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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the failure of the government to comply with order for the production of documents No. 1251.

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

The government will not deny leave. We sought to deny leave earlier today in relation to this motion. I recognise the vote of the Senate at that time, which agreed to suspend standing orders at that stage. We won't prolong debate in the Senate. The government still believes that consideration of this is just a stunt by the opposition, is completely unnecessary on their behalf and, in doing so, is simply seeking to further politicise debates in relation to climate change in its introduction and is seeking to get ahead of matters that are rightly being considered by the government to take a fully informed position to the Glasgow climate change conference. However, recognising that the will of the Senate has already been expressed, we won't object by way of leave denial at this time.

Leave granted.

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

I am moving the motion which has been circulated in the chamber, which I am happy to read if the chamber so wishes. I move:

That the Senate:

(1) Notes:

(a) the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction did not table a response to the order for production of documents 1251 moved by Senators Patrick and Canavan by the specified time of no later than 10 am on 21 October 2021;

(b) the Senate requested the detailed modelling that the Government has that forecasts Australian exports in gas, resources and agriculture under the Government's 2050 net zero emissions reduction strategy;

(c) Senator Canavan has been calling for the release of this modelling, tweeting on 19 October 2021 "If this modelling is so good why does it have to remain a secret?";

(2) Requires the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction attend the Senate immediately to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes, of the Government's response to the order contained in paragraph (1) or for an explanation of the Government's failure to comply with the order;

(a) in the event that the minister provides an explanation, any senator may move to take note of the minister's explanation;

(b) in the event that the minister fails to provide an explanation, any senator may move to take note of the minister's failure to provide an explanation; and

(c) any motion under paragraph (a) or (b) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes and have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for no more than 5 minutes each.

The motion relates to the failure of the government to respond to order of production of documents 1251, moved by Senators Patrick and Canavan, and requires the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction to attend the Senate immediately to provide an explanation. The terms of the motion have been circulated in the chamber.

Question agreed to.

(Quorum formed)

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—With reference to Senator Patrick's order for the production of documents of 20 October 2021, I table a response.

I might just read the tabled document: 'As Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, I write with regard to the Senate order for the production of documents No. 1251, moved by Senator Patrick and agreed by the Senate on 20 October 2021, on the matter of modelling relating to the government's emission reduction strategy. Noting sensitivities incumbent on a request for cabinet documents and the time frame provided to respond, I advise that more time will be required to comply with the order. A more detailed response will be provided to the Senate by Friday 29 October consistent with standing order 166, and I enclose a letter from the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction confirming this advice.'

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

Pursuant to the motion, I rise to take note of that response and make a few points. One is just to be very clear that the government spent some time today filibustering and running procedural games to avoid having a vote on the motion that they've just now had to have a vote on, and the reason the government conceded that vote is that it knew that a number of its senators were, to their credit, prepared to cross the floor to support a motion requiring the minister to attend. Recall that the order for production of documents that is the subject of this motion that was not complied with by Minister Seselja, was not complied with by the government, was a motion in fact supported by Senator Matt Canavan, so a government senator moving a motion against his own government or requiring his own government to provide the economic modelling that they have been talking about. So all of the shenanigans today were to avoid a vote that the government has just conceded. Just to be very clear what has occurred: Senator Canavan made clear he was prepared to cross the floor, as, I have to say, was the private indication from a number of other Liberal senators. This is a government utterly divided.

I want to make some comments. Senator McKenzie, how are you? I do want to make some brief comments, if I may, about the approach of the government to secrecy and the approach of the government to transparency and the approach of the government to accountability. The government want to keep this modelling secret, because they know that they have cost Australia billions of dollars by standing in the way of action on climate and renewables. And it's not the only secret, of course, that we know the Morrison-Joyce government is determined to keep from Australians. Recall that yesterday Mr Morrison got every one of his MPs to vote to protect Christian Porter and his secret donations, but he can't get his divided government to vote for net zero emissions by 2050. The fact is Mr Morrison never takes responsibility, he leaves it to others on vaccines, on hospitals, on quarantine, on bushfires, on climate and on renewables, and he's not even in the room when his government's policy on climate and renewables is being decided by Mr Joyce and the Nationals. But, when it comes to protecting Mr Porter, that's the job Mr Morrison puts his back into. If only Mr Morrison put the same effort into fighting for the Australian people as he puts into fighting for Mr Porter! If only he put as much effort into tackling climate change and ensuring we support renewables as he puts into protecting Mr Porter!

The whole reason for this government's existence over eight long years has been to stand in the way of action on climate and renewables. And, make no mistake about it, any deal that Mr Morrison comes up with now with Mr Joyce's support will be nothing but political spin to get Mr Morrison through Glasgow and to get him through the election. I say to the government: Australians are on to you. They've seen what Mr Morrison is like, and they know he isn't the real deal.

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

I also rise to take note of the answer. It would be too easy just to be wearily resigned to the secrecy and the endless and naked politicking from this tired, clapped-out government, because we've had eight years of it. Years ago, the government tried hiding the modelling that related to its tax cuts, and it hasn't let up since. We've seen relentless rorting—car parks and sports rorts—all with accompanying colour coded spreadsheets, and, when the government are queried about it, we've seen a bullying and uncompromising assertion that this is fine—that this is what government looks like.

Yesterday in the other place, the government voted to protect Mr Porter from scrutiny, an unprecedented decision to shield a sitting government MP from the scrutiny of the Privileges Committee about unprecedented circumstances where that person sought to establish a legal mechanism to hide his financial interests—unbelievable. This morning here in this place, it's just more of the same. We spent hours on this this morning. Remember, we were all here in the chamber waiting while these people voted to scuttle an attempt by a member of their own coalition, Senator Canavan, to access important modelling about possible climate commitments and the economic consequences of those commitments.

This government says it's all about the economy. It says it's all about the economic interests of regional Australia. It says it's all about Australia's economic future. But it's not interested in a serious public debate about those questions. It's not interested in a serious debate about our future and, as demonstrated this morning, it will do anything possible to prevent such a debate taking place here in this chamber, the very place where such a debate ought to be happening.

It matters. This kind of secrecy is just wrong, and it's reflective of the culture of the government: a relentless, unending pursuit of political solutions and deal-making in response to genuine policy problems. It's all tied up together, because it's easier to do a deal in secret. It's much easier when there are just a handful of actors in the room—a nice little subcommittee of cabinet, with just a handful of people who can cut a deal to shunt money off in one direction in exchange for another kind of commitment that may or may not be in the national interest. When you have cut your deal, it's a lot easier to spin it when there are very few facts about the content of that agreement, about the content of the negotiation and about what has actually been agreed and the consequences for Australia and Australians. It is much easier to spin when there aren't facts out there to contradict your narrative, but it's not what the national interest requires.

This is a big, serious and consequential challenge. It's one that our peers all around the globe are willing to take on. Around the globe, when we see serious climate action, it's not the product of secret meetings or some new augmented schedule to the coalition deal between the Liberals and the Nationals. Serious climate action is a consequence of bringing people along. Serious economic reform requires a conversation with the very communities whose lives will change—an honest and open conversation that reassures people that you have their interests at heart and are not just skating through to the next election in order to keep your job, your ministry, your cosy spot and your big car.

What's needed is a serious public conversation to grapple with an existential challenge that every serious country in the world—all of our peers—is grappling with at this very moment. Mr Morrison is going to go to Glasgow, he says. He should go with a serious plan to take Australia into the future—one that has been the subject of public discussion. The pathetic, endless attempts to reduce this to a grubby deal do no-one any credit. (Time expired)

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion. I want to again draw the attention of the Senate to the response by Senator Zed Seselja. A commitment has been made to providing a more detailed response to the Senate by Friday 29 October, consistent with standing order 166. Let me remind you that this OPD was received only yesterday. Deliberations are ongoing. You want us to pre-empt outcomes of deliberations by releasing modelling that underpins current discussions, negotiations and considerations—and this is coming from the Labor Party. Let's not forget that the Labor Party took to the last election a commitment for a 45 per cent cut in emissions by 2030 without releasing any modelling, without releasing any costings and without any consideration of what impact that would have on jobs, including jobs in regional communities—farmers, miners, and the local bakers and newsagents who depend on those jobs for their businesses.

I hear Senator McAllister saying we're doing a deal in secret. Well, we are having very serious discussions because we have been talking to our constituents. We are taking back our constituents' considerations. We don't do deals like the Labor Party, in caucus, and then foist them upon the Australian public and expect them to fall in line behind us. And, unlike Senator Watt, we actually know who our constituents are. AgForce is a Queensland organisation that Senator Watt doesn't even realise is a member of the NFF. This is the AgForce that used to run a fantastic campaign: 'farmers—every family needs one'. AgForce are a wonderful organisation, and you should know who they are, Senator Watt. You should understand what they have asked for.

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

Senator Davey, I remind you to make your remarks to the chair, not directly to any senator in the chamber. Thank you.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand corrected. Thank you very much, Deputy President. I'll go back to the important issue at hand. Earlier on, Senator Wong said this government was full of inaction—inaction! You're talking about a government that has seen massive reductions in emissions since coming into this place and taking on government in 2013. We've done this through technology, not taxes, and through working in partnership with industry. Instead of hitting industry over the head with a big stick, like an ETS or a carbon tax, we've sat down with industry and said: 'How can we all work together? How can we lower emissions? How can we incentivise innovation?' We're partnering with the private sector to bring a portfolio of low-emissions technologies into parity with their current alternatives. We're working on what is available today, but also with an eye on the future, because, when we're talking about a 2050 target, that is 30 years away. Imagine if we'd sat down 30 years ago and said, 'This mobile phone that I have in my handbag today'—because it wouldn't have fit in my pocket—'is going to be the mobile phone we're using in 30 years time.' It is ridiculous to try and cement us into a position.

What we are doing is laying the foundations for a road map, but we're not doing it blindly and we're not doing it deafly, and that is why the Nationals are negotiating. That is why the Nationals are looking at protections to underpin the very jobs and industries that have kept our economy strong through COVID. If it weren't for our agricultural and mining sectors, if it weren't for our exports of iron ore, coal, beef, wheat and rice—in the last year, we've had a good rice harvest as well—we wouldn't have made it through COVID with the economic strength that we have. We wouldn't have been the first country to return to the same number of employed people as pre COVID. So the Nationals— (Time expired)

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the minister's response, along with my colleagues. I do concede that, as Senator Davey has indicated, the letter that has come to the chamber gives some hope that there may be disclosure. I just want to remind the chamber that the position of the Senate has always been—and I've just had a quick look at Odgers to refresh myself—that it is the deliberations of the cabinet that are accepted as being the basis of a proper public interest immunity claim. That is, it is the conversations that take place, and the reason for that confidentiality is the collective responsibility. The ability for ministers to argue across the table and for that to be held secret is in some sense sacrosanct, and I accept that. It doesn't extend to cabinet documents. The Senate has never accepted that. All too often we see ministers sprinkling the cabinet secrecy dust over things that it shouldn't be sprinkled over. Perhaps with the finance minister's $40 billion discretionary fund they bought a whole bunch more secrecy dust because they had to extend it to national cabinet. Even though we know national cabinet is not a cabinet, they're still definitely sprinkling the cabinet secrecy dust over that.

There is some hope in the letter that has been provided to the Senate. That's a good thing. I urge the Prime Minister to release this information and to do so as early as possible, because there is a debate that's taking place, and debates are always better if they're informed debates. Let's see the modelling. Let's see where everything lies rather than having everyone guess. The statements made by the Prime Minister have even caused Senator Canavan, a member of his own coalition team, doubts. I supported that. Hence we combined to move the motion in the first place.

I'll just remind senators that, in New Zealand, cabinet secrecy doesn't exist. There's something like a 30-day time limit, and then everything is released. Unless it relates to national security, it's released—and their democracy hasn't fallen over. Maybe it's time that our parliament started to consider whether or not we want to move towards adoption of the New Zealand system. It's a responsible system of government and it seems to manage okay—in fact, I'd argue that in many cases it does a lot better—through the openness and transparency that its cabinet regime offers the New Zealand people. There is an example that we should adopt there.

I'll just point out what the hard reality is. Yes, cabinet deliberations have public interest immunity. Cabinet documents do not, but, in any circumstance, the Prime Minister is authorised to release cabinet documents. He did it for the Doherty modelling. He should also do it for the modelling that is the subject of this order.

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

I rise to take note of the minister's response as well, but I want to discuss more the concerns I have leading up to the government acceding to the Senate's request. I also make note of Senator Patrick's comment then that debates are better if informed. That's where I want to go to. Senator Birmingham said earlier on today, 'The government is doing the legwork.' If that's the truth, why don't they show it? Why have we gone through this charade for the government to capitulate anyway? Then the government argued, through Senator Birmingham, that they won't do it because Labor won't do it. That's got nothing to do with the issue at all. Our record is 10 consecutive quarters of year-on-year CPI reductions in retail power. The Labor Party's record is not only a carbon tax and not only a mining tax but also 23 consecutive quarters of year-on-year increases in household electricity costs, and they have the hide to come in here and lecture us. Well, the Australian people can see straight through that. They understand that this is the same old Labor Party, because recently we've seen the Labor Party put their dirty little secret out there into the public. Asked on Sunday by David Speers, Senator Gallagher said, 'We are looking at everything.' That was in response to a direct question as to whether or not a carbon tax—

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

Senator Small, I will remind you of the question. It was a question from Senator Watt to Senator McKenzie and it was largely around net zero emissions by 2050 and comments made by Fiona Simpson and the Minerals Council of Australia. You were on track, but you have well and truly strayed over the last minute or so.

Ben Small (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to return to talking about the Morrison government's plan to achieve net zero with technology, not taxes. That is the ironclad guarantee that the Prime Minister has given the people of Australia. There is no plan from the Morrison government that includes a carbon tax. Not only does it not include a carbon tax; in fact, it includes no penalties. We have been clear with the Australian people that we will achieve net zero emissions with technology, not taxes, with choice, not constraint, with incentive, not penalty, and we will deliver it in partnership with the private sector—the private sector that generates the jobs that Australians depend on, the private sector that will export new energy technology to the world. That is what this government is about.

We are delighted to stand on our track record. We put our plans to the Australian people each election, and that is the accountability that matters. Before the next election, the Prime Minister has been clear that we will, in fact, have a very clear plan for the Australian people. It'll be costed, it'll be achievable and it will be based on the outcomes that we have delivered. The Labor Party's plan, which doesn't exist, includes a legislated target which is a blank cheque. With a blank cheque and a carbon tax on the table, I think I know who the Australian people will trust.

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

Enough from the junior burgher from Bunbury—

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

Senator Ayres, I ask you to withdraw that and address the senator by his correct name.

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

I withdraw that. The Prime Minister said, 'If you have a go, you'll get a go.' Well, this is the Prime Minister's 21st go over eight years at getting climate and energy policy right and we're seeing the consequences. Just like a kid who campaigns against the HSC for all of their period in high school and then suddenly starts studying for the exams in the last two days, this Prime Minister, this coalition, is falling apart at the Glasgow hurdle, and now we've got the Glasgow gaslighting show. It's a pantomime that's been constructed to try and get the Prime Minister through the next two weeks and then through to the election. It is the worst pantomime in Australian theatrical history, with the least compelling cast.

It has some problems, this shift to net zero from the Prime Minister. Like Mr Morrison, it is fake. Like Mr Morrison, it is a fraud. And, like Mr Morrison, it is all marketing and no substance, because he is a man who believes in nothing. There is zero credibility in this switch to net zero. In the review of this pantomime, let's deal with problem 1: the National Party. Plot credibility for this pantomime requires that they pretend to fight for some regional interest. The fighters for the squatters and the pastoralists have decayed and deteriorated into a bunch of jumped-up bunyip aristocracy who fight for property developers, real estate agents, water speculators and spivs and who couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. That's the problem. This whole plot rests on the idea that the National Party could fight—and they couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. I wish we had some heavy hitters. There's no Reg Withers. There's no Doug Anthony. There's no Peter Nixon. There's no Ian Sinclair.

When you look at them, what a bunch of pathetic specimens they are. There is Senator Canavan. He wouldn't make an impression on a feather bed. He is a former KPMG guy, a former pseudo-economist and ministerial staffer. He dresses up in the high-vis, puts on the make-up and pretends to be a coalminer. There is Senator McKenzie. All we've seen is whingeing and whining and back-stabbing and leaking and moaning. But we haven't seen any fighting, and we haven't seen any delivery. The best way you can assess future performance is, of course, on past performance. Of course, the only thing that we have seen as a policy proposal from this decaying carcass of a once-great political party has been from Minister Pitt, who proposed a $250 billion line of credit—$10,000 dollars of public money for every man, woman and child in Australia—that would be allocated to an industry that doesn't want it. Senator Canavan, who has enough memory of economics 101, told us that it would have such a distortionary effect on the Australian economy that it would put up interest rates—and he said that was a good thing—lifting mortgage costs, lifting business costs and pushing jobs overseas. That's what we've had from the National Party.

Problem 2, of course, is the Prime Minister, who's a fraud, a phoney and a fake. He wants to say one thing in Glasgow, another thing in Gunnedah and something entirely different in Glen Waverley. He wants a credible position for Glasgow and he wants to go and say something completely different in Gladstone. Then he'll sneak back to Sydney and try to convey to people in New South Wales that he has a serious message on climate change in Georges Hall. You can't spend 10 years sucking up to climate sceptics, science deniers and cranks and then expect that you can execute a complete U-turn on climate and energy policy. How many jobs has this cost? How much has it cost ordinary families? This is a fraud, a phoney and a fake and it has been seen for what it is. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.