David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. What you've just said comes directly back to the amendments in my name that we're currently debating. Again, the UNFCCC and other bodies are saying that there's a role for CCS—absolutely. But they're also saying that we cannot afford to open up new fossil fuel projects, that simply burning all the current projects is enough to blow 1.5 to two degrees. So I find it troubling and a little bit disingenuous to cherrypick that from these bodies, where they are talking about a legitimate use of CCS, but not also saying that while they say that they also say that we can't allow new fossil fuel projects.

Again, the major parties will point at the Independents and minor parties and say, 'You may have a different view when it comes to climate.' But this is not my view. I'm not a climate scientist, but I do my best to listen to them. We're doing them a great disservice when we have this type of legislation before us and we're not willing to rule out the use of this legislation and the London protocol to allow the expansion of the fossil fuel industry in Australia. What does it mean for us as a country to be in this place in 2023, given what we're seeing, what we're living through, and the concerns that have been raised? The IPCC's Synthesisreport was a sobering read. I do not understand how we can have that knowledge and pass this sort of legislation without an amendment to ensure that this doesn't do what climate scientists are urging us—begging us—not to do, and that is to expand the fossil fuel industry. That's then on us as a parliament. That's on us.

The fact that I'm in here and I'm going to vote against this awful bill means nothing. Being able to say, 'I told you so' in a few decades time—what is the point? We surely have to be better than this as a Senate. We cannot continue down this road, Minister. We have a small window in time to truly transition. And I will continue to call the government out when they talk about the transition and point to $40 billion on transition and other things and at the same time put $1.5 billion towards Middle Arm, at the same time bring forward sea dumping legislation and at the same time taunt the opposition about not voting for legislation that Santos, Inpex and Woodside want. Please, we've got to do better than this. I'd urge the government, the Labor Party, to reconsider your position on political donations from fossil fuel companies. The thing that I hear from people is, despite what may be said about that not having an influence, it's very hard to understand why we're getting this kind of legislation in 2023 if it doesn't have some sort of effect. It's a bad look, and I'd argue that it's not good for our democracy.

As we head into drought, into El Nino, we're seeing fires burning in the NT and in Queensland. We've got to do better for those communities. We've got to do better for young people. We've got to be able to say to young people: 'Things are bad. You're not going to be able to enjoy the stabler climate of your parents or your grandparents. You're going to have to live through some pretty horrific climate fuelled disasters. We're sorry, but we're going to do absolutely everything we can do from here on in.' This legislation is not it. I'm sorry. This deserved a week filibuster. Thank you to the opposition for allowing us to ask questions and raise concerns, because, as someone in here representing people in the ACT who care about climate, who love this place, who've seen suburbs burn down, who've seen half of Namadgi burn down, we want better. We want better from our government. There's too much at stake here. I'd urge the Labor Party to rethink their approach on climate. I commend you for the work you're doing on the transition. There is a huge amount of good work that's being done. There are some very good people in your party. But, when it comes to this kind of legislation, at the behest of the fossil fuel industry, it's not good enough. I really fear that future generations will not look kindly on us when they look back and they say, 'In 2023 the Australian parliament passed legislation to expand the fossil fuel industry.' How are we here debating this bill?

I'll go back just briefly to something we touched on early last week, and that is our role in the Pacific. We had the Prime Minister visiting the Pacific—and again I want to give the government a lot of credit for the work that they've done in the Pacific. Minister Wong has done a huge amount of travel, meeting with Pacific island leaders. But we had the PM go over there, and I think there were many who were expecting a climate announcement—and there was a climate announcement, but that announcement was: 'We are going to resettle people from the Pacific.' It wasn't: 'We are going to stand with you and sign the Port Vila declaration. We are going to commit to reducing fossil fuel subsidies over time. We are going to commit to a just transition and support for the Pacific. We are going to invest more in adaptation.' We've got to be careful in the way we talk about climate change as the thing that is affecting the Pacific, because in doing so we wash our hands a little bit, as Australians, because the thing that's causing climate change is the burning of fossil fuels. As one of the biggest fossil fuel exporters in the world, we need to start talking more about that.

We have an outsized role to play in truly transitioning our economy and moving away from fossil fuels. That will have an outsized effect on the rest of the world. There's a huge opportunity here for us to get on with developing the solutions and then being able to export them, rather than just exporting fossil fuels. I urge the Labor government to do better. Australians want you to do better. They need you to do better.