Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Birmingham. Before the horror 2019-20 bushfire season, Mr Morrison ignored warnings from experts and from former fire chiefs that Australia was unprepared for the dangers. Overnight, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned:

The intensity, frequency and duration of fire weather events are projected to increase throughout Australia …

I ask: will Mr Morrison ignore this warning too?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister has already publicly responded to the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's sixth report. The Prime Minister has acknowledged the importance of the report in continuing to inform Australia's efforts in delivering emissions reductions—our successful efforts, as a nation, in delivering emissions reductions—and the importance of unified global action in dealing with emissions.

The government looks forward to the opportunities that will be provided by the conference of the parties at Glasgow later this year to discuss the type of progress that is being made in Australia and around the world and the commitments for the future. We look forward to the fact that we can talk about Australia's emissions reductions, some 20 per cent emissions reductions since 2005.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the interjections from those opposite, saying, 'How embarrassing!' By comparison, our 20 per cent stands alongside a one per cent reduction in Canada, a 10 per cent reduction in Japan, a four per cent reduction in New Zealand or a 13 per cent reduction in the United States. I make those comparisons not to criticise any of those nations but to highlight for those opposite and those who, in the debate in Australia, seek to paint a proposition that Australia somehow does not achieve emissions reductions that in fact our countries has. Our country has done so, in part, due to the motivation of the Australian people as well. One in four Australian households have rooftop solar, the highest rate of uptake in the world. Last year, Australia saw some seven gigawatts of renewable energy capacity installed in our country, nearly eight times faster than the global average per person. It is this momentum that we intend to continue to pursue, and it is absolutely our commitment to make sure we continue to meet and beat those targets in the future.

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

Senator Wong, a supplementary question?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The former cabinet minister and current coalition senator Senator Canavan has described the IPCC as 'a dodgy PR firm rather than a scientific body', and he has also asserted that the IPCC has 'no scientific credibility'. Does Mr Morrison agree with Senator Canavan?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to that is no. As I said in the primary answer, the Prime Minister has already responded to the IPCC report in a press conference earlier today, and, as I outlined, the government takes seriously the challenges of addressing global climate change. We take it seriously as a government, and it's why we're investing some $20 billion on low-emissions technologies over the next decades, with $1.6 billion committed just through this 2021-22 budget. It's why, during the Prime Minister's recent visit overseas, he signed partnership agreements that now see us in partnership arrangements with Singapore, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom to deliver the low-emissions technologies that the globe needs to be able to deliver and achieve net zero emissions. The 2021-22 budget particularly dedicated $565 million to progress international research projects, knowing that those international projects of cooperation are the things that will actually deliver the technological changes to get the job done.

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

Senator Wong, a final supplementary question?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rennick has declared, 'Climate change hysteria is a cancer that must be destroyed.'

Senator Rennick interjecting—

I take his interjection: 'Yep.' It is a cancer that must be destroyed. Senator Rennick has also accused Australia's Bureau of Meteorology of tampering with data.

Senator Rennick interjecting—

I take the interjection, again; he says, 'Yes.' Will Mr Morrison continue to capitulate to the extremes of the coalition party room or will he commit to net zero by 2050?

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

Senator Rennick, interjections, particularly during questions, are inappropriate.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, I'm calling the Senate to order. Senator Birmingham.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What the Prime Minister will do and what the government will do is to continue to get on with implementing our policies that are making a difference in terms of reducing Australia's emissions. What the Prime Minister and the government will do—which is what you asked me, Senator Wong—is make sure we continue to pursue the policies that are achieving the downwards trajectory in Australia's emissions and that we invest in the technologies that are necessary—our Technology Investment Roadmap with its stretch targets to make clean hydrogen affordable, not just for Australia but around the world—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order, Senators Watt and Rennick!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to make energy storage affordable, not just in Australia but around the world; to make carbon capture and storage affordable, not just in Australia but around the world—

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Senator Watt!

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

to make low-carbon steel and low-carbon aluminium a reality not just in Australia but around the world; and to make effective soil carbon a reality, not just in Australia but around the world.

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Senator Watt! I've called you a couple of times—sorry.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I make those points that it has to be achieved around the world. That's why we need the technology breakthroughs because then not only can Australia reduce its emissions but so too can other countries, particularly developing countries, through those tech breakthroughs.

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

Again, I'm going to say that, with senators wearing masks, it is hard to tell who is breaching standing orders by interjecting, so apologies if I occasionally get it wrong.

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

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Senator Hume. Minister, does the Minister for the Environment owe Australia's children a duty of care to provide them with a safe climate into the future?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I assume that this is the same message that the criminals this morning painted all over the front of Parliament House, painted all over—

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

Order, Senator Hume. I won't anticipate, Senator McKim, but I'll call you to make your point of order.

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

Thank you, President, and, if you had anticipated that my point of order would be on relevance, you would be entirely accurate. This was an extremely narrowly scoped question, and it didn't go to the brave protesters raising really important climate issues at the front of Parliament House this morning.

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

Order! Given the damage done to the building, Senator McKim, I'll assume you're talking about a protest, rather than an illegal act. Senator Hume was only speaking for seven seconds. I'm reluctant to call a minister before the first full stop in their answer, Senator McKim, but you've reminded the minister. I call Senator Hume to continue.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. I don't think that the environment minister would make any apology for defending this government and defending the Australian people against climate vandals—the people that defaced government property this morning that you have just called 'heroes'.

Senator McKim interjecting—

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

Order, Senator McKim! Senator Hume, I'm going to ask you to turn to Senator McKim's question. I'm not going to instruct you how to answer it, but he has reminded you of it. Senator Hume.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you again, Mr President, but I am unclear as to exactly what Senator McKim's question is. Does the environment minister owe—

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

On a point of order, Senator McKim—but question time is not meant to be interactive. Unless you are raising a point of order on relevance.

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

I am raising a point of order on relevance, Mr President. This is the third attempt that the minister has made and on none of those attempts has she come anywhere near addressing a very simple question.

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

Senator McKim, on the first point of order, when the minister is speaking for seven seconds, I'm not going to rule a minister is not being relevant at that point because I haven't had an opportunity to hear what they are going to say. Senator Hume to continue.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you again, Mr President. I think I now understand what it is that Senator McKim is trying to get to. It is nothing to do with the climate criminals that painted slogans all over Parliament House this morning. It's nothing to do with the climate criminals that painted slogans all over The Lodge this morning. It is nothing to do with the climate criminals. This is my understanding, Mr President.

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

Senator McKim, on your point of order, I'm assuming you're going to make it on direct relevance.

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

I am, Mr President. I want to make the submission to you that Senator Hume is coming perilously close to disrespecting your rulings.

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

When it comes to interjections across the chamber, I think there are dozens of senators that disrespect my rulings. Senator Hume, I am going to ask you to turn to the question asked by Senator McKim rather than repeat what the question might not be.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am assuming, Senator McKim, that what it is that you are trying to refer to is the case that is currently before the courts, the Sharma and Ors versus the Minister for the Environment case. Is that correct, Senator McKim?

Opposition senators interjecting—

Thank you very much—that the minister has a duty of care to young people regarding climate change. On 27 May 2021 the Federal Court delivered a document declining to grant an injunction preventing the Minister for the Environment from approving the Vickery extension project. On 8 July 2021 the Federal Court made final orders and provided further reasons in the matter. The court declared that the Minister for the Environment owed a duty of care—

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

Order! Senator Hume, I have Senator McKim on a point of order.

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

Thank you, Mr President. The point of order is again on relevance. I make the point that my question did not reference the case that Minister Hume is referring to. We are now three-quarters of the way through the time allotted. The question is very simple: does the Minister for the Environment owe Australia's children a duty of care?

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

Senator McKim, I will hear from Senator Birmingham before I rule on the point of order.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just on the point of order: whilst interjections are of course always disorderly, sometimes they can help to clarify matters in the chamber. When Senator Hume started to reference the case and posed it in the question of 'I assume this case is what the question is referring to', I heard cries of 'yes' coming from the Australian Greens corner. So I fail to see how Senator McKim can now suggest that Senator Hume is somehow not being directly relevant to the question he asked, on which it sounds like he and his team confirmed she was being directly relevant.

Senator Thorpe interjecting—

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

I'm sorry; I can't take points of order remotely under the provisions for remote participation, Senator Thorpe. My apologies. On the point of order: when Senator Hume did reference that case I definitely did see nods and hear acknowledgements of 'finally' from part of the chamber that happens to be down your end, Senator McKim. Given that this matter is in the public domain, I can't instruct a minister how to answer the question and I believe in this sense she is being directly relevant by turning to this particular issue. There's an opportunity to debate the answer after question time, but she is being directly relevant. Senator Hume.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, the court declared that the Minister for the Environment had a duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing personal injury or death to young people in Australia arising from emissions of carbon dioxide to the earth's atmosphere in determining the Vickery extension project. But, on 16 July 2021, the Minister for the Environment filed a notice of appeal and is seeking an expedited hearing for that.

The Minister for the Environment and the government take very seriously their responsibilities under the act to protect the environment and, in doing so, the interests of all Australians. But, as the matter is before the court, it would be inappropriate to comment on this case any further.

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

Senator McKim, on a supplementary question?

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

Minister, given your previous answer and your assertion that the minister has appealed Justice Bromberg's recent finding that, in fact, she does owe a duty of care to Australia's children to provide them with a safe climate, why does the minister believe that she does not owe Australia's children a duty of care to provide them with a safe climate into the future?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In appealing the judge's finding about the impact of greenhouse gas emissions the minister does not dispute that our climate is in fact changing. The notice of appeal simply raises a point of legal argument. Some of the factual findings that the judge made were not based on the evidence before him.

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

Senator McKim, a final supplementary question?

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

The appeal papers lodged by the minister, in fact—and I will quote directly from them—argue that Justice Bromberg:

… erred in finding that the minister owed a duty to take reasonable care … to avoid causing personal injury or death to persons who were under 18 years of age … arising from emissions of carbon dioxide.

Given the IPCC report released last night, how can you possibly look Australia's children in the eye and argue that you don't owe them a duty of care?

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How can you possibly look any Australian in the eye and say what happened this morning at Parliament House was not a crime? Duty of care? That was a crime and you're defending them, Senator McKim. You're defending them.

Senator McKim interjecting—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

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

Order! Senators McKim and Whish-Wilson, at least pretend to abide by the standing orders rather than act with mock outrage to show contempt for the Senate. This place works when there is a modicum of responsibility in the way we act.