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

I inform the Senate that at 8:30 am today, Senators Moore and Siewert each submitted a letter in accordance with standing order 75, proposing a matter of public importance. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot, and again Senator Moore is having a lucky week and won the lot. As a result, I will read out her letter:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

Prime Minister Turnbull's failure to take action consistent with his words on climate change.

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.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to speak on this matter of public importance today on the failure of our Prime Minister to act decisively on climate change. Climate change must be one of the very biggest issues that the whole world is facing. Certainly when Labor was in power, we had a record on climate change to be absolutely proud of. At least with Mr Abbott, you knew where you stood. He describes climate change as 'crap' and there was no pretence about where Mr Abbott stood on climate change.

What we have seen with this new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, is he is all pretence. He says one thing and does another. The views that he held just a couple of years ago, he now no longer holds. We really have to dig in and look at what that is really about, and it really is about Mr Turnbull saying what is most important to him is remaining the leader of the leader of the Liberal Party and certainly remaining the Prime Minister of Australia. Obviously he will do whatever it takes, including compromising all of his values, to retain that job, because nothing else would explain the fundamental shift we have seen from Mr Turnbull on the issue of climate change. I think Mike Seccombe, in The Saturday Paper summed it up well when he said:

A policy of ‘indirect action’ may be one way Malcolm Turnbull can hang on to the reins of the Coalition while keeping his emissions reduction dream alive.

And that, for me, really sums it up. It says that the Prime Minister really has a policy of indirect action, and that it is absolutely about retaining his job as Prime Minister. We all know that 44 members did not vote for Mr Turnbull, and that is a significant group to have against you. Most people in that group are from the extreme right: the people who do not support marriage equality, who do not support the republic, who do not support climate change. They are the group that have well and truly harnessed the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull.

It is also worth remembering that the government's adoption of Mr Turnbull, like Mr Howard's adoption of an ETS, was poll-driven. It was driven by the polls. Certainly the party did not want Mr Turnbull; they were forced to accept him because of the disaster that Mr Abbott had turned into. After a year-and-a-half of terrible opinion polls, Liberal Party members knew they were headed for oblivion if they did not take some drastic action. It is a shame that in his quest Mr Turnbull lost his taste for climate change along the way, but that is the reality of it.

Remember the first time Mr Turnbull lost the leadership? Mr Turnbull lost the leadership in opposition because he wanted to take a bipartisan position on emission reduction. If we are serious about climate change in this country, and if we are serious about our contribution to the world issue of climate change, then it does need to be a bipartisan position. That was a view that Mr Turnbull was prepared to embrace, before he became the Prime Minister and before he got into the Lodge. That is certainly one of the things he has sacrificed along the path to become Prime Minister. In fact, that path—Mr Turnbull's journey to be Prime Minister—is just littered with his personal beliefs that he used to hold; they are strewn across the roadside as he made those long strides to become the Prime Minister.

What we know is that Mr Abbott's views on climate change—even though they depart drastically from mine and from the Labor Party's—were his views and he was prepared to cling to those views. Ultimately, some of those views—not climate change—brought him down. And we know, and Mr Turnbull knows full well, that he only won the leadership last year because Mr Abbott had turned into a nightmare in the polls. Australian voters were well and truly sick of Mr Abbott and, in that vein, Mr Turnbull looked and sounded like a breath of fresh air. Australian voters welcomed that, but I tell you what: that fresh air has now become almost as polluted as it was under Mr Abbott. It is very clear that Mr Turnbull is interested in his own power, in retaining the leadership of the Liberal Party and of being Prime Minister at all costs. He has been prepared to not just compromise his values and beliefs; he has sold them down the river.

And in Paris, Mr Turnbull completely sold us out. Our leader, Mr Shorten, was there, along with our shadow environment minister, Mr Mark Butler. Again, according to The Saturday Paper, some detailed analysis conducted by Germanwatch, Climate Action Network Europe and other affiliated environmental groups scored Australia third last—not third from the top; third from the bottom—among 58 countries, ahead of only Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia. That is how low we have stooped with regard to climate change under the leadership of Mr Turnbull. Our shadow environment spokesperson, Mr Butler, said that the global pact showed Mr Turnbull's policies, including pollution reduction targets and an intention to abolish several climate related agencies, were 'massively out of step with the rest of the world'. That is where we are now, and Mr Turnbull has taken us there because his quest for power overwhelms any ambitions or beliefs he might have had about changing our climate policy. There is a clear choice for Malcolm Turnbull, although at this point he does seem to have made the choice to stick with the right wing, the Tea Party members in his own party. He has a choice to set Australia up in line with the rest of the world or to remain at the bottom of the countries at the Paris summit.

Let us look at the government's record. In the past two years, the government has: abolished a price on pollution; abandoned an emissions trading scheme; slashed the Renewable Energy Target; cut funding to carbon capture and storage; cut funding to climate change adaptation programs in the Pacific; and tried, and is still committed to trying, to abolish the widely respected and innovative Climate Change Authority. It also wants to abolish the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. Why does it want to do that? Because it does not want those agencies' eyes on it; it does not want those agencies' eyes on the very poor record of the indirect action of Mr Turnbull and his government on climate change. That is why it wants those agencies gone. If you look at the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in particular, we know under Mr Abbott that the government tried to push the corporation in the direction of windfarms. When that failed, they abandoned it—they left it alone for a little while, but they have recently confirmed that is still an agency—despite its massive success and the innovation it has been involved in. In my own state of Western Australia, the wave energy technology that is really now coming to fruition was funded by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

Labor never accepted the spurious argument that hanging at the back of the pack, waiting for all other counties to act before we did, was a good policy position. It is still not a good policy position. The science on climate change is clear, and it is well established. We want to, in government, set up a consultation process to determine our final target, and we want to use the Climate Change Authority's baseline target of a 45 per cent reduction on 2005 levels as our starting point. Labor want to look at how we approach an internationally linked ETS and a goal of 50 per cent of Australia's energy generated from renewables by 2030. We have, for the first time in this country's history, put together an electricity modernisation plan. That has never been done before, but it is something that needs to be done. Change does not come unless you have good plans and good policies in place, and Mr Turnbull has shown us well and truly he is not interested. (Time expired)

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

I too rise to speak on this so-called matter of public importance today, which is sadly just another attempt by those opposite to take a very poorly aimed shot at the government to, I think, hide their complete lack of policy and new ideas in this area. I really wait with bated breath for the ALP to one day introduce an MPI on matters of real concern to those we represent in this place—things like household bills and budgets, education, ensuring that we have a growing economy or how we develop the jobs not only for today but also for tomorrow. Unlike those opposite, this government does understand that all of these things are matters of great concern to Australians today. That is why this government is working to transition our economy to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing, increasingly interconnected and highly disruptive international economy.

Contrary to what we have just heard from Senator Lines, we are addressing climate change with all of these things in mind. Australia is the 12th-largest economy in the world, yet we are responsible for only 1.5 per cent of global emissions. I will say that again: we are responsible for only 1.5 per cent of global emissions. Here on this side this government starts from the position that we want to ensure that we deliver real and sustainable environmental outcomes while ensuring that we do not kill our economy but instead develop it and enable it to grow and transition.

The policies we are now implementing—which I will go through in a minute in a very factual sense to show that we are actually making a difference—unlike the policies of those opposite, are policies that this government has had for five years. They are the policies that we took to the last election and they are policies that we have been implementing for well over two years. Those opposite might not recognise it, but taking clear policies to the electorate and actually implementing them is good government. It is all about consistency and balance. This government is demonstrably and factually delivering what it promised at the election: that we would lower emissions while at the same time lowering electricity prices for all Australians.

All of us in this chamber are Australians. We all love our country and we all want to leave it in a far better state than we found it. What we do disagree on in this place—quite vehemently, sometimes—is how to achieve that and how we are going to work together to leave a better country than we found. I find it incredibly sad that those opposite attempt to paint us on this side as heartless and soulless, as wanting to destroy our environment and to leave it in a worse state than we found it. We have just heard it again from Senator Lines—calling us Tea Party people over here and really trying to say that we do not care. Of course we care. Of course we love our environment and want to leave it in a better state. But we also realise that it has to be done with balance and with sound and consistent policies.

What is really sad when listening to those opposite talk about this issue is that they cannot stand it when those of us on this side of the chamber have not only credible environmental policies but environmental policies that are demonstrably working. They hate it. The sad thing about them going in with that attitude is that not only do they hate that policies that are working for our environment come from this side of the chamber, but they would actively undermine and get rid of them. So let us have a look at what alternatives they would implement. They criticise us for having policies for five years and for implementing them. They hate it when the policies are actually achieving something.

What environmental policies would those opposite offer us instead? They have had five different policies in just over five years, and still the Leader of the Opposition cannot make up his mind. The only discernible policy from those opposite on the environment—unlike ours on this side—is that they would reintroduce Labor's disastrous carbon tax. It has already comprehensively been shown to be a completely disastrous policy, because not only was it costing the economy billions and costing taxpayers thousands of dollars extra per year in their electricity bills, but—to add insult to injury—it did not work. It made no discernible difference.

What are some of the facts of what we are implementing? First of all, on the international scene, Australia now has a strong and credible emissions reduction target. Australia's reductions and emissions per person and per dollar of GDP will actually be amongst the highest in the world. Fact: we will have a 52 per cent reduction in emissions per person, which is the second-highest amongst G20 countries. That is a fact. The next fact is that we will have a 65 per cent reduction in emissions per unit of GDP.

What are the facts on the Emissions Reduction Fund? Despite all of the bluff and bluster we hear from those on the other side, the fact is that we are achieving real and significant reductions with the Emissions Reduction Fund at around one per cent of the cost of the carbon tax. We have clear evidence that it is cheaper and more effective. As I said, the government's Emissions Reduction Fund is just one per cent of the cost of Labor's disastrous carbon tax. Where are the facts? The fact is that in just the first two auctions of the government's Emissions Reduction Fund nearly 92.8 million tonnes of emission reductions have already been secured over 275 projects at an average price of $13 per tonne. As a result of that, Australia demonstrably now has one of the most effective systems in the world for reducing emissions. It has gained the attention of the international community and is now being picked up by no organisation less than the World Bank.

The world is progressively rejecting carbon taxes and embracing direct-action-style approaches. Why do they like direct-action approaches? It is because it is not just talking; it is not just implementing a useless tax; it is getting in there and implementing actual effective change. In line with that, the World Bank has recently launched a $100 million reverse auction that replicates many features of Australia's own emissions reduction fund.

What are the facts in relation to government support for innovation in emission reduction and renewable energy? If you listened to those opposite, you would think that the government was not doing anything or was actually reversing what has been done in the past. This government absolutely supports innovation in emission reduction and renewable energy. We are currently providing over $15 billion in support for renewables and lower emissions—the strongest support ever, I suggest. Where are the facts? Where is the evidence? Australia is now the world leader in abatement innovation. We have the highest penetration of household solar in the world. Over 15 per cent of Australian households have solar PV or solar hot water systems. We are now leading the world in soil carbon research and abatement, with nearly eight million tonnes of abatement secured under the ERF.

This government has also introduced measures to reduce vehicle emissions, a National Energy Productivity Plan and a safeguard mechanism covering the largest emitting facilities in the economy. This government is also supporting climate research through the $145 million National Environmental Science Program and the $9 million National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility. This government is very proud of its record on renewable energy in Australia.

Australia has the highest proportion of households with solar panels. As I said, it is about 15 per cent. To put it in perspective, the next largest is Belgium at around 7.5 per cent—half of Australia. Germany is next at 3.7 per cent. More than $3,000 in government mandated rebates have been provided for these solar systems. The renewable energy target will see more than 23.5 per cent of Australia's electricity coming from renewable sources in 2020 under this government.

It beggars belief that the opposition would really sit here today and deliver this MPI with a straight face given the effect that their climate change policies—or the lack of effect that their climate change policies—have on our economy. They still threaten to bring them back. This government is delivering policies that actually work, that not only help our economy to grow but also help protect our environment in the process. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak to this matter of public importance:

Prime Minister Turnbull's failure to take action consistent with his words on climate change.

How true that is, because in the current Prime Minister we have a reincarnation of Mr Tony Abbott when it comes to climate policy—and really every other policy, for that matter. We have a truly woeful carbon pollution reduction target from this government—one that is less than half of what the science says Australia should do to have even a two-thirds chance of avoiding dangerous global warning. It is less than half of what the science says is the bare minimum.

Interestingly, even if that woeful target were met by this government's inadequate policies, Australia would still be the highest per capita polluter on the entire planet. We have that mantle at the moment. Should these targets be implemented, we will still be the world's biggest polluter on a per capita basis. It is just unbelievable that the government can somehow crow about the target being in any way adequate.

Of course, we have seen this government axe the carbon price, which was effective and bringing down pollution. We have seen this government preside over budget cuts to the CSIRO which have now wreaked upon its staff massive cuts to its climate scientists. We have seen the Emissions Reduction Fund—a misnomer if I ever heard one—paying tonnes of taxpayer moneys to polluters without an appropriate safeguard mechanism, so they are getting paid to keep polluting. Finally, this government has slashed the renewable energy target. Sadly, on that last point both of the big parties joined to slash the renewable energy target.

This is, sadly, where the commonalities start to reveal themselves. Both of the big parties—Labor and the coalition—take enormous donations from fossil fuel companies, whether they are coalminers or coal seam gas companies. Both of these big parties have never refused a coalmine application—certainly not at this federal level. Both of the big parties have never refused a coal seam gas application under our federal environmental laws. They are both wedded to big coal—the money it trucks into their re-election campaigns and the dirty-energy economy that it is hitched to.

Coal is killing our reef. Already this week and last we have seen the beginnings of serious coral bleaching. I am from Queensland and I know how important the Great Barrier Reef is to our economy. It employs almost 70,000 people. It brings in $6 billion every year. That is money that it could keep bringing into our economy if we look after this place. It does not have a time limit on it, unlike the coal industry, which is now in structural decline, sacking thousands of its workers and polluting the world's climate. We are killing our reefs with this addiction to coal that the big parties have hitched our economy to.

We know that with even a two-degree warming of this planet we will lose all of our coral reefs. If we manage to stabilise at 1½ degrees, we will still lose 90 per cent of our coral reefs. That is the dire situation that our climate scientists are telling us we are in. We have seen the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority raise the coral bleaching threat to level two just this week. We know that the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has also done the same for global coral reefs. We know that the clear choice is between coal and the reef. It is what one of our learned coral reef climate scientists, Professor Terry Hughes has said: 'The choice is stark. It's coal or the Great Barrier Reef.'

We choose the Great Barrier Reef and we choose clean energy because we know that clean energy is more job-intensive. I have already mentioned the thousands of workers who have already been sacked from the coal industry in the last few years. They are also now seeing a resurgence of black lung disease. This is a dirty industry for workers and for our environment.

It is really clear that we can get on board that global transition to clean energy, which was so evident in the climate talks that I was privileged to attend at the end of last year. There is a transition towards clean energy. Australia could stand to make an awful lot of prosperity out of that, generate an awful lot of jobs and safeguard those amazing places like the Great Barrier Reef. We could safeguard our food producing ability by protecting our agricultural land not only from the direct impact of coal and coal seam gas pockmarking holes through it and digging it up but from the terrible worsening of drought and extreme weather events that climate change will bring if we do not tackle it.

The Greens are committed to clean energy. We are committed to tackling global warming. There will be a stark choice at the coming election.

Nova Peris (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to offer my support for this matter of public importance, which quite rightly criticises Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's giving in to the ultraconservative climate change deniers in his party. As my colleague Senator Lines pointed out this evening, for years Mr Turnbull has championed the cause of climate change policies. For years he has stood up to the Mr Abbotts in his party who have denied that climate change is real.

The Northern Territory is one of the most pristine natural environments in the world. It is relatively untouched and has always had protections from environmental damage. I would hate to see the Northern Territory's environment irreversibly damaged because this Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Turnbull, caved in to a few special interests in his own party, despite previously being committed to and championing the combating of climate change.

Make no mistake, the Northern Territory is feeling the effects of climate change. The Northern Territory environment is faced with the great challenge of climate change, like everyone else on the planet. The facts speak for themselves. Just last month, in the month of February, Darwin received negative rainfall. February is the middle of the monsoon season in the Top End, and it usually averages around 14 inches of rain for the month. Yet this February, in a month that usually has over 20 days of rain, monsoonal storms and sometimes cyclones, there was more atmospheric evaporation of rain than downpour of rain. It was also the hottest February on record in Darwin. The average temperature was 33.5, compared to the previous record of 33.1. The February record has been smashed.

It is impossible to deny that this is an accident. It is impossible to deny that this is an isolated occurrence. This is far from a unique story. In fact, examples of this are occurring all over the world, and it is expected to get worse into the future for not only the Northern Territory but also the rest of the planet.

We also know that tidal levels around the Northern Territory coast are rising. Sea levels are rising, and since the early 1990s Northern Australia has experienced increases of up to 7.1 millimetres per year. That is almost two metres since the early 1990s. This is higher than the international trend and extremely worrying for the Northern Territory's environment.

It is not just the environment that is threatened by this. The Northern Territory's infrastructure and economy are at risk of dangerous climate change effects. In fact, the federal government's own environment department has warned of this. In their report on climate change impacts on the Northern Territory it states:

Climate change will lead to sea level rise and potentially greater storm surges which will impact on coastal settlements, infrastructure and ecosystems. Between 260 and 370 residential buildings, with a current value of between $100 million and $134 million may be at risk of inundation from a sea level rise of 1.1 metres. A 1.1 metre sea level rise will also put 2045 kilometres of the NT's roads, up to 24 commercial buildings and 32km of railways at risk. These assets have an estimated value of up to $1.8 billion, $500 million and $100 million respectively.

That is over $2 billion worth of damage just in infrastructure. This does not take into account economic impacts like job losses, added health and welfare costs and the complete destruction of the top end economy if an event like this took place.

Climate change is not just an environmental issue. It is also an economic one. As we all know, especially those across the chamber, the Northern Territory relies on the agricultural industry. But it is an industry that relies on consistent and predictable rainfall. Territory farmers know that all too well, which is why they have repeatedly stressed to me the importance of action on climate change. The Northern Territory cattle industry relies on healthy rainfall in the top end. They cannot afford to lose that. Our fruit industry and agriculture relies on constant weather patterns.

The Northern Territory economy also relies on tourism. How can that industry expect to survive if our rivers, waterfalls and wetlands cannot survive the effects of climate change? People do not visit the Northern Territory to go to the opera. They visit the Territory to see and experience the amazing natural environment the Northern Territory has to offer. Several Territorian industries are under threat. If the Northern Territory sea levels rise too much, our mangroves will suffer, and Territorians know all too well that our mangroves are the breeding hub that makes our coastlines some of the richest fisheries in the world. Our barramundi, crabbing and prawn industry would suffer as a direct result of sea level rises caused by climate change.

It is a shame that the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has not taken responsibility for climate action. In fact, our Aboriginal ranger groups across the Northern Territory have taken responsibility. They are caring for country. They have taken it upon themselves to protect our land and seas not only for themselves but for all Australians. Just like President Barack Obama and new Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, have done in their countries, we also need to incorporate Aboriginal science and traditional knowledge into decision making. These people have lived on and understood their country for thousands of years, and in the US and in Canada they acknowledge climate change and respect the role their indigenous people can play in combating climate change.

Through initiatives like carbon farming, Aboriginal ranger groups have harnessed their knowledge of the land to minimise the effects of climate change. Unfortunately, the Northern and Central land councils have reported cuts to the programs which support these ranger groups in the Northern Territory and, I might add, in the top end of the Kimberley. It is also a shame that Australia is not behind our international friends when it comes to climate change.

As I said previously, climate change is an environmental issue and an economic issue. It is real. What has this Prime Minister done? Not much—in fact, nothing. He has rolled back climate change measures, and has been a member of a government that has tried to defund and shut down government clean energy solutions. He has caved into the conservatives on the direct action climate policies, which reward big businesses for doing what they should be doing anyway in trying to reduce emissions. I wholeheartedly support this matter of public importance. Mr Turnbull has failed to stand up against members of his own party and stand up for action on climate change. He is playing a dangerous game with the Northern Territory's and Australia's environment and economy.

I will finish my speech by telling the story of an elderly Aboriginal man who, when we were talking about climate change, said to me, 'We do not have a planet B, so we have to look after the one that we have. We borrow this Earth from our future generations and it is everyone's responsibility to take care of it.'

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am delighted to rise to affirm the excellent work undertaken by the Turnbull government on the question of climate change. As I flew from Barrow Island over the Pilbara the other night on my way back to Canberra, I remember commenting to my colleagues on the beautiful Pilbara that we could see out of the window. What was it 10,000 years ago or hundreds of thousands of years ago? It was a sea. It was the ocean. The ocean receded and that is why we have the Pilbara today. Of course climate changes. It has always changed. The term climate change is jolly nearly an oxymoron, because climate changes by its nature.

I want to reflect briefly on the work undertaken by this government, led by environment minister Greg Hunt, and that is the Emissions Reduction Fund, which is delivering outstanding results, as we all know. In just the first two auctions—the third is to be held in April—93 million tonnes of emission reductions have been secured. 275 projects of practical emissions reduction have been contracted. And what is the average price? I will repeat it for those who did not hear it: it is $13.12 per tonne.

I am going to tell you about the proposed Labor Party program in a few minutes time. The ANU economist Warwick McKibbin—this is not the coalition or the Liberal Party; this is a respected economist from the ANU—estimates that the cost of Labor's target of 45 per cent below 2005 levels is no less than a cool $200 per tonne. But let us talk a bit about some of these 500 projects that are now registered under the Emissions Reduction Fund. It is a shame that Senator Peris has left, because probably the most successful of all is the West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Project, which is in the Arnhem Land of the Northern Territory. It has been funded by ConocoPhillips and independently assessed by CSIRO, by my very great colleague Dr Jeremy Russell-Smith. They guaranteed to abate in excess of 100,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent each year, and in consideration of that ConocoPhillips pay them $1 million. That is just one, but it is the first of many bushfire management schemes in the savannas of Northern Australia that are acting practically. It is no wonder that the World Bank has recently launched a $100 million reverse auction. The World Bank has developed this $100 million reverse auction that replicates many features of the Emissions Reduction Fund.

Previous speakers spoke about coal. Coal is not produced at any great levels in my state of Western Australia, but let me give you some statistics in relation to coal and global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Australian low-sulphur, high-energy coal is having this effect just in China—these are figures from recent years: new coal generation has effected annual emission savings of some 400 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by changing from dirty, low-energy, high-sulphur coal in China to Australian coal. How does that figure of 400 million tonnes equivalent compare with the EU's emissions trading scheme? I will tell you. The figure of 400 million tonnes equivalent compares with a lousy 35 million tonnes equivalent that has been saved by the EU's program—less than 10 per cent of the saving from China changing over to Australian coal.

How long will it be before we are going to see a contribution by others? Again, I can quote to you: in China, obviously one of the biggest energy users in the world, it is expected that coal-fired power stations now, under construction and planned into the future will be generating 1,360 kilowatts of power from coal. It will be generating 10 gigawatts from renewable energy sources.

So what we have, under the Turnbull government, is direct action, which is working at a price of some $13 per tonne, and of course we see a whole range of projects being undertaken. What do others think of the scheme? It was the subject of so much vehement criticism when we were in opposition. That reminds me that our policies have now been consistent for the last five or six years. Our opponents in the Labor Party have had a new one about every year during that five or six years. Let me quote from the Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, in The Australian Financial Review of 2 February this year:

… a lot of what's been achieved through the direct action plan is as economically effective as any other scheme it's ever come up with, including regulation or carbon pricing.

That was the Chief Scientist. On 12 November, Geoff Lipsett-Moore of Nature Conservancy said, 'Many projects across Northern Australia have been successful in this round of the ERF funding, so it is a win for people, for the climate and for nature.'

The big question is, of course, what is the alternative? What would our opponents be doing? We know that the leader in the other place, Mr Shorten, has already committed Labor to a return of a carbon tax. We know how devastating that was in Australia—certainly in our state of Western Australia. As I have said, the respected ANU economist McKibbin has estimated that, should Labor be successful in government and bring in their target of 45 per cent reduction below 2005 figures by 2030, the cost equivalent would be in the order of $200 per tonne. Remember again what we have achieved in the coalition government in just the 2½ years. The World Bank has picked up this as a most effective scheme.

The world is rejecting carbon taxes. They are embracing direct action style approaches, because they know they work and because they know they are within a time frame and a capacity in which we can work. Have a look at what happened when the Chicago futures market embraced and embarked on a carbon trading program. It halted very quickly. Have a look at the EU scheme. We know that it is a failure, and it has failed.

It is a little bit rich for Senator Peris to talk about what the coalition is doing when we know very well that Labor, in government, itself paid $5.5 billion to brown coal generators in this country with absolutely no obligations to reduce emissions. This government has a plan. This government is enacting that plan. This government is achieving its results at costs that are wearable for the Australian consuming public. I commend the point to the Senate.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that in the past Prime Minister Turnbull has supported an ETS, an Emissions Trading Scheme. I rise to contribute to this matter of public importance, which focuses on Prime Minister Turnbull's failure to take action consistent with his words on climate change. In doing so I take this opportunity to speak about the JLN's policy on a carbon tax and an ETS.

I acknowledge that climate change is real. I also acknowledge that ice core sampling by scientists in the Antarctic shows that over the last 600,000 years the average world temperature has changed and has been much higher than today's average temperature, and it has also been much colder. I note that most scientific climate projections indicate that Australian citizens, by ourselves, have no hope of stopping world climate change—no matter what measures we take. Whether it is a carbon tax, which is a fixed charge on energy, or an ETS, which is a floating price on energy use, it is clear that a government making Australian pensioners, businesses and families pay more for their energy will never stop world climate change. It will only increase the cost of living for our families and kill off Australian jobs and businesses, and for no return. Therefore, the JLN opposes the introduction of a carbon tax or ETS until our major trading partners introduce similar taxes for their energy use.

In the meantime Australia must prepare for world climate change by boosting the numbers and resources available to our emergency services, our military, our medical professionals and our farmers. We must always make political decisions which protect our energy, water, food, national security and Australian workers' job security. In the meantime, while Australia waits for the world agreement on carbon tax or an ETS, the JLN strongly supports the following two measures, which are assured to quickly lower carbon emissions while keeping power prices low and while guaranteeing reliability of supply. The first is the doubling of baseload renewable energy in the form of hydroelectricity. The second is a community debate, followed by a national referendum, on the introduction of nuclear power generation. There is a danger in using renewable electricity, which does not have the ability to deliver baseload power 24/7, which is not affected by the availability of wind or sunlight. And that danger is a very high energy cost for all Australians.

Germany, which relies for 12.33 per cent of its energy on renewable sources, according to Parliamentary Library research, has average household electricity prices at US37.26c, or A50.67c per kilowatt hour, which is almost double that of Australia's electricity prices already.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The records for February 2016 indicate that it was the warmest month ever measured globally, at 1.35 degrees Celsius above the long-term average. Even more concerning, February 2016 was more than 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer than January 2016, which held the previous monthly temperature record. Climate change is indeed the greatest challenge we face as a society. The costs of doing nothing are incalculable. In my own state of Queensland, some regions have been suffering the worst drought in their history. Drought conditions have affected farm production and incomes, leading to reductions in agricultural employment and a reduction in their standard of living. Currently, around 80 per cent of Queensland is drought declared, and the agricultural sector is in serious trouble. Worse still, these conditions impacting Queensland's agricultural industry are expected to be sustained by the current El Nino weather pattern. But it is not Mr Turnbull who worries about life in the bush; he does not have to live the struggle. It is the farmers who suffer—the very people who produce the grain for our bread and the sugar for our tea. They are the ones who live through climate change.

This issue does not stop with the agricultural sector. It trickles down and flows through the veins of the Australian landscape. Our Great Barrier Reef is also under threat. The reef alone contributes more than $5.6 billion to the Australian economy and provides employment for more than 70,000 people. Yet it is being destroyed as a result of climate change. Coral bleaching, rising sea levels, rising sea temperatures and ocean acidification are all a result of inaction. Does that mean nothing to the Prime Minister? Why does he want to continue down this path?

This is not just a problem for the future. We are already experiencing the extremes of climate change that threaten the future of every Australian. Given the scale and imminent threat that we face, I am alarmed that the Turnbull government continues to uphold its do-nothing stance on climate change. In the past two years the Abbott-Turnbull government has abolished a price on pollution; abandoned an emissions trading scheme; slashed the Renewable Energy Target; cut funding to carbon capture and storage; tried to abolish the Climate Change Authority and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation; and imposed massive cuts on CSIRO.

We all remember when Mr Turnbull was a champion of climate change and was prepared to join with Labor in a bipartisan approach to introducing an emissions trading scheme. But now we can see Mr Turnbull's true colours as a leader: rather than taking on one of the greatest challenges this country faces, Mr Turnbull has traded up for the cheap thrill of policy-free leadership.

This government has slashed CSIRO's budget by $115 million, with 350 CSIRO staff targeted for redundancy—it seems to be its entire climate-monitoring capacity. I am embarrassed to hear Mr Hockey trying to defend Australia's appalling and inadequate response to climate change in response to The New York Times editorial attacking these massive cuts to the CSIRO. And what did The New York Times editorial board have to say on 4 March this year? They said:

Certainly there are good reasons for research institutes like Csiro to cooperate with industry in the search for ways to adapt to a warming planet. But to do this at the expense of research and monitoring — undermining the search for commercially viable solutions that Csiro proposes to join — makes no sense.

Further on they said:

The cutbacks could also obstruct Australia's role in supporting the landmark climate agreement reached in Paris in December, which, among other things, calls on scientifically advanced countries like Australia to assist developing countries with advice and support.

Even Mary Robinson, special envoy to the United Nations, has made an appeal for Australia to rescind these cuts.

Labor is prepared to fix things. Only Labor has a policy to strengthen the renewable energy sector and to commit to more ambitious CO2 reduction targets. Cutting Australia's climate research capacity and reputation for quality science not only brings into question Mr Turnbull's commitment to innovation it is a blatant attempt to silence the work that holds the government to account on its climate change policies.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a government now which is actually seriously doing something about carbon emissions. Unlike many other nations around the world—including, I might say with some regret, the United States—the Australian government and the Australian people are actually meeting their targets. And we did this under the old Kyoto accords. Australia was one of the few nations in the world that actually met their emissions reduction target.

We are playing our part in reducing global emissions. Our reductions in emissions per person and per dollar of GDP will be amongst the highest in the world, and I would have thought that the Greens political party and the Labor Party would actually be congratulating us for that. Under the new regime of Malcolm Turnbull and, previously, Tony Abbott, Australia is achieving a 52 per cent reduction in emissions per person. That is the second-highest of the G20 countries. We are also achieving a 65 per cent reduction in emissions per unit of GDP.

Madam Acting Deputy President, you may be aware that Professor Warwick McKibbin, a respected economist from the ANU, has estimated that the cost of Labor's proposal would be something like $200 per tonne. Even when Labor was going to buy credits from the rest of the world the cost was originally only $20. Then it was $22, then $27 and then $45. Now, a few years later, Labor's proposal will, according to respected economists, be $200 per tonne.

We are conducting auctions to buy back emissions reductions, and we have secured 275 projects—importantly, can I emphasise—at an average price of $13.12 per tonne compared with Labor's $200 per tonne. So successful has the coalition's buyback scheme been that in fact the World Bank has adopted it and has recently launched a $100 million reverse auction that replicates most of the features of the coalition's Emissions Reduction Fund.

I often make the point in this chamber that any serious environmental work ever done by a federal government in Australia has been done by the governments of the Liberal and National parties. Contrast that with the Labor Party. You will recall, Madam Acting Deputy President—if you like having nightmares, you will think back!—how they presided over, and how the then environment minister, who turned out to be the worst environment minister in Australia, surpassed only by her title as the worst finance minister in Australia, presided over, putting all the eggs in the Copenhagen basket. And Copenhagen was an absolute, complete and unabated flop. There was complete rejection of any serious addressing of the concern that is confronting the world.

I asked my Greens friends earlier on today, 'Tell me how Australia, which emits less than 1.4 per cent of all emissions of carbon, can be the cause for all the ills that you tell us are happening to the world by carbon emissions?' Of course, it is a patently ridiculous argument that no-one will ever answer because the facts are so simple: Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent. Even if you shut Australia down completely—no lights in this building, no cars running on our streets—what would 1.4 per cent of the reduction in the world's carbon emissions do for the climate that is changing?

But I come back to the coalition's record. With the coalition you know that they will do sensible things about the environment. I am delighted to see that Senator Waters is here in the chamber, because I have often said to her that any serious attempt or action on the marine environment has been the work of Liberal governments. I was delighted yesterday to attend a function put on by—and you might be surprised that I was there—the Marine Conservation Society and WWF. Do you know what they launched there? A booklet entitled The Big Blue Legacy: the Liberal National Tradition of Marine Conservation. It is a great book, Senator Waters. I have actually got you a copy. You can read the centre page, which I often talk about in this chamber. Sometimes people do not believe me when I talk about these, but I am sure those sorts of people would believe the Marine Conservation Society and WWF. They have it there starting in 1975, as I always do, with the Fraser government prohibition on oil and gas drilling in the Great Barrier Reef. It goes right through the Fraser government, the Howard government, the Greiner government in New South Wales and the Barnett government in Western Australia. There it is, a record. Do not believe me—I say this all the time. Have a look what the people involved in marine conservation actually say about the record of Liberal and National Party governments.

As with our marine approach to the environment, so with our climate change approach: we are implementing programs that work and do not cost Australians their livelihood and their economy. This matter before the chair is a patently ridiculous one which has no substance and will no doubt be ignored by the Senate as it is by the rest of Australia.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak on behalf of Queensland when I say that I am concerned about climate change not only on the environment, as we have previously heard about, but also on jobs in the tourism industry. Tourism employs approximately 120,000 people in Queensland and represents approximately 4.5 per cent of the GDP, which is considerably more than the national average of around 3.6 per cent. This means the tourism industry represents almost six per cent of Queensland's workforce. I can attest to this. I have personally visited different parts of North Queensland to get a feel for how my state is engaging with the world, and we offer many great sites, activities and experiences—some of them extreme—all based around our wonderful environment.

Queensland's natural beauty is fundamental to the success of this industry, and we boast five World Heritage sites. These are the Great Barrier Reef, Fraser Island, the Gondwana Rainforests, the Riversleigh fossil site and the wet tropics area from Cooktown to Townsville. Tourists come from all over the world to experience the natural wonders of Queensland. Not surprisingly, they do not come to check out the CSG mining infrastructure out the back of Chinchilla. In fact, no-one does—not even the Prime Minister, even though he promised me he would.

Given the importance of tourism to my home state, I call on the government to act seriously when it comes to climate change, because increasing temperatures and changing rainfall patterns are damaging our rainforests and the Great Barrier Reef is under threat from increasing acidity and sea surface temperatures. The people of Queensland are sick of hearing the government say one thing and do another. For all his talk of innovation and the role of science, the Prime Minister has failed the nation on the issue of climate change. In fact, he has failed full stop.

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

The time for the debate has now concluded.