Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by the Minister for Women's Economic Security (Senator Hume) and the Minister for International Development and the Pacific (Senator Seselja) to questions without notice asked by Senator Gallagher and I.

It was reported that in 2019 Mr Joyce made an intriguing contribution to his Facebook page. I invite senators to really think about what these words could possibly mean. He wrote:

One of the few graces of being on the backbench is you can be honest with what your views really are. I believe this is one of the greatest policy phantoms, the misguided and quite ludicrous proposition that Australia can have any effect on the climate. If we could we should be the first to make it rain and, more importantly, stop the recurrence of an ice age anytime in the coming millennium.

That was obviously a very important contribution just a few years ago from Mr Joyce. The thing is that those are no longer the views of a humble backbencher, are they? They are the views of the Leader of the National Party and the Deputy Prime Minister of this country.

He is actually yet to unveil his plan to stop the recurrence of an ice age—and I look forward to his announcements—but his opposition to acting on climate change is on full display. He has said: 'The Nationals have always been opposed to a net zero target'. He also said: 'If the Nationals supported net zero emissions, we would cease to be a party that could credibly represent farmers.' Well, it's going to be news to the farmers, isn't it, because the body actually constituted to represent farmers, the National Farmers Federation, does support net zero. But it's certainly Mr Joyce's view and he hasn't been quiet about it at all. On a day when the vast majority of Australians, in a poll that's out today, have confirmed their very strong preference for investment in renewables, it's worth considering his views on that.

He said: 'What is this insane lemming-like desire to go to renewables going to do to our economy?' He also said: 'If you want zero emissions, nuclear power does it.' So my question to the moderates in the Liberal Party—and I'm pleased to see that there's a couple of them remaining in the chamber and one just leaving now—what are you going to do about it?

Dr Katy Allen has said that she will be a strong voice in the party room for stronger action on climate change. She says: 'I have been and will continue to be a strong voice for climate action inside the tent. I am working on influencing that agenda. We need to have higher ambition to lead the world in renewables.' Is Dr Allen going to be as strong a voice as Mr Joyce?

Mr Dave Sharma, a man who understands all too well the fury of a Liberal electorate that's been betrayed on climate change, has said that Australia needs to be acting with a higher level of ambition. He has also said:

We've allowed something that should really be a conventional policy challenge to become a kind of culture and values issue. It shouldn't be the third rail of Australian politics.

What is Mr Sharma going to do? What is Mr Sharma's plan?

What has Mr Trent Zimmerman got to say? He told Fairfax that Australians want to get on with the job of meeting our Paris emissions targets while looking at what more we can do to reduce our emissions further. What will Mr Zimmerman do to have the government commit to reducing emissions further than what was agreed at Paris? That's the challenge, isn't it? It's the challenge for Mr Zimmerman. It's the challenge for Dr Allen. It's a challenge for Mr Sharma. It's a challenge for others, like Mr Falinski, Mr Wilson, Mr Evans and Ms Hammond. It's a challenge for those in this place too, isn't it? Those like Senator Hume, Senator Payne, Senator Paterson, Senator Bragg and Senator Birmingham, who once held the portfolio of environment.

We know that there are people remaining in the Liberal Party who do believe that humans are driving dangerous climate change. Senator Birmingham is quite welcome to get up and confirm his support for that, if he'd like to. We know there are people who support real action on emissions. We know there are moderate Liberal parliamentarians who have made a public commitment to that, not just here but to their electorates—all those people they've given a nod and a wink to. You've all told your electorates that, when the time comes, you will stand up for their interests—all those people out there in your electorates who actually want you to do something about climate change. The Deputy Prime Minister is now a man who is more worried about a coming ice age than he is about global warming. What will you do to keep your promise to the people who've supported you?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a Liberal with traditional values, I'm delighted to take part in this debate. What Senator McAllister and colleagues opposite have forgotten is that they self-described the last election as the climate change election, which they lost. Why did they lose that election? Because the Australian people sided with the coalition, because it had the sensible policy in this area.

The extreme policies of the Australian Labor Party were rejected by the Australian people. Here they are seeking to re-prosecute the case of the last election, which they so comprehensively failed. We, on this side, were blessed with the support of the Australian people, because of our sensible approach. This is yet again the Australian Labor Party saying to the Australian people, 'You got it wrong.' The Australian people, I suggest, got it right, as they do.

What I would invite the Labor Party to do is have a look at their policies and understand why they lost the last election. Indeed, somebody that might help them in that regard might be the member for Hunter, Mr Fitzgibbon. He has certain views that are not necessarily mainstream within the Australian Labor Party these days but they're very popular on the ground, I must say. I am very thankful that Mr Fitzgibbon has been frozen out of the Australian Labor Party. We, on this side, celebrate the diversity of views. We celebrate that different people will, in good faith, come to a position with different considerations. We, in a democracy, ought to celebrate that and the fact that Mr Joyce, the newly appointed Deputy Prime Minister, has expressed certain views.

Let me remind those opposite that everybody on this side is absolutely convinced that trying to reduce emissions by as much as possible makes good sense. Good environmental stewardship is something that we all believe in. But something we won't believe in is the sort of nonsense that the Australian Labor Party used to fund. Who was your climate change commissioner—Professor Flannery or somebody—who said, time and time again, 'We are in a drought paradigm—the Brisbane River will never flood again'? They paid him $180,000 per annum to prognosticate for two days a week. After he made those profound prophecies, the Brisbane River flooded once and then twice, with loss of life and property, completely debunking his assertions. Another one of his assertions, which Labor funded, was that the Murray River would never flow out to sea again. As Senator Birmingham, from South Australia, would know, the Murray River has flowed back out to sea again. The objective evidence—which is there for all to see, whether you like it or not—is that the Brisbane River has flooded twice since that prophecy and the Murray River has flowed out to sea since that prophecy. Has Professor Flannery ever apologised? Has the Australian Labor Party ever apologised for unnecessarily scaring the Australian people? Of course not. It doesn't matter if it's about the environment or Medicare, they are into trying to scare people into voting for them.

We on this side have practical policies. Rather than scaring people to vote for us, we help them come to the understanding that we are on their side and that we actually support their aspirations. We want the very best for our country, and that is why good environmental stewardship, as shown by the coalition—the Liberal and National Party together in lock step—has delivered for the Australian people. In return, the Australian people have very kindly delivered for the coalition at the ballot box. Here we are watching the Australian Labor Party trying to reprosecute their failed election campaign of 2019. I suggest those on the other side get with the program, the program of the Australian people, which is: 'Let's do something about good environmental stewardship, but don't over-egg it.'

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hume and Senator Seselja might try and do their best to paper over the enormous cracks in the coalition on climate change policy, but these cracks, which have been there all along, have really come to the fore, absolutely decimating any credibility the government has in this space. While Prime Minister Scott Morrison was out and about at the G7 in the UK last week, trying to spruik Australia's climate change credentials, Barnaby Joyce, who doesn't support the very target that the Prime Minister was spruiking, was returned as Australia's Deputy Prime Minister.

Senator Hume was asked about Sussan Ley's interview this morning on RN, in which she refused to guarantee that Mr Morrison's preference—which he had just put forward on the world stage in order to rehabilitate our credibility—would survive Barnaby Joyce's return as Deputy Prime Minister. Sussan Ley simply said, 'We will have discussions with the Nationals.' What does Barnaby say? Barnaby doesn't come out and forthrightly say, 'I don't believe in climate change targets.'

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, I remind you to refer to members in the other place by their correct titles.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Joyce doesn't say, 'I'll just announce my new climate change target.' No. He says, 'I'll listen to the National Party.' Indeed, what do we know about what the National Party thinks? As we've heard, time and time again in this place, they don't support these targets. To be honest, this puts them completely out of step with their own constituency. It's little wonder to me that the National Party has no federal seats in Western Australia. WAFarmers president Rhys Turton said, on record,

We understand that climate change is real, that it's affecting farms in Western Australia and it needs a whole-world approach.

Australian agriculture has an equal and equitable obligation—

I'm sorry about this coughing; I can't—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. Thank you, Senator Pratt. We will move to Senator McDonald.

Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know whether to be pleased or vaguely concerned at the opposition's obsession with the National Party—during question time, the calling out and the discussion with the National Party, and the number of questions focused on the National Party. I guess it is a reflection of how the National Party continues to punch well above its weight in terms of its influence and its contribution to the national debate. We will have to continue to listen to the opposition's complete focus on what the National Party does and thinks at every turn. And today we're going to discuss the National Party's position on sensible climate targets and practices.

I'm really proud to be a part of a government that believes in practical environmental programs and outcomes, and the target of 2030, which Australia has engaged with and already done so well on, is a great reflection. I want to talk, too, about the great work that's done around the Great Barrier Reef catchments, where we had a 25 per cent reduction in nitrogen output on the basis of the very practical changes made by Queensland cane farmers. They have done a terrific job of adopting new practices and of innovation in both mechanical and farming practices. Well may those on the other side bury their heads in their hands, because that's how they operate. They don't understand farming. They don't understand the practical realities of balancing the environment with good environmental outcomes.

You cannot do good things for the environment when you trash jobs and you trash industry. That is what Labor would have done if they'd been successful in their desire to form government after the last election. Their high taxes and their crippling policies on farming and on industry would have left tens of thousands of Australians out of work and wondering how they'd transition. We all remember Jackie Trad's policies on 'transitioning coalminers' to—I don't know, maybe coffee jobs, or perhaps tourism?—in their coal areas. These are the sorts of practical environmental and economic balances that we in the National Party consider, because we do understand the regions and we understand the important work that happens in the regions. I can't begin to imagine what would have happened if the opposition, who continue to take this kind of moralising, anti National Party stance, had been in government.

If we're going to talk about emissions targets, I think we have quite practically and reasonably decided to discuss how technology and innovation will be able to achieve the environmental outcomes the world is talking about. Certainly in mining there are a number of programs and projects happening that will allow that industry to have greater control over its emissions through changes to practices around mining, around fuel in trucks and around tailings dams. In the agricultural sector—well, of course we know that agriculture has already borne the great brunt of these changes, with the introduction of the draconian vegetation management laws in Queensland. The loss of property rights for Queensland farmers has been quite traumatic. But that industry has continued to go on and innovate and make practical changes to land management, to genetics in animals, to crops like cotton, which can use less fertiliser, pesticides and water and yet achieve greater yields. These are the kinds of practical outcomes that mean that we still have jobs in the regions, we still have successful industries and we don't smash Australian jobs, as Labor would have us do.

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

It's very interesting that the Nationals get up here and wonder why they're being criticised. It's clear that the Nationals would like to have things both ways. They'd like to be in government but not be criticised for their decisions. They'd like to be in government but not be responsible for governing the country. We are asking what the Morrison-Joyce government's policy is on net zero. What we got from the ministers opposite today was nothing short of confusion, because what the Nationals spill did yesterday was launch this country into confusion and chaos. For anyone who thinks that this was just a routine shifting of the chairs, let's just wait and see what happens over the next couple of weeks. Here in question time today they weren't able to answer simple questions about what the government's policy is. These are the people running the country, and they can't tell us what their policies are when it comes to net zero emissions.

We know that the Nationals spill was all about selfishness and self-interested people who are out there protecting their own jobs but not protecting the jobs of everyday Australians. They're particularly not protecting the jobs of the regional Australians that they say they stand up for. They say that this is all about jobs, but it is about their own jobs. It is about making sure that Mr Joyce returns as Deputy Prime Minister, that his salary goes up while wages are going down for everybody else. This was about returning Senator McKenzie to the frontbench, someone who resigned after the sports rorts affair. We know that nobody else in this government has been held accountable for anything that they have done. We need to know what the Nationals coalition agreement will be, what is in it. If they don't make it public, then there is a good reason why.

They say that they care about jobs, but, if the Nationals and the Liberals really cared about jobs in regional Queensland, then they would do something to ensure that workers that do the same job get paid the same wage. It's very simple. They have done nothing to stop rampant labour hire bringing down the wages of people in regional Queensland. If they cared about jobs in regional Queensland, as they say they do—and we had the minister today talking about investment in renewable energy—then why did Minister Pitt veto a wind farm in Far North Queensland that would have created 250 jobs, in a region that has been smashed by COVID and needs these jobs right now? It's because they don't care about people living in Far North Queensland. They don't care about people living in regional Queensland. They only care about their own jobs.

If they really cared about the jobs in regional Queensland, then they would do something to protect the Great Barrier Reef. I know it's very inconvenient for the Nationals and for the Liberal ministers who stood up today that the Great Barrier Reef is also located in regional Queensland, but those are regional jobs too. The Great Barrier Reef supports 64,000 jobs around Queensland, and we need to protect the jobs that rely on the reef.

The net zero policy may have been an instigator for the Nationals spill, and that's why we're asking questions about it today, but I just want to remind the Senate that yesterday there was an emergency national cabinet meeting to sort out the bungled vaccine rollout. While that national cabinet meeting was happening, Nationals members of the government were out there rolling their leader. As that meeting was taking place, members of the government were rolling the Deputy Prime Minister. They should be rolling out the vaccine. People across this country do not know when they will get the vaccine. They don't know how much vaccine the government has. They need to make sure that there's certainty out there. Instead of rolling people in your own government, why don't you roll out the vaccine? Instead of fighting each other, do as you have been saying that you are doing: fight the virus. Go out there and help Australians get through this COVID crisis, instead of creating a crisis of your own government that will leave this country in more chaos, in more crisis, at a time when we can least afford it. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.