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 the order for the production of documents No. 1,251.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to provide that a motion relating to the failure of the government to comply with the order for the production of documents No. 1,251—may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined and be determined without amendment or debate.

On this motion, the Senate may or may not recall that the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction was subject to an order for production of documents by motion of this chamber with which the government has not complied. The order for production was moved by Senator Canavan and Senator Patrick, and the requirement was that this be tabled by 10 am today. Unsurprisingly, for a government that avoids all accountability—as we saw in the House of Representatives yesterday, with the voting to protect Mr Christian Porter—this government has failed to comply with the provision of the modelling. It seems passing strange that a government that has spent so much of the last eight long years saying to people, 'You can't have a target without a plan; you can't have a target unless you know what it means,' is going to such lengths to hide the economic modelling it is doing, or has done, for its climate plan.

Senator Canavan has been rightly calling for the release of this modelling by his own government. We don't agree on very much, Senator Canavan and I, but we do agree on this. We do agree that the government should provide the modelling, and I remind the Senate of Senator Canavan's tweet on 19 October 2021: 'If this modelling is so good why does it have to remain a secret?' As everybody knows, Senator Canavan and I have different views on climate change, but what we do agree with is that this government shouldn't keep this a secret. The problem is that this government is addicted to secrecy, addicted to covering up and addicted to not providing information to this chamber. Time and again, the chamber calls for documents—calls for information—and we see the government refusing to provide them.

It is the same attitude that this Prime Minister demonstrated yesterday. Yesterday, Mr Morrison used the power of his office to instruct every coalition MP to vote against an inquiry into an anonymous million-dollar donation to Mr Christian Porter. It is extraordinary. You only need to outline the facts of yesterday to be struck by how extraordinary it is. And there's a higher point here that I think is worth making: what does the office of Prime Minister mean and what should it be used for?

Too often with Mr Morrison the power that is associated with the office of the Prime Minister is used to cover up, to protect people and to avoid transparency and accountability. We saw that yesterday when, for the first time in 120 years, in the House of Representatives the government voted against the Speaker on such an issue.

Coming back to the modelling, we have had a long discussion in the media between the National Party and the Liberal Party about net zero emissions by 2050. We had extraordinary scenes here in this chamber, with a cabinet minister threatening the government with things getting ugly and a cabinet minister refusing to back the Prime Minister in. I have never seen a cabinet minister campaign against a Prime Minister in question time before, but that is what this week has been like. We have a member of the government, Senator Canavan, and a member of the crossbench, Senator Patrick, rightly calling for the economic modelling associated with the government climate policy.

I say to the chamber and to all senators that the government are now saying that they have had a change of heart on climate. I don't believe them, and I think the Australian people don't believe them. We all remember what Mr Morrison was like, bringing in his lump of coal and saying that electric vehicles would end the weekend and that renewable storage was a big banana. We know all that. We know this is all fake. But what we do want to understand is the economic modelling that the government is predicating its policy on. If Mr Morrison is serious about net zero emissions by 2050, if he is serious about demonstrating that he actually wants to do something to get there, if he is serious about his belated assertions around jobs, he will get over his addiction to secrecy and he will disclose the modelling that he has been talking about. As Senator Canavan— (Time expired)

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

There are a number of quite predictable things in this place. It is predictable, indeed, that the Labor Party and the Greens will always seek any opportunity to play politics and do a bit of grandstanding and pursue different stunts. So of course we have a motion to suspend standing orders to bring on matters that weren't listed for debate today because they want to pursue another stunt to have a debate and do all of the different things that Labor will do just to make some sort of cheap political point along the way. It is predictable, and no doubt we will hear it in other contributions.

The opposition, the Greens and others will always seek to talk down Australia's contributions, particularly when it comes to areas such as emissions reduction. They will overlook the fact that Australia has managed to meet and beat our emissions reduction commitments over the years, that we continue to be on track to do so and that the scale of emissions reduction in Australia exceeds that of so many other nations. They will overlook the fact that there is a good point to going through the processes of having clinical debate and teasing out issues, including difficult issues of dissent and dispute that may exist across communities in Australia and right across political debate, and to doing that in a way that enables people to put their perspective and have their views heard.

That's not the Labor Party way. The Labor Party way is to try to make sure that everybody just toes the line. That's why when people dissent in their party they ultimately have to leave their party. Of course, in the Liberal and National parties, we enable people to have a freer perspective and to actually have views, to have dissent and to work through those different issues.

I have been reminded multiple times this week of former senator Doug Cameron. I remember Dougie Cameron—not always fondly—but I particularly remember a time when former Senator Cameron, speaking about life inside the Labor Party, said that it was 'a bit like having a political lobotomy'. He said:

You can't speak your mind. You can't think about some issues because they are all off the agenda.

That's how former Senator Cameron described life inside the Labor caucus, that it was a bit like having a lobotomy because you weren't allowed to speak your mind or to think about other issues. That's not the way our parties work. That's not how the Liberal and National parties work. We proudly enable our members to speak their mind, to bring different perspectives to the table and, in bringing those perspectives to the table, to be in the best possible position to address real issues. That's what we are seeking to do on the position that we will take to the Glasgow climate change conference. We will be addressing the real issues of emissions reduction and how we make sure we as a country track a pathway to build on the gains we've made in emissions reduction to date, to build on the gains we're continuing to make ahead of 2030 and to track the course towards net zero. But we will do it alongside clear plans around how we take communities with us, protect jobs and ensure that we achieve that in ways that give Australia the best possible potential for the future. We will release in relation to what we take to Glasgow those commitments, those plans, and we will do all of that when we've concluded government processes and before the Prime Minister provides those commitments in Glasgow.

For those opposite to be calling out and demanding that we do that ahead of finalising those processes is to ignore the proper processes that the government is rightly going through in addressing all of these issues. For them to be calling for us to release further modelling evidence or otherwise betrays the fact that they haven't released any such evidence. They've made commitments. They've said there will be a commitment to net zero by 2050, but I don't see any the plans, any of the modelling or anything else coming from the opposition as to how they are going to get there. As I said the other day, the opposition's policy is a bit like jumping out of a plane first and then checking to see whether your parachute has been packed. We in the government are making sure that we do all of the leg work necessary to protect regional communities, protect the jobs within them, ensure they can transition and support them. That's what we'll continue to do in the proper process, and we urge those in this chamber to oppose the opposition's attempt to disrupt business today. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak to the suspension motion. We will be supporting the motion. What we are seeing is the government yesterday agree to disclose some documents and then today fail to disclose them. This is not the first time this government has done this. We passed an order for the production of documents relating to the Beetaloo basin and the cosy meetings that members of this government have had with donor companies who were then worded up about the grant arrangements on a first-in, best-dressed basis. We passed that OPD, and then we waited a good eight weeks before this government complied with it. So this is their form. They'll say, 'Sure, fine,' and then just not comply with it. The reason they said, 'Sure, fine,' yesterday and let the OPD pass was that they didn't want Senator Canavan to cross the floor and further embarrass the government. This is a government that cannot disclose these sorts of documents because they are so compromised by what those documents would say.

This particular transparency measure relates to the famed 2050 modelling that, naturally, the Prime Minister does not want to release because he is allergic to transparency and is obsessed with secrecy. The reason he doesn't want to release it is that the modelling is absolute crap. How on earth could any modelling say that you can somehow address the climate crisis that we're in by increasing coal and gas? The International Energy Agency has done this work. It looked at the countries that currently buy our fossil fuels and compared them with the 2030 targets those countries have made, and it found that fossil fuel usage will peak in 2025 and then fall. That's why we want to see this 2050 modelling, because it will be revealed as absolute rubbish. It's somewhat ironic that Senator Canavan with Senator Patrick's support want to see this modelling, because they too think it will be rubbish, although for completely different reasons.

The government could solve this by simply releasing the modelling, but it won't do that, because it's utterly compromised and embarrassed on the climate. Glasgow is a week away, and this Prime Minister is still talking about a date that's 30 years in the future. For the rest of the world, the whole ticket to Glasgow, the whole point of Glasgow, is to talk about 2030, and this Prime Minister is having a phony war with his coalition junior partner—which suits the electoral outcomes of both of them, I might add—to distract from the fact that Australia is now the only comparable nation that is not addressing 2030 and has no science based targets for 2030.

The Climate Targets Panel have advised us that, if we want to stay within 1½ degrees of warming, we need to triple our 2030 targets. The Prime Minister's pathetic 2030 targets—which are the targets established by Tony Abbott, that great climate saviour—are one-third of what we need to do our bit in the global effort to keep to 1½ degrees. If we don't keep to that, you can kiss the Great Barrier Reef goodbye. You can kiss our agricultural productivity goodbye. We already know that studies indicate that agricultural productivity in the Murray-Darling Basin will fall by more than 90 per cent if we don't seriously address the climate crisis and constrain that warming to 1½ degrees. These are the people that the Nationals still occasionally purport to represent, and this government is throwing them under the bus. It's not only throwing nature under the bus—we're used to it doing that—but throwing the productivity of our agricultural sector under the bus as well, and it is imperilling the future of our communities who have faced devastating natural disasters already.

Perhaps the Prime Minister's planning on going to Hawaii again when he opens up the international borders. Maybe he won't be around for the next bushfire season. But Australians won't forget, and that's exactly why they deserve to see this climate modelling which this government is not disclosing. These folks just love running protection rackets. They did it yesterday in the House over former Minister Porter. They've done it today. They did it on the Beetaloo basin. They are obsessed with secrecy, and they are failing us on climate. Let's vote them out.

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

This is an important motion. We do need to understand that this is about a transparency measure. We know the government, even if they did comply with the order, would have advanced a public interest immunity claim in relation to cabinet. I just want to remind the chamber that we saw the Doherty modelling going to the national cabinet, where a similar claim is made. We know it's a false claim; it's not in accordance with law. National cabinet doesn't attract cabinet protections. But, nonetheless, the Prime Minister, despite having claimed that, then released the modelling, because it was in the public interest and people are entitled to see modelling as it's presented to government. What we're asking for here now is some other modelling that relate to a very important topic that is being debated. There's lots of argument going on. It's great to put facts on the table such that the debate can be informed. The Prime Minister has the ability to simply authorise the release of this information, and that's what he should do. I ask that the question now be put.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, you cannot move that motion at the end of a speech.

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

I support the substantive motion that Senator Wong wishes to move, but I will not support the motion to suspend standing orders. I support the substantive motion, although a little reluctantly. I think we have to be clear here that all this really does is provide 60 minutes of debate for this. It doesn't necessarily force the minister to do anything different. We've already had a minister explain the government's position here for five minutes. I doubt that will shift all that much over 60 minutes. But it is important to stand up for transparency, so I will support that approach.

It's particularly important in this case given there remain a lot of questions about the modelling behind the strategy, or at least the preference, of the government to move towards a net-zero 2050 target. As I said the other day, I had a small briefing on the modelling that saw some results, but I did leave the room thinking that I was being asked to marry a girl I hadn't met. There was very little detail.

She probably would say no, Senator Watt, but we in the Nationals at least believe in chivalry. We do believe that you should take her out for dinner or a drink or something before you sign the marriage contract.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the question be put.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Wong to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells being run g

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

We seek one minute. We all know there is a hard marker. Everybody was in here. We ask for a one-minute division.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had an indication from one of the whips.

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

Which whip? The government are running down the clock because they haven't got the numbers. I would ask that the President not collude with it.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had an indication from the whip. I can see senators at the door. Senator Smith?

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, whips deciding on one- and four-minute bells is absolutely the prerogative of the whips, and it has been the custom and tradition of this chamber for as long as I have been a whip.

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

Standing order 101(3) reads:

When successive divisions are taken, and there is no debate after the first division, the bells for each ensuing division shall be rung for one minute only.

Mr President, I ask you to uphold the standing orders.

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

Mr President, the practice, by successive presidents, has been to provide warning to the chamber if one-minute bells are going to be provided. That warning was not provided. As the Chief Government Whip has indicated, that practice equally extends to the fact that the whips themselves provide indication, something I know that the opposition has done on numerous occasions.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have already ruled, there is a clear convention in this place where there is time for senators to leave the chamber. I cannot be always aware when senators leave the chamber. Therefore I take guidance on this matter from the whips. The fact I can see a number of senators waiting at the door indicates there were senators outside the chamber. Senator Abetz, on the point of order?

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

Mr President, I would invite Senator Wong to withdraw the imputation in relation to you. Irrespective of whether your ruling may be right, wrong or indifferent—I happen to think it's right—to suggest collusion by the chair is highly inappropriate and deserves to be withdrawn.

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

I withdraw.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Wong. The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

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

We can see the opposition continuing on their attempt to make this all about playing stunts and undertaking distractions. The government will make no apologies for the fact that our approach will always be about making sure we protect all aspects of the interests of Australians.

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

A point of order!

The:

Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Gallagher?

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

There's no question before the chair, so Senator Birmingham is not entitled to just freewheel at the lectern. There is no question before you. He is out of order.