointing about this motion is that the Greens know full well that the Australian government is taking real action to reduce our emissions. We've set targets, we've smashed Kyoto and we are on our way to meeting and beating our Paris obligations. What we know for certain is that it's outcomes that matter—actions and outcomes. The Morrison government is taking real, practical and pragmatic action and delivering real outcomes. As a result of the actions we are taking, we are delivering lower emissions while protecting our economy, jobs and investment. We have strong targets, an enviable track record and a clear plan. Our plan is driven by technology and not taxes; and, most importantly, our plan is working.

While ambition is important, achievement and outcomes are what matter. So let's talk about our achievements. As I said before, we've smashed our Kyoto targets by 450 million tonnes. Australia's emissions have fallen faster than the G20 average, faster than the OECD average and much, much faster than in similar developed economies, like Canada and New Zealand. Between 2005 and 2018, our emissions fell by more than 13 per cent. New Zealand's emission reductions, on the other hand, barely budged. Canada's fell by less than one per cent. Emissions actually increased across the G20 countries.

The latest figures have us at nearly 17 per cent below 2005 levels, which shows we are on track to meet and beat our 2030 target, which is currently to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels. Furthermore, on a per person basis, our 2030 target is more ambitious than that of Norway, Canada, Germany, New Zealand or France. Let's not forget that this is not a ceiling on our ambitions; it's a floor. We will go beyond these. As we did with the Kyoto targets, the Morrison government want to not only meet our 2030 targets but also beat them. The latest emissions projections, published in December 2020, show that we are on track to do exactly that.

All Australians should be proud of our achievements. Unlike the plans of those opposite, we have achieved this without increasing taxes. We are committed to the principle of technology-driven emissions reduction, not taxes. As the Prime Minister has said, we want to get to net zero emissions as soon as possible. However, we will not sacrifice jobs and industries across Australia, particularly in our regional areas, for virtually no global emissions benefit. Instead of focusing on virtue signalling, like the Greens are, the Morrison government is focused on how we will do that. We are focused on assisting in the development of the technological breakthroughs that we will need to make net zero emissions a reality. By focusing on technology, not only will Australia reduce its emissions; we will also help reduce emissions right across the world.

As I have repeatedly said in this place, actions and outcomes are what matter. Our track record is one that all Australians can be proud of, so I will repeat it: we beat our 2020 target by 459 million tonnes. Recently updated forecasts show Australia is on track to meet and beat its 2030 Paris target. Over the last two years our position against our 2030 target has improved by 639 million tonnes. This is the equivalent of taking all of Australia's 14.7 million cars off the road for 15 years. Between 2005 and 2018, our emissions fell faster than those of Canada, New Zealand, Japan and the US, and they fell against the OECD average. Emissions in the National Electricity Market have fallen to their lowest level since records began. In the last 12 months our emissions were down by five per cent, with record levels of investment in renewables continuing. In 2020, a record seven gigawatts of new renewable capacity was installed in Australia. That's more renewables injected into the Australian market in a single year under the Morrison Liberal government than were injected under the whole previous Labor government. Compared to the rest of the world, Australia now has the highest total amount of solar PV capacity per person installed. We have the most wind and solar per person of any country outside of Europe. Today, Australia's emissions are lower than in any year under the previous Labor government.

Despite the great success that the Morrison government has already had in this space, we have the Greens coming into this place and encouraging foreign countries to tax Australian businesses. This is a new low, even by the abysmal standards of the Greens. While the Morrison government has seen great achievements in this space, we are not resting on our laurels. We have a clear plan to keep this momentum going. To do this, we have developed Australia's Technology Investment Roadmap. Our commitment is clear: lower prices and keeping the lights on, all while doing our bit to reduce global emissions without wrecking the economy.

Advancing the next generation of low-emission technologies is crucial to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. 'Why?' you might ask. It is because the technologies to get us to net zero don't currently exist. Our Technology Investment Roadmap will accelerate technologies like hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, soil carbon measurement, low-carbon materials like steel and aluminium, and long-duration energy storage. Widespread global deployment of those technologies will reduce emissions, or eliminate them, in sectors responsible for 90 per cent of the world's emissions. This is approximately 45 billion tonnes. It's about setting practical goals for the technologies that offer the most abatement potential for the least cost. That is where Australia has a real advantage. That is real ambition. It focuses on the big picture and on the long game, rather than on the political pointscoring and on the news headline capturing that we see time and time again from the Greens.

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

I rise to speak in support of this urgency motion. In doing so, I have a revelation to make to those opposite. It might shock them. Some may be horrified and they'll rush away to check their diaries. It's not a revelation to the rest of us. We know the date. We know what year it is. But I feel I need to inform those opposite that it is 2021.

One more year has slipped away—one more year of the Morrison government's inaction on climate change and carbon emissions. One more year; one more lost opportunity. It's one more year in a run of many years through three Liberal Party prime ministers—yes, three—that have done nothing to curb our country's emissions, one more year of coalition infighting, one more year of denialism and one more year of failure when it comes to meeting our international obligations and when it comes to the future of our planet and our way of life. It's a failing in our moral obligations as global citizens.

The European Union plans to introduce a carbon border tax which would require Australian exporters to pay a levy based on the amount of carbon used in making and shipping their products. The levy on exporters would equal the cost European producers face through having to buy carbon emission permits via the EU's emissions trading system. The world has moved on without us, and, sadly, we are left behind. We are no longer at the table and we are no longer even invited to the meetings, and now the Morrison government's smug denialism, parochial dog whistling, short-term political manoeuvres, win-at-all-costs mentality and, most of all, absolute lack of vision and leadership have doubled back to bite us and to potentially savage our exporters. Suddenly the cold, hard truth, the cost of doing nothing, has reared up in the Morrison government's face, and suddenly the cost of doing nothing in 2021 is very, very real. The European parliament's decision gives initial backing to the EU's carbon border levy, and Brussels is now working towards US President Joe Biden's emission-busting goal of a global climate club. That's a club that we won't be able to join—not under the Morrison government, anyway.

European politicians and analysis expect the US, Britain and potentially even China to get behind the plan to jointly adopt carbon border taxes, and our exporters are now at serious risk because the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, and his science-denying cronies are frozen to the spot and living in the last century. On top of that, the EU is also insisting on stronger climate targets as a condition of the free trade agreement that it is negotiating with Australia.

I call on the trade minister, Mr Dan Tehan, to publicly explain how the Morrison government's climate inaction will affect the proposed free trade agreement with the European Union. He needs to come and tell us how it is going to affect the proposed free trade agreement with the European Union. I call on him to explain the cost of doing nothing to the farmers, the foresters, the fishers, the miners, the manufacturers, the innovators and the investors of Australia. Let them hold him to account, particularly when we know that many of Australia's largest exporters support the net zero target. They understand Australia can become a clean-energy superpower, leading to stronger economic growth and more jobs.

More than 120 countries worldwide have adopted a net zero emissions target and more than 70 per cent of Australia's two-way trade is now with countries moving to net zero by the middle of the century—yes, this century, just 29 years away. And yet, with all this hanging over our heads, Mr Morrison has said, 'I am not concerned about our future exports.' Well, I am, Mr Morrison, and so is the Australian Labor Party and a lot of Australians. Just a few days ago the Nationals leader, Mr Michael McCormack, said that he was not worried about what might happen in 30 years time. It's 29 years now, Mr McCormack. He clearly doesn't know that it's now 2021. Absurdly, the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, decided that Australia was 'dead against' carbon tariffs and was somehow trying to twist the EU proposal as protectionism when, as noted by Laura Tingle on ABC News:

… in fact these tariffs would aim to level the playing field for local industries against free-rider countries like Australia who won't engage in real climate policy action …

This government is in a state of climate and energy policy chaos, which we can now clearly see will lead to dwindling opportunities for our exporters. Those exporters are rightly and extremely worried about future exports. Of course they are. Their jobs rely on thinking ahead, and they've been doing it for many years. I'd also mention the many, many workers that they employ in this country. They completely understand that this is the year 2021 and it is past time for genuine leadership and action from this Australian government, the Morrison government.

Net zero emissions by 2050 is a target backed by every state and territory in Australia, key business groups, the National Farmers Federation, big resource companies, our biggest airline, our biggest bank and countless experts and scientists. Mr Tehan must now explain how the government's failure to adopt a target of net zero emissions by 2050 will affect Australian exports and jeopardise Australia's free trade agreement negotiations with the EU. Maybe now—now that there is a tangible financial cost to doing nothing, now that the cost of inertia and irresponsibility will hit the government's hip pocket and the hip pockets of some of the big businesses who support them—Prime Minister Morrison will call the climate-denying rabble in his government to order and show some leadership. It's about time.

Australia needs to adopt a target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but we need to start that process now. We need it legislated. In 2021, that is blindingly obvious. We have known about this for a very long time. It is also blindingly obvious that the Morrison government has its head in the sand about carbon borders and our exporters with the jobs that they create, because they are the ones that will pay the price. It is the exporters that provide the thousands of jobs around this country that will pay the price for the inaction of this government in relation to climate change. This government, caught in a loop of smug inertia, should pay the ultimate price at the ballot box at the next election for their inaction on reducing Australia's carbon emissions and the effects of that inaction on the Australian community.

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

It might surprise you, but over Christmas I read Malcolm Turnbull's memoirs. He very clearly labelled Senator Canavan as one of the 'terrorists', as he calls them, within his own party—the culture warriors who did so much to derail climate action in this country and blow up any agenda for climate action in the last five years.

With the contribution from Senator Canavan tonight, it's very clear that nothing has changed. Interestingly, Malcolm Turnbull also says that the right wing within his own party, the culture warriors, are also socialists. I would have to agree with him based on what I've heard tonight: a Nationals senator rallying against free trade deals. That's what we heard in here. It was a tirade of anti-free-trade, anti-farmer abuse from Senator Canavan. Perhaps, in some senses, his concerns around free trade deals are very much in line with the Greens. So there you go, Senator Canavan—that's something I think we can all agree on!

But clearly he's failed to stop even his own Prime Minister from putting into place a so-called 2050 climate ambition target. But, a day after that was announced, we get Mr Barnaby Joyce in the other place and the Deputy Prime Minister in this country, when asked about the Prime Minister's new-found 2050 ambition—which, by the way, has only come because a new US administration has decided to show some global leadership and he's looking for some kind of face-saving gesture—go: '2050? I'm not going to be here in parliament then. None of us are. In fact, I'll probably be dead.' That's how serious the Nationals are taking this issue. That's how short-sighted they are on this most important of issues.

When you look at putting out climate targets for another 30 years, you'd be forgiven for thinking it's a complete joke. You'd also be forgiven for not trusting this mob. In the last eight years since they've assumed power in this country, they have literally torn up every existing climate policy that was put in place—a carbon price, a clean energy package—and they've ramped up fossil fuel exploration, especially during COVID, whilst not providing a single credible policy to tackle global warming. And it's worth highlighting that Australia has, within this past decade, gone from being a global leader on climate action to a global embarrassment.

It's been particularly astounding this week to watch Senator Canavan and the other Nats roll out and call for agriculture to be excluded from any 2050 climate ambition. It's particularly galling, because there is no other industry more vulnerable to climate change than agriculture. There is no other industry more vulnerable.

The Bureau of Meteorology told us at Senate estimates recently that, even on existing emissions trajectories, a business-as-usual scenario, we're looking at three to four degrees warming globally by the end of this century. Think about that: record heat, drought, extreme weather and fire, which we have seen in recent years, are going to get much, much worse.

There was a public rebuke for the LNP by some of their key stakeholders, the National Farmers Federation. They don't want agriculture excluded from the 2050 climate ambition. They believe the farming community in this country has an important contribution to make. And it's not just the National Farmers Federation. The national position of climate is at odds with various agricultural bodies—Meat & Livestock Australia, Farmers for Climate Action. Meat & Livestock Australia, who are potentially facing a carbon tariff, has an industry target to be carbon neutral by not 2050 but 2030. Farmers for Climate Action also support an economy-wide target for 2050. So clearly farmers' groups think this is really important, yet the farmer's friends, the National Party, continue to come into this place and deny climate, deny climate action and turn their back on rural and regional agricultural communities in this country.

The reality of this situation is it's not just Europe in our free trade negotiations that have said that they plan to put in place a carbon tariff. President Biden went to the last election promising this is something the US would look at. And we know there are negotiations between the UK and the EU at G7 meetings to talk about carbon border adjustments, whether we like it or not. Even Japan, our biggest customer of coal and gas, is looking at making a decision in July. Farmers should be benefitting from a carbon price in these countries. If this government hadn't come in here and ripped up the carbon tax, if this government hadn't come in here and ripped up a price on carbon, if this government hadn't come in here and ripped up the Carbon Farming Initiative, where Australian farmers get to sell their carbon abatement credits into export markets, for example, in Europe, they'd be getting $50 a tonne for their carbon abatement credits.

Now, industries in Australia like meat and livestock and other farming and agricultural industries are facing a $50 a tonne tariff. We estimate that since this government ripped up the Carbon Farming Initiative and brought in their Emissions Reduction Fund, which has been almost a complete failure, Australian farmers have lost out to the tune of $12 billion on this lucrative market of carbon trading. This is purely because of the ideology of a few 'terrorists within the Liberal Party', using the words of Malcolm Turnbull, like Senator Canavan and others in this place. They've held this country to ransom and farmers and agriculturalists in rural and regional Australia are paying. And they're paying in so many ways. There have to be incentives for our farmers to be involved in climate action. That is what we're talking about here: bringing all our country with us, bringing the whole nation with us to actually put in place not just 2050 targets but 2030 targets based on science. Unless we have 2030 targets, we will never achieve net zero emissions by 2050.

Do not trust this mob. They have done everything to avoid even talking about climate change in the last 10 years. Do not trust them on their track record. Without the Greens in parliament to hold them to account, we will get nothing. There needs to be a political pathway for change. You need to vote Greens.

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

I want to conclude this debate by returning to the core issue of the topic at hand: the need for science based targets. 'Political reality must be grounded in physical reality, or it's completely useless'. That statement, by climate scientist Professor Hans Schellnhuber, was the starting point for a presentation a fortnight ago by climate policy researcher David Spratt at a public forum organised by the National Climate Emergency Summit.

The Greens' target for 2030 is at least 75 per cent reductions in carbon pollution by 2030 and zero carbon no later than 2035, because that is what the science tells us will give us any hope of stabilising our climate below 1½ degrees of heating above pre-industrial temperatures. David Spratt argues we need to go even faster—that we need zero emissions at emergency speed by 2030. Last year, 2020, was the equal hottest year on record, and the planet is now 1.2 degrees hotter than it was 200 years ago. Frighteningly, regardless of what we do in the next nine years, we are likely to be at 1½ degrees hotter in 2030 because that heating is already baked in. Yet 1½ degrees hotter is not safe. Already, at 1.2 degrees hotter, climate tipping points have almost certainly already been passed for coral reefs, Arctic sea ice and the West Antarctic glaciers. The Amazon rainforest may have passed its tipping point. There's strong evidence that, at or around 1½ degrees hotter, the Greenland ice sheet will reach its tipping point. As for two degrees hotter, that's very unsafe, because 'hothouse Earth' tipping points may be reached at that point, where feedback loops mean the Earth just keeps on getting hotter, regardless of what we do to try and pull it back. Yet, the targets of the government and the Labor Party are consistent with a catastrophic three to five degrees of warming by 2100—within the lifetime of children alive today. David Spratt quoted from a seminal paper on climate tipping points:

The evidence from tipping points alone suggests that we are in a state of planetary emergency: both the risk and urgency of the situation are acute … If damaging tipping cascades can occur and a global tipping point cannot be ruled out, then this is an existential threat to civilisation.

He went on to outline how, in addition to slashing our carbon pollution, we're going to need large-scale drawdown of carbon and a safe means of immediate cooling to protect people and nature from the catastrophic impacts of that climate crisis.

In light of this, the least that the Senate can do today is to support this motion to adopt science based 2030 targets.

Question agreed to.