Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter, dated 10 November 2015, from Senator Siewert:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

"That the Turnbull government's commitment to Tony Abbott's UN Climate Targets that deny scientific realities will contribute to catastrophic global warming."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

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

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

That the Turnbull government's commitment to Tony Abbott's UN Climate Targets that deny scientific realities will contribute to catastrophic global warming.

With our change of Prime Minister we have seen a complete absence of change to any of the policies that saw the downfall of the last Prime Minister. Prime Minister Turnbull is taking Tony Abbott's targets to the Paris climate conference in a few short weeks. With the change of government in Canada, that leaves Australia at the very back of the pack in terms of our commitment, based on the science, to do what is necessary to address global warming.

We have a wonderful climate change authority in this nation, which we Greens are proud to have helped establish under the former government: a science based, independent expert body that has said that in order for Australia to do its fair share to constrain global warming to less than two degrees—and I will come back to whether even that is adequate in a few moments—we would need to reduce our pollution by 40 to 60 per cent, importantly, based on 2000 levels of pollution. Former Prime Minister Tony Abbott picked the highest year of Australia's emissions as his baseline year. He chose 2005 and then said he would commit Australia to reducing pollution levels by 26 to 28 per cent. When you convert that back to the year 2000, which most other countries use as their yardstick and which we have always used here in Australia, that is about a 19 per cent reduction. The Climate Change Authority, as I have said, said the bare minimum was 40 to 60 per cent. Our former Prime Minister, continued by this Prime Minister, has said 19 per cent is fine. To do less than half of the bottom end of the bare minimum that is needed to keep global warming to two degrees is an absolute outrage. It is an insult to future generations in this country and it is an insult to the current generations living in our Pacific island neighbour countries, who are already facing saltwater incursion into their food-producing land and inundations such that their countries might not exist in a few short years.

Yet the current government, despite the change of leadership, have not changed a thing. In fact, they signed a deal with the National Party saying that they would not change former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's climate targets—they would stick with those anti-science targets that will condemn this world to catastrophic global warming and which would see Australia shirk its international responsibility to do its fair share as one of the wealthiest nations on this planet and, of course, as the highest per capita emitter on the planet.

The current government like to champion the fact that these woeful pollution reduction targets, they say, would entail the biggest per capita reduction. That is true, but do you know what? Even after implementing those targets, Australia would still be the highest per capita polluter on the planet. We are so far ahead of the rest of the world that even after implementing the woeful targets of the Abbott, now Turnbull, government we will still be the world's worst polluter on a per capita basis. That is absolutely shameful. For the government to continue to not even engage on that fact shows their absolute disregard for science. It shows that they continue to be simply a mouthpiece for the coal and fossil fuel sectors, to their eternal shame and to the embarrassment of most Australians, who understand that we need action on global warming not just to safeguard amazing places, like the Great Barrier Reef or the Wet Tropics or Tasmania's magnificent forests or our iconic species, not just for those clear environmental benefits but for our very safety and way of life. I am from Queensland, where we have seen some really horrific extreme weather events in the last few years. We will see more of those, the science predicts, if we continue to pump out the greenhouse gas pollution that our coal industry is exporting to the rest of the world and that, sadly, we are still using way too much domestically.

Is that really the sort of future that you want to condemn us to? If you do not care about the environment, which clearly you do not, if you are not so worried about people's property and their emotional resilience being damaged, have a look at the economic prosperity that we are missing out on by refusing to get on board that transition to clean energy. Have a look at the fact that the global coal price is now in structural decline. There are many economists lining up to say that it is not just a dip it is structural decline. It is not coming back. Look instead at the embrace that other nations are giving to clean energy production, which we could be a part of. This could actually be an economic boon, for us, here in Australia. This is not news. We should not have to point this out at every opportunity. It is patently obvious global economics. The fact that this government still has its head in the sand on the science and on the economics simply shows that it is utterly morally bereft and utterly hostage to the fossil fuel sector.

There was some wonderful news just the other day that the Obama administration in the US has rejected one of the key fossil fuel projects, the Keystone Pipeline, which has long been proposed to open up Canada's tar sands. President Obama rejected it on the basis of its climate impacts. This is the first time that we have seen a project rejected in a developed nation on the basis of its global warming impacts. I hope that it is the start of a trend, because in Australia we have so many of these dangerous, extreme, unnecessary and unfinanceable projects on our books. We have the Galilee Basin in Queensland, which is one of the world's largest coal basins. If it were opened up and all that coal were exported and burnt, should the economy not be as it is, it would be the seventh largest contributor to global emissions. If it were a country, it would be the seventh largest polluter. It is an enormous coal basin that cannot be opened up or we face the end of the Great Barrier Reef and our existence as we know it.

We have massive plans for fracking. In Queensland alone there are up to 40,000 coal seam gas and unconventional gas wells that various multinationals and some domestic companies, with the full support of this government and, I might add, the opposition, want to sink on our best food-producing land. We have already seen the huge social toll that that industry is having on our regional communities. The shocking passing of Mr George Bender, just a few weeks ago, has really given voice to the desperation that those communities are feeling because nobody is listening to them. We visit and we hear them, but nobody in government is doing anything to protect their land, their livelihood, their water supply and the world's climate. I hope that we can change course in time.

There are some good news stories. I have mentioned that the Keystone Pipeline was rejected. We have a wonderful congregation and coalition of ordinary Australians who are uniting and calling for action on this threat of global warming and who can see that the science says, 'For heaven's sake, this is beyond question; let's get on with it.' Let's get that prosperity from a clean energy economy, which we know Australia is so well placed to take advantage of, which is job rich and which could be an enormous boon for us and would see us catch up to the rest of the world. We absolutely need that.

Part of that, of course, is having strong targets and strong policy platforms. We Greens, at our national conference at the weekend, have just announced that we do not want to see the world stabilise at below two degrees. We want to see the world aim to stabilise global warming at no more than 1½ degrees because, sadly, in the briefings that I have had with quite a number of climate scientists in recent weeks, even a 1½ degree increase in global temperature means the demise of 90 per cent of the world's coral reefs. In Queensland the Great Barrier Reef is hugely central to our economy. It brings in $6 billion every year and employs more than 60,000 people. They are local jobs, jobs in those regional communities. They could be long-term jobs that bring in prosperity for us, for evermore, if we look after the reef.

We know that climate change is the biggest change to the reef, and yet we see these plans for pathetic targets that ignore the science. Every single coal mine or coal-seam gas application that passes the environment minister's desk, no matter which big party it is from, gets ticked off. We saw the attacks on the renewable energy target. We saw the carbon price repealed. We saw the former Prime Minister make an absolute buffoon of himself any time he tried to talk about climate. The current Prime Minister has tried to change the rhetoric but there has been no change in substance. Prime Minister Turnbull needs to increase our targets in the lead-up to the Paris conference. He needs to seriously commit to that global climate finance move. He needs to get out of the way of the reform of global fossil fuel subsidies. He needs to stop embarrassing Australians and prove that we can be the clean-energy economy of the future. (Time expired)

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

it is so pleasure to contribute to this debate, notwithstanding the nature of the motion and proposal that has been put forward by the Australian Greens. It is so pleasure to reinforce to the chamber and others that Australia is a country that in climate change terms very clearly says what it will do and does what it promises and what it says. That has been the historical record of Australia's contribution to climate change policy at a global level. What we have consistently said is that we do our fair share and make a sound contribution and that, when we make those commitments, we deliver upon those commitments. That stands in stark contrast to much of the rest of the world in terms of the approach that is taken.

It is to the credit of Australian governments, that, over time, we have successfully set out clear targets for reductions and change in our climate change profile, in our emissions profile, and that we have delivered upon those reductions and changes in our emissions profile. We are a country that is playing our part in reducing global emissions, and we will continue to do so at very substantial levels, notwithstanding the claims and rhetoric of the Australian Greens. We are already delivering lower emissions in Australia and we will continue to do so under the Turnbull government. We have a very strong and credible track record historically of making sure that Australia not only meets its emissions target reductions but exceeds them. And I am confident that, in future, we will do so.

As we approach the Paris conference on climate change Australia is going into those discussions with not just a credible target but a very strong target and a very credible contribution to make. Australia is proposing a target for reduction of emissions of between 26 and 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. When we consider that on a per capita basis, it makes Australia's promised contribution the largest of any developed nation. Our emissions on a per capita basis will be some 52 per cent lower as a result of the commitments the Turnbull government is taking to the Paris conference.

Australia is actively and constructively engaging in these discussions because we want to make sure that we build on our track record of meeting and exceeding the commitments we made under the Kyoto protocol. We want to build on our commitment of being a country that will meet, and probably exceed, the commitments we made in terms of the 2020 reductions. Every time Australia has made a commitment on the world stage to reduce emissions as part of the Kyoto protocol, we have met it and exceeded it. To reduce emissions by 2020, we will meet it and we will likely exceed it. And we are now making commitments on a global level to the largest per capita reduction of any major developed economy. I am confident that we will again meet those commitments and we may well once again exceed those commitments because as a country we take our promises very seriously. We do not make promises that we cannot meet; we make promises that we are determined and confident we will meet.

The evidence is there that we are already achieving real and significant reductions in terms of Australia's emissions profile. Our Emissions Reduction Fund, which the Turnbull government is proud to be operating and continuing, had its first auction in April 2015. Some 47 million tonnes of emissions reduction was contracted at a price of $13.95 per tonne in that first auction. This, of course, was a significant improvement on the type of outcomes that had been achieved under the carbon tax and shows that we can reduce emissions in Australia at a much lower price than what Labor's carbon tax was doing. In fact, the price of emissions reduction under the Emissions Reduction Fund is around one per cent of the cost of emissions changes that were being achieved under Labor's carbon tax. It is a demonstration that there is a cost-effective way and that we can reduce emissions without increasing electricity prices for Australian families and without driving up the cost of electricity for Australian industry and rendering Australian businesses less competitive than our global competitors and damaging jobs and business investment opportunities Australians.

We are seeing strong support for the government's Emissions Reductions Fund. More than 500 projects are currently registered under the Emissions Reductions Fund. I am pleased to advise that the second auction under the fund was held on 4 and 5 November. The results are to be announced this Thursday, 12 November by the independent authority, the Clean Energy Regulator, who is responsible for administering the operations of the Emissions Reduction Fund. Very clearly, we have an effective, efficient policy that is working to help Australia meet its 2020 targets. We have strong targets for 2030 and we will be making sure that we deliver on those targets through the most cost-effective and efficient means in the future.

We are also providing over $15 billion in support for renewables and lower emissions by investing in cutting-edge technology and innovation in this space and a new Office of Climate Change and Renewables Innovation will bring a fresh focus to the role of innovation in supporting renewable and low-emissions technologies. It will bring together the Clean Energy Regulator, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Climate Change Authority under one umbrella to ensure that we have real focus and real leadership across government and to help drive the transformation in our economy. We are confident that Australia can be and will be a world leader in this space. We will be a world leader because we will deliver upon the world's largest per capita reduction in emissions among developed nations. In delivering upon that, we will see the type of innovation and investment continue across the Australia economy that can also assist the rest of the world in their adaptation and change.

We are proud of the record we have on renewable energy and on encouraging the development of our renewable energy agencies and systems in Australia. We are the parties which, under the Howard government, established the mandatory Renewable Energy Target in the first instance and sparked investment in innovation across this sector, particularly in solar. Australia has the highest proportion of households with solar panels in the world. About 15 per cent of Australian households have some form of solar system. The next largest is Belgium at around 7½ per cent and then Germany at 3.7 per cent. It is a clear demonstration of the strong take-up across Australia of various policies and incentives across various governments that have driven that investment in renewable energy and in solar panels. More than 2.4 million solar PV and hot water systems have been installed across Australia. This is a demonstration that the Australian public has adapted to and is adopting change. Under the changes that this government has put in place, the Renewable Energy Target will confidently now see more than 23½ per cent of Australia's electricity coming from renewable sources by 2020. It will mean a doubling of large-scale renewable energy over the next five years. Let us just reflect on that point again for a second: there will be a doubling of large-scale renewable energy in Australia over the next five years under the operation of the Renewable Energy Target.

The idea perpetrated by the Australian Greens that somehow this government and Australia are not doing enough is quite ridiculous. Australia has delivered upon strong commitments in the past, is taking strong commitments to Paris and will deliver upon those strong commitments in future. Australia has implemented and is implementing strong and effective policies that are efficient to ensure that we meet our emissions reductions targets, that we inspire and invest in innovative technologies in the future and that we transform the mix of Australia's energy sector, as well as other areas of emissions. Importantly, much of our investment is also going into new areas of technology—the opportunity of increasing energy efficiency and the opportunity of ensuring that we invest in soil carbon capture technologies. These are things that other countries around the world can take up and adopt as well.

In this debate, I look forward to hearing if those opposite in the Labor Party have different targets to the government. To date, all I have heard is silence when it comes to targets, while this government is committed to very strong targets. (Time expired)

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to be part of this debate on this important urgency motion and to indicate that Labor will be supporting this motion. This motion very much goes to the heart of the fact that whilst, over the last month or so, we thought that things may change in relation to climate policy in this country, unfortunately, under Malcolm Turnbull, the new Prime Minister, they did not. We thought that policies would at least be brought back to the sensible centre when we talked about climate change and renewable energy. But, on both of those fronts, we are still left wanting.

There is not long to go—only about a month, if that—until the Paris summit. There is important work that needs to be done at that summit, and Australia needs to play a leadership role at that summit and, of course, for our region. Unfortunately, our Prime Minister so far has confirmed that he will not change the previous Prime Minister's emissions reduction targets, including his Direct Action policy, despite the overwhelming evidence that that policy will still see Australia's pollution levels rise and despite the fact that our new Prime Minister has, in the past, been on record—a number of times, in fact—saying that that particular policy, Direct Action, is indeed a farce. Since he has shown in the past that he does not really stand by this policy, is it really then the policy that he wants to take to Paris?

The Climate Institute has indicated that the government's 26 to 28 per cent emissions reduction target is consistent with global warming of three to four degrees. This is where the government cannot have it both ways. It cannot say that, as a country, it is committed to limiting global warming to no more than two degrees, along with its counterparts China, the US and the UK—and, in fact, all major economies around the world—and then not have a policy in place that delivers it. But that is currently what we have. We have a policy in place that will not deliver warming to no more than two degrees. Therein lies the conundrum for our new Prime Minister in the lead-up to Paris. As clear as day, something needs to happen, or he is walking away from that commitment of reducing warming to no more than two degrees.

The former head of the Climate Change Authority, Mr Bernie Fraser, has said that the government's climate action rhetoric has been very disappointing, particularly the Prime Minister's. He said:

He is just sticking with the status quo ... It's a pity his courage deserted him …

This is where we did think that our Prime Minister would show some courage, because we do know how he has described the current government policy on climate change in the past—as something of an environmental fig leaf, something of a farce, something of a recipe for fiscal recklessness on a grand scale. Well, I agree with him. Direct Action, the current government policy, the policy that was put in place by the previous Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, is a farce and a recipe for recklessness on a grand scale. That is why not one economist has come out and supported it. Now is the opportunity. Malcolm Turnbull was right then; he would still be right now if he stood by those words—which I hope he still does—and went ahead and changed our government's policy in the lead-up to Paris.

According to RepuTex, Australia's biggest polluters will increase their pollution levels by 20 per cent over the next 15 years without exceeding the baseline set by the government's safeguard mechanism. RepuTex has also confirmed this week that not one company will be required to reduce its pollution levels by this government's policy. That shows that this policy just does not work. That is why I urge our Prime Minister to make the change that he knows needs to happen to this policy because he himself has called it a farce. Labor is committed very much to addressing climate change. That is why we have already outlined our commitment to 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030.

Another factor in the lead-up to Paris is our contribution, or lack thereof, to the Green Climate Fund. I understand that our Minister for Foreign Affairs has, quite rightly, said:

Australia is seen as a pragmatic, constructive and results focused member of the Green Climate Fund.

It has been that way for some time. Unfortunately, we know that, under the Abbott government, that was not the case. In fact, our previous Prime Minister was dragged kicking and screaming to ensure our government made a contribution to that fund. Whilst it may be the case that we are seen as results focused, we do need to see results from Australia's involvement in co-chairing the Green Climate Fund. The OECD has calculated that about $62 billion a year has been committed, but that makes up a shortfall which is crucial for developing countries. Many of those developing countries are in our region, as close as Papua New Guinea, Kiribati and Bangladesh—all of those countries with the threat of sea level rises and the need for the support of climate finance through the Green Climate Fund. So another plea that I make to our new Prime Minister is that he actually does make a commitment to that fund, as happened under the previous Labor government, where we made a sizeable commitment at the beginning in the development of that fund. That is another commitment that he could make in the lead-up to and at the Paris summit.

The sea level rises in the Asia-Pacific are incredibly alarming. They have been outlined by the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in its most conservative terms, as a rise, on average, of about four millimetres per year, reaching 0.22 to 0.44 metres above 1990 levels by the period 2090 to 2099. What that means is that those low-lying coastal areas in South-East Asia and those small developing island states in the Pacific are incredibly vulnerable to storm surges, coastal erosion, flooding and inundation. That is why we need to show some leadership in our Asia-Pacific region by making a strong commitment to that climate fund. Furthermore, a one-metre rise in sea level over the next century would actually submerge many small island nations in the South Pacific such as the Solomon Islands, Micronesia, Palau, Tuvalu and Kiribati, and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, most of which are just two metres above mean sea level. There are clearly threats for the future for our Asia-Pacific neighbours. Support is needed by Australia as an OECD country and we need to commit to the Green Climate Fund in the lead-up to Paris.

The Labor Party made significant investments in renewable energy, establishing, as we know, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, or ARENA, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Climate Change Authority. ARENA has invested some $1.1 billion and leveraged $1.7 billion in private investment in new and emerging renewable energy projects. So my third plea to our new Prime Minister is: do not abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and do not abolish ARENA. These are important agencies providing support, investment and a return to government in the renewable energy space. They were part of the climate change architecture created under the previous Labor government, at a time when we were, at some point—it was actually during Malcolm Turnbull's time as Leader of the Opposition—in a state of bipartisanship. I hope we get back to a state of bipartisanship, but that can only happen if this new-broom leader makes some commitment to ensuring that Australia lifts its game in renewable energy and lifts its game in climate change policy—because, at the moment, it is very, very far behind.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government's climate denialism does my head in. The denialism is reflected in the pathetic pollution reduction targets, as just defended by Senator Birmingham. All the initiatives outlined by Senator Birmingham just do not add up to the level of commitment needed. The bottom line is that, even with all of these initiatives, we will continue in Australia to be the worst polluters in the world per head. This government's climate denialism is reflected by statements such as those by Senator Brandis in question time this afternoon, professing the government's love of coal. We cannot overestimate what the consequences of global warming of three or four degrees will be, and that is what these targets are consistent with. My colleague Senator Waters has outlined how inadequate these targets are and what the impacts of continued burning of coal, gas and oil are going to be.

It is not just the devastation of the natural environment; it is the economic and social impacts. If we think we have a refugee problem in the world now, think about when billions of people are going to be made homeless because they can no longer live and can no longer grow crops in river deltas around the world, in India, Bangladesh and Vietnam. Think of the people looking for a new home when water supplies dry up in India and Pakistan. Closer to home, think of how we are going to deal with the drying out of our rivers, and of the massive impacts that are already being felt on agriculture across the country. Think of the hundreds of thousands of people currently living around the coast in Australia who are going to have to move because of rises of metres of sea level. Right now, with just 0.85 degrees of warming, we have just had Australia's hottest month on record and the Victorian bushfire season has started dangerously early. Think of the deaths we are going to have to suffer because of heatwaves and completely unfightable bushfires.

The only way I can cope with thinking about this is to redouble my efforts to make sure it does not happen. We have to slash our carbon pollution globally to keep warming to under 1.5 degrees at the maximum, and if the science is saying that, to maintain a healthy and safe climate, we have to make even deeper cuts to our carbon pollution, then we are going to have to make that possible as well.

Unlike the fossil-fuel-loving members opposite, the Greens are facing the reality of global warming. We see it as an opportunity to transform our economy, our cities and our regions to create a healthier, more vibrant and thriving Australia. The good news, and what I want to focus on in my final two minutes, is that we have lots of low-hanging fruit that we can tackle to get us there, so that we can reshape our economy so that it is healthy, as well as safeguarding our future. If we had serious targets, then these initiatives would be planned and rolled out to help us meet them.

I want to focus on the opportunities of shifting our transport systems to zero carbon transport, because transport causes 16 per cent of Australia's carbon pollution, second only as a sector to electricity production. The shifts that we need to make to slash this pollution to zero would improve health and safety, improve our quality of life, clean up our cities, reduce congestion and provide better transport options in our regions. It means shifting how we get around—making many more trips by walking, cycling and public transport—and shifting to electric vehicles powered by 100 per cent renewable energy.

Today I want to focus on those vehicle trips and the potential for electric vehicle manufacture, of cars, trucks and public transport vehicles and their components, because they contain amazing opportunities for Australia. Just this afternoon, I introduced a private member's bill which focuses on electric vehicles being the future, and which would expand the Automotive Transformation Scheme to provide a pathway for local auto manufacturing to shift to the technologies and jobs of the future, redirecting existing funding to encourage investment in the manufacture of electric and other non-fossil-fuel vehicles.

Companies like Nissan Casting in Dandenong, who want to expand their production of high-tech components for electric vehicles, are crying out for government support. There are companies like Brighsun, and I was privileged to be at the launch of their electric buses just 10 days ago in Melbourne; they want to establish their world headquarters in Melbourne and to manufacture electric buses that can go 1,000 kilometres on one charge. These are the sorts of initiatives that we should be embracing. We have the potential to have Australian-made components in every electric car built here and around the world. We can transform our economy and tackle global warming at the same time. (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak against this urgency motion of the Greens which is supported by Labor. I would note that this is yet another example of the Greens' and Labor's hyperbole—in fact, rhetoric—and simple denial of the facts. What we hear is talk of plagues, pestilence, floods and droughts. But the fact is that this government's policies are working. Despite saying that they support this motion, the ALP still provides no credible alternative in any way.

As the minister has just said, this government does what it promises. We are the 12th-largest economy in the world and are responsible for only 1.5 per cent of global emissions. In fact, our emissions reduction target will see Australia reduce our emissions by up to 52 per cent per capita by 2030, which is the largest of any developed nation. Far from the denial of the facts by those opposite, this is a significant fact and it is something that is being delivered.

It is a bit sad that those opposite just cannot stand it when those of us on this side actually have credible environmental policies. This government's environmental policies demonstrably are working, without destroying our economy. This is in stark contrast to the previous ALP and Greens government. This government is ensuring that Australia pulls its weight on the international stage when it comes to mitigating the effects of climate change. We are doing it without increasing the cost to household electricity bills or destroying our currently transitioning economy. We are achieving real and significant emissions reductions at one per cent of the cost of Labor's and the Greens' carbon tax.

Let us have a look at this a bit further, because, under the carbon tax of Labor and the Greens, Australia would actually have experienced a rise in carbon emissions. I will say that again: under the previous government's policy, Australia was on track for an increase in carbon emissions, from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes by 2020. The sheer stupidity of all of this is that the previous government's increase in emissions would have come at a cost to our economy of at least $9 billion—$9 billion to actually increase carbon emissions in this country.

Coupled with the carbon tax debacle were the previous governments other many flip-flops and failures in actually implementing environmental policy. Let us remember: they scrapped solar projects; they botched the integration of renewable energy into the grid; they wasted millions of dollars on stop-start funding for so-called green initiatives before they even got off the ground.

In complete contrast, this government is successfully implementing sensible and sustainable environmental policies which demonstrably are making a difference. Our emissions reduction target, as I have said, is 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. It is credible and it is achievable, and it is also working. With this target, the government is actively engaging in international negotiations on climate change—in particular, at the forthcoming 2015 Paris conference in December. This government's practical and realistic climate change policies and emissions reduction target are actually working. Direct Action—'action' means actually doing something and not just planning and implementing failed and botched programs.

What does this mean for Australia. At a fraction of the cost of Labor's carbon tax, we secured Australia's largest emissions reduction commitment ever in the first Emissions Reduction Fund auction, in April 2015. We contracted 47 million tonnes of reduced emissions, at $13.95 a tonne. This was backed by Australian businesses. There are now more than 500 projects currently registered under the Emissions Reduction Fund and we expect this success to continue. The second Emissions Reduction Fund auction was held last week, and the government is looking forward to the announcement shortly by the Clean Energy Regulator of the results. But I am absolutely confident that they will be just as successful as the first round, if not more so.

This is proving to be one of the most effective systems in the world for actually reducing emissions. Other countries—so it is not just us—are looking to what we are doing and are now implementing Direct Action style approaches to reduce emissions, based on our example. In fact, the World Bank—not some dodgy organisation but the World Bank itself—recently launched a $100 million reverse auction that is similar to this government's Emissions Reductions Fund setup.

This policy has been the coalition's position for five years. We have been consistent and firmly resolute in what we think will work for this country. Contrast that with those opposite. The previous government has had five different policies in a little under five years. The Leader of the Opposition now cannot make up his mind. First, he promised to abolish the carbon tax. Then he voted to keep it. Now he wants to bring it back and see electricity prices and the cost of living again skyrocket for no discernible benefit to the environment and to carbon emissions.

Even worse, I am sorry to say, is the policy of the Greens. Without any thought for how it would actually work in the real world and be implementable, they want emissions reductions of 60 to 80 per cent by 2030. I cannot believe that this could possibly be achieved or is even remotely realistic, and we have yet to see any plans on how this would actually be implemented. This afternoon in this chamber with the debate on the blocking of the Carmichael mine we heard another example of this ideological blindness. The practical implication of this is that India in the foreseeable future so desperately needs coal-fired power plants to help millions of its people to get out of poverty. By blocking this mine, with our much cleaner coal, India will be forced to go to other nations to get significantly dirtier coal that will produce higher emissions and greater pollution in a country that desperately needs less of both. Again, it is just simply madness.

Their extraordinary record on coal is no better than their record on policies for carbon reduction. Between the two of them, Labor and the Greens paid $5.5 billion to brown coal generators and did not impose any obligations to reduce emissions. I will repeat that, because it is quite extraordinary: they paid $5.5 billion to Australian brown coal generators without imposing any obligation to reduce emissions. It is unfathomable policy.

Compare this mind-boggling track record with our record in government. Our Direct Action policies—as in 'action', which is actually doing something that is working—are ensuring we reduce emissions without increasing the cost of living for ordinary Australians. We are providing $15 billion in support for renewable energy and other innovative technologies to lower emissions, and we are doing it without imposing a carbon tax or imposing significant and unnecessary burdens on our economy.

We are establishing the Office of Climate Change and Renewables Innovation to bring a new focus to the role of innovation in the future of environmental energy technology. I am also pleased to note that the new Office of Climate Change and Renewables Innovation will streamline existing agencies to deliver more efficient government support to renewable energy.

Australia has a strong and very proud record on renewable energy, and this government remains committed to improving on it. We are supporting Australian households to reduce their electricity bills by investing in rooftop solar energy. In fact, Australia today has the highest proportion of households with rooftop solar panels, at about 15 per cent. To put that in context, one of the world leaders in solar panel production, Germany, has about 3.7 per cent only.

This government has a policy that is actually working. As much as it pains those on the other side to acknowledge it, this government does actually have effective environmental and climate change policies. The facts are very clear—we do. In contrast, Labor's plan has been costed at $85 billion— (Time expired)

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

I rise to support the motion. I do so at a time when it is more important than ever that we consider Australia's role in the global fight to contain global warming to less than two degrees. In just a few weeks, parties from all over the world will congregate in Paris. The goal, of course, is to obtain commitments from all countries, for the first time, to reduce their emissions and ensure that we can keep the global temperature at a safe level.

In this country, unhappily, the debate has not been helped by those opposite. It concerns me greatly when I look at the actions that the government is taking, or failing to take, as we approach this very important meeting. All developed countries intended this year to submit their targets for this conference. Australia was the last of the major developed nations to put forward its target.

The government has now said that we will reduce emissions by at least 26 to 28 per cent by 2030 from 2005 levels. Unfortunately, this initial target probably does not help us meet the goals that we need to meet at this meeting. The Climate Institute has indicated that if others took the same approach and took on the same share that we have chosen to take on then we would be locked in to three to four degrees of global warming. This is completely unacceptable. It is unacceptable that we would contemplate playing a role in a global agreement that undermines our ability to reach the two per cent target. It is unacceptable that in putting forward this target, instead of standing at the front and leading—as it is in our interests to do and is our responsibility to do—we have chosen to stand at the back of the pack.

The other thing that concerns me greatly, as we consider the government's approach to this issue, is the policy mechanism, which Senator Reynolds has been discussing. Direct Action has been out there for six years, and every expert and stakeholder group who has looked at this policy has confirmed that it will not achieve meaningful reductions in carbon pollution. AiG have predicted that if the government's emissions reduction target were delivered solely through budget spending, as this policy demands, it would cost between $100 billion and $250 billion. According to RepuTex, Australia's biggest polluters will increase their pollution levels by 20 per cent over the next 15 years without exceeding the completely inadequate baselines that are set by the government's so-called 'safeguard mechanism' under Direct Action.

What really surprises me is that with the change of leader, the change of Prime Minister, the government has confirmed that it is sticking with this approach. Mr Turnbull, the Prime Minister, has previously indicated his contempt for the policy settings that I have just spoken about. Yet, just in the last few weeks, he has confirmed his intention to push forward with them, saying:

The policy we have in place is very clearly costed and calibrated … and it is effecting reductions in emissions now and at a very low cost.

It is disappointing—isn't it?—but it is really not hard to see why, because when you look at the rest of the people in his party room, they are simply not on the same page. If we look at someone like Barnaby Joyce, as recently as 2012 he said:

It is an indulgent and irrelevant debate because, even if climate change turns out to exist one day, we will have absolutely no impact on it whatsoever … we really should have bigger fish to fry than this one …

In fact, this year he said:

Look … I just—I'm always sceptical of the idea that the way that anybody's going to change the climate—and I'm driving in this morning and we're driving through a frost—is with bureaucrats and taxes.

We have a group of people in the coalition who fundamentally do not accept the science, who do not accept the role of humans in changing the climate and who are fundamentally unwilling to take the necessary steps for Australia to contribute to a meaningful global contribution to fix this problem.

The Prime Minister, in fact, knows that this is wrong. In 2009 he famously penned the words that 'Abbott's climate change policy is …'—and we all know how the rest of that quote finishes. He also said:

The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is "crap" and you don't need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing.

He went on to say:

First, let's get this straight. You cannot cut emissions without a cost.

  …   …   …

Somebody has to pay.

That is true. You cannot cut emissions without a cost. The way that the government has resolved this challenge is that, instead of asking polluters to pay, they have asked ordinary people to pay. They have asked taxpayers to cough up billions of dollars to fix a most serious problem and, unfortunately, to craft a solution that simply will not deliver.

It is tempting to cast this as simply a question of our global responsibilities, and there is no doubt that we have very real responsibilities, particularly to our Pacific neighbours, as Senator Singh pointed out. However, even if we think only of our own self-interest, there are powerful reasons for Australia to act. We are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Warming of two degrees or more will induce significant loss of species, including those much loved species on the Great Barrier Reef that provide so much pleasure to so many Australians and provide a tourism industry and an income to many, many people in Northern Queensland. Warming of two degrees or more would produce dangerous water shortages. It would produce severe damage to coastal infrastructure and settlements. It would lead to large areas of agricultural land being taken out of production and to major risks to human life from extreme climate events.

Before I came to this place, my work in the infrastructure sector led me to have a lot of contact with those parts of Australian business that are running transport infrastructure, water infrastructure and electricity infrastructure. All of those businesses are currently making plans to deal with climate change, and when they look at what the costs of climate change will be to their business, they are not insignificant. They are particularly significant when you start to think about the impact of the increasing frequency and severity of severe weather events. If you think back to Cyclone Yasi and the floods in Victoria, the cumulative Commonwealth bill for that was $6.6 billion. Infrastructure deficits are already a problem for this country. Infrastructure that is adequate to cope with significant levels of global warming will be enormously expensive, and we need to be thinking in a very clear way about the costs to all of us if Australia goes down a path where we fail to address and halt global warming.

My concern also lies with our failure to capture the economic opportunities that will present as the globe decarbonises. We are falling behind. Investment in large-scale renewable energy fell by 88 per cent in 2014, despite the fact that, globally, clean energy investments grew by 17 per cent. This is totally unacceptable. Climate change will not be the only course of economic change for our country in the next decades. It is true that any change is difficult and produces costs and challenges for some communities. We need to confront those head-on, and we need to consider that there are very real risks to leaving change to the last minute. Rapid change is very hard for communities to deal with and leaving things to the last minute presents the very real risk that we will fail to capture the upside and will fail to get involved in the industries that might provide our people with good jobs, well-paid jobs, jobs that are connected to global markets in the energy sector, and we need to act on that now and not leave it to the last minute.

I want to talk about our approach. Labor in government will put a legal cap on carbon pollution. In fact, we will put on exactly the kind of price cap that was previously advocated by the Prime Minister before he decided to get on board with the fairly backward views of his colleagues on this question. We will increase the share of renewable energy in our electricity mix to 50 per cent by 2030 and we will work to create the jobs of the future through an electricity modernisation plan. We are moving into a very important period in terms of obtaining a global deal. Now is the time for Australia to be in the lead, not lag behind. I urge the government to change its approach. (Time expired)

Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I dedicate this speech to John Davis. John tragically died in a helicopter accident in the Hunter a few days ago. John was a passionate advocate about renewable energy and having action on climate change. His website with David Sentinella is called www.energy-without-carbon.org. It has always been a valuable asset. When I looked at it today, I felt that in many ways it is a memorial to him. In time I hope it will be continued, because it is full of information: politics, science and why this issue needs to be dealt with and dealt with urgently.

John would have been so pleased with this motion. Indeed, he would have been very proud that the Greens are nailing it and that we are taking it up to Mr Turnbull, a Prime Minister who came in making out that he was here to give leadership. How fundamentally he has failed. This is something that I know worried John, like it worries a lot of people. All we are seeing from the new Prime Minister is that he is following in the footsteps of the previous Prime Minister on this issue and is failing to step up at such a critical time. John would have been so proud of Senator Larissa Waters' passionate and informative speech when she opened this debate. John was very proud of the Greens MPs, and this is something that I know would have meant a great deal to him.

What drove John was his work for future generations. He knew that we have to deal with climate change now. We have heard many people speak about what is happening in the Pacific, but he also had an eye on the future and recognised how very urgent this is. He brought so much expertise to this work. He had been a maths and science teacher, a chemical engineer and a filmmaker. He made thousands of educational videos. He had worked with the ABC. He brought so much talent to the new period in his life when he was adding his energy and commitment to this most important campaign that humanity is dealing with at this very moment. I send my condolences to his partner, Felicity, and his family and friends.

Again, I want to give emphasise in this speech to the wonderful website that really encapsulates his work: www.energy-without-carbon.org. I remember that, when I first saw it, I thought he had come up with a wonderful slogan. In the past months he had been working on a new film about renewable energy and the campaign around global warming. He interviewed many of us for that and I very much hope that it will be finished. He had a Twitter account. These days when somebody dies, there are ways to look at what they left, and you can do that quite quickly. I want to share with you one of John's Tweets. To my mind it is clever and amusing, but it also sums up what we are dealing with now. The Tweet said: 'Let the fossils rest in peace. Only dinosaurs dig fossils.' Sometimes Tweets really capture it, and in many ways the speeches in support of the important motion we are dealing with here today are summed up by that very important Tweet that John sent out to the world.

John had been a Greens candidate in the seat of Davidson in the 2011 state election, picking up 12.5 per cent of the vote. John used all of those means—making films, Tweeting, his website and speaking to people—to take up the urgent issues around climate change. When he spoke he identified the key role that government has in driving change. I remember talking to him about this. He linked the role of government with the urgency of driving the transition to a clean energy economy. Clean energy was the essence of what John spoke about time and time again. This is one quote from his website:

... business does not have any pressure to look after common property, or the long term future. Issues such as health, environment, or a society's culture need to be protected by government on behalf of society.

(Time expired)

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion put by Senator Waters be agreed to.

Question agreed to.