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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Senators Ruston and Cormann in response to questions asked by Senators McAllister and Kitching.

We have to do better. This parliament has been locked in the same battle for 10 long, wasted years. Actions have consequences, but so too does failure to act. Neglect has consequences, and we can see that already. We have seen it this summer. We see it in so many reports about what is happening around our world. We know that the consequences of climate change will only get more serious. To keep the planet safe, we have to achieve less than two degrees of global warming and as close as possible to 1.5 degrees, and to do that the world must achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

This isn't a radical proposition; it's a proposition supported by the Business Council, AGL, Santos, BHP, Amcor, BP, Wesfarmers, Telstra and many others. It is a proposition which has been adopted by 73 other countries, many with conservative governments. Australia must pull our weight. We have to get to zero emissions ourselves. The reason is we have so much to lose and so much to gain. As Ross Garnaut says:

Australia has the strongest interest among developed countries in the success of a global effort on climate change.

Let's put a dollar figure on it. Melbourne university has told us that the cost to Australia of not getting to zero net emissions is $2.7 trillion. That is 20 times the cost of acting. Professor Garnaut has also said we have the most to gain economically from being part of a global transition to a zero-emissions economy. CSIRO said last year that reducing emissions to net zero by 2050 will deliver stronger economic growth, higher wages, lower energy bills—that's not from the Labor Party but from CSIRO. Instead of dealing with the facts and instead of a responsible debate based on facts, for the last decade we have had a fear campaign based on falsehood. I have watched in this chamber as Barnaby Joyce many years ago, whilst he was in this chamber, helped destroy the bipartisan consensus with the coalition and helped move the Liberal Party from a sensible, moderate position to a position determined by those on the hard Right, and we have had a decade of inaction as a consequence.

The political class, the media and the business community—those with the direct capacity to influence and determine our country's response to this profound crisis—should I think take a leaf from the Australian people themselves, because the determination and the cooperation shown by Australians when dealing with the bushfires is the determination and cooperation that we should be showing in this place to address the drivers of bushfires. We have to change our political culture. We must end the climate wars. We need to stop the nonsense that action on climate is radical. It is not. We cannot indulge the fiction that the many who want action are outliers. We are not. The outliers are those who don't accept that we need to get to zero net emissions by 2050.

As I said, we once had consensus across the parties of government on climate action in this country before some decided they could make political gain by creating fear. We see the same battleground again, the same gotcha questions and the same tired debate. I think that so many of these gotcha questions are about distorting the debate in favour of doing nothing, and they are part of the political problem, because they polarise the community and cruel the chances of building enough consensus to act. How about we look at the cost of not acting in terms of the cost to our economy, the cost to our way of life and the cost of lost opportunity?

Each of us needs to ask ourselves whether we're helping or harming in this debate. There are many people inside the Liberal Party and in the community who recognise that this is not a radical position, who recognise that this is something we need to deal with responsibly and who recognise that this is something we should deal with on the basis of evidence and facts and make rational policy decisions about. I say to those opposite: there's a reason Tony Abbott is no longer in the parliament. It's because people who voted for you understood that ultimately his and the position that many of you hold is irrational.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is one thing which the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate said in her contribution in this debate which I agree with, and that is that the argument should be based on evidence and the facts. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate refers to the 'gotcha question'. What is the gotcha question? The question is: what will your policy cost? That's the gotcha question. It's not an unreasonable question. That's the question you could not answer for people in my home state of Queensland. That is the question you could not answer for workers at the Boyne Island smelter. That is the question you couldn't answer for people working in the beef industry in western Queensland. That is your gotcha question, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. How much will it cost? How will you achieve it? What does it mean for the voters of Queensland? What will it do to electricity prices? These are your gotcha questions. You still can't answer them. All you have done is kick the can 20 years down the road, from 2030 to 2050, when none of us will be in this place, when no-one here will be accountable for the decisions and policy direction you have taken. You call these gotcha questions. These aren't gotcha questions; these are questions which working families in Queensland have a right to have answers to. They have a right to know what it means for their communities, what it means for their jobs and what it means for the people of Queensland. They have a right to answers to those questions.

In the last federal election, the Labor Party achieved its worst result in my home state of Queensland since the 1940s. They returned one senator out of six.

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

We know that!

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You may well know it, but I query whether or not you remember it, because you've just rolled out exactly the same policy but even worse, without a road map. You talk about evidence and facts, yet there's no evidence and facts supporting your policy to move to net zero emissions by 2050.

Let me give you one example. Even New Zealand proposes to largely exempt the agricultural sector from the net-zero-emissions goal which the New Zealand government legislated. Even New Zealand agreed to do that. But, when we saw the Leader of the Opposition in another train wreck of an interview on Insiders yesterday, he said: 'No. It applies to agriculture. It applies to transport. It applies across the board.' His answer on transport, I think, just showed how disconnected he is from everyday people in Queensland. He said, 'Well, they can catch public transport.' If you're operating a beef cattle station in Western Queensland, you can't just catch public transport. I'm sorry. It's not the inner city suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne or Adelaide. People in regional Queensland have a right to an answer to responsible questions, and one of those questions is: what is your policy going to cost, and what will it mean to those regional communities in my home state of Queensland which rely upon export-exposed industries?

Anthony Albanese, in his interview on Insiders, also said: 'Well, yeah, Australia will keep exporting thermal coal in 2050, probably. Absolutely. Why not?' With that export of thermal coal will go the jobs, just as we've seen BlueScope Steel set up a steel mill in Ohio because electricity prices here in Australia are too high, and just as we've seen Incitec Pivot set up an ammonium nitrate plant in Louisiana because electricity prices here are too high, and just as we've seen the owners of Boyne Island smelter in my home state of Queensland, Tomago aluminium smelter in New South Wales and Portland smelter in Victoria say electricity prices in this country are too high now. It is nonsense.

Our policy is clear. We will achieve the treaty obligations which we entered into in Paris. We will achieve those obligations. Sometimes I wonder if those opposite this side of the chamber are actually standing up and fighting for the people of Australia or whether they're representing other people. They're certainly not representing the people of my home state of Queensland.

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

Senator Wong?

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

I paused hoping the Leader of the Government in the Senate would show some honour, but I don't know what the senator was just implying about me or anybody else on this side. But perhaps he could clarify.

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

It's not a point of order, Senator Wong. It is a debating point. I believe Senator Scarr sat down. Have you finished your contribution? Okay, Senator Scarr has finished.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a contribution from Senator Scarr! How did he end that contribution? Questioning the motives of those who sit on this side of the chamber. He raised the spectre of racism, quite frankly, and he is unwilling to clarify to this chamber—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Scarr, do you have a point of order?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President, that is a personal reflection on me. Playing the racist card in such a situation is a disgrace.

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

Order, Senator Scarr! Senator Keneally, resume your seat.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong! Senator Scarr, when I ask you to resume your seat, please do so. Senator Keneally, please continue.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Deputy President, I would be happy if Senator Scarr would like to stand up here in the chamber and clarify what he meant then. Senator Wong gave him the opportunity to clarify what he meant by saying that those on this side of the chamber were not representing the interests of the Australian people but someone else. Who did he mean? Well, there he sits, silent. He could have said, and he has not done so.

Let's return to the matter at hand, which is taking note of the answers to questions posed during question time regarding net zero emissions and this government's failure to work collaboratively with the Australian community, with every state and territory government, with the Business Council of Australia, with the National Farmers Federation and with the biggest companies in this country to commit ourselves to what we've already committed to: the Paris Agreement. That is to keep global warming at less than two degrees. That is for net zero emissions by 2050. Australia ratified that treaty. Malcolm Turnbull, Julie Bishop and Josh Frydenberg—on behalf of this third-term seventh-year Liberal-National government—ratified the Paris Agreement. To quote Gladys Berejiklian, the Liberal Premier of New South Wales: 'Net zero emissions by 2050 is right in line with the Paris Agreement.'

It is extraordinary that this is even controversial. What Labor announced last week is not controversial. It is the commonsense, well-accepted, endorsed proposition of 73 countries. It's been ratified already by this Australian parliament, by this Liberal and National Australian government. It's been endorsed by all those businesses I spoke about earlier and by every state and territory, including Liberal state governments. The fact that this is somehow radical or unusual is just bizarre given that this is the commitment the globe has made. This is the commitment the globe has made and Australia has ratified. Climate change is real. Australians this summer—devastatingly and unfortunately—smelt it, felt it, breathed it in. Tragically, 33 people lost their lives, 3,000 homes were lost and nearly a billion wildlife, our native animals, were lost. That's the cost of climate change, and Australians experienced it in a very real and devastating way.

This weekend I was at the New South Wales state memorial service for the victims of the bushfires. It was sombre and sad. It was extraordinary to see that this is what this country has come to, that in New South Wales we have had the most devastating natural disaster in living memory. And this side of the parliament, the government, this Liberal-National government, seems unwilling to recognise that the climate is changing, and we have already signed up to a target to keep global warming to less than two degrees, a target that is not all that controversial.

Let's talk about the impact on agriculture, because this is one question that Senator Ruston really failed to grapple with. The National Farmers Federation have a more ambitious aspiration than the Labor Party when it comes to net zero emissions. They want net zero emissions for agriculture by 2030. The meat and livestock of Australia have committed to be carbon neutral by 2030. Farmers for climate action support net zero by 2050. The reality is Australian businesses are moving in this direction, Australian farmers are moving in this direction, Australian state and territory governments are moving in this direction, because they know that to do otherwise will bring great economic cost, lost opportunity, a failure to grow economically, a failure to create new jobs and a failure to see ourselves become a renewable energy superpower. It's as if the other side were present at the invention of the automobile and decided we should all still stay in horses and buggies, to keep the buggy manufacturers going. We know that this country is going to have to face climate change, change and adapt, and that's what this target drives us to do.

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

The Labor Party, clearly, has not learnt the lesson of the last election. The Labor Party and the Greens trumpeted the last election as 'the climate change election', at which the Australian people would be able to determine whether or not they accepted the Labor-Greens view of the world or the coalition view. Can I remind honourable senators opposite that the people of Australia very wisely adopted the coalition policy, in relation to climate change, on 18 May. They spoke. The quiet Australians spoke. Let me be very clear: the Australian people made a very commonsense decision. They asked one question: 'What is the pain-to-gain ratio? What is the pain going to be on my power bill, on jobs, on Australian wealth, in exchange for any potential benefit to the world environment?' Mr Shorten and the Labor Party were unable to answer either part of that question, of the pain-to-gain ratio.

What we do know, and what Senator Scarr so very eloquently put to Senator Wong—who then of course had to use the racist card to try to overcome it, though everybody knew what Senator Scarr was referring to—is that the Australian Labor Party has deserted the Australian worker in favour of inner-city Greens. That is where the Labor Party are in a cleft stick. They do not know whether they support coalmining. You had Mr Shorten going up to Queensland during the election campaign and saying he supports coalmining and then, when in Victoria, saying, 'Well, I'm not sure I really support Adani.' Guess what? The Australian people didn't believe you, and for very good reason.

Senator Wong and Senator Keneally refer to the experts time and time again. I've been listening to the experts now for 30 years telling me that there's going to be a tipping point in 10 years time. Well, after 30 years, the Australian people have a right to ask: 'Why is it that these predictions over 30 years have failed to materialise?' Why is it that, when experts assert quite loudly and blandly—Professor Tim Flannery, by the way—that the Brisbane River would never flood again and it's flooded twice since, they are never brought to account for those false prophecies? Similarly, they've asserted that the Murray River would never flow out to sea again. Yes, it has—another false prophecy. Yet, we're supposed to rely on these experts without question.

The Australian people are more clever than the Australian Labor Party and their inner-city Green friends would like to think. Indeed, Senator Keneally just referred to the bushfires. Today we have an opinion poll that tells us that the Australian people are smarter than Senator Keneally and the Labor Party—because 56 per cent of the Australian people acknowledge that the bushfire problem that we had this year was not as a result of climate change but as a result of the failure of fuel reduction.

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

Senator Abetz, please resume your seat. Senator Keneally, on a point of order?

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. If Senator Abetz would like to tell us all the other results of today's opinion polls, I'm more than happy to give him time to do so.

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

Senator Keneally, that's a debating point; not a point of order. Senator Abetz, please continue.

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

This is what the Australian Labor Party do in these sorts of debates. When you've got them skewered, what do they do? They raise these frivolous points of order to try to distract people from the issues where the Australian Labor Party are so out of step with the Australian people.

We as a government are very clear: we believe that technology is the way to go. In my home state of Tasmania, Snowy Hydro 2.0, is a great example of government investing. Similarly, it's a great idea for the federal government to also invest in a feasibility study for a coal-fired power station in North Queensland. The two are not incompatible. Indeed, if we had spent just a very small fraction of the money spent on renewables on retrofitting our coal-fired power stations in Australia, we could have more energy and a 30 per cent reduction in our emissions. If only we could have done that with the taxpayer money.

Other countries are referred to. What's the biggest industry in New Zealand? It is agriculture. And what have they done? They've said, 'We will commit to an emissions target, but'—out of the side of their mouth—'we won't be including agriculture in that.' Oh, really! Let's get a sense of reality. The Australian people are smarter. That's why they voted for us on 18 May.

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

Well, it's all on display this afternoon, isn't it? Senator Ruston and Senator Cormann tried to run something approximating the line that the government may be a little bit committed to acting on climate change, but then Senator Scarr and Senator Abetz got up and let the cat out of the bag. Senator Scarr would prefer to just complain bitterly about the idea that any target at all might be set, while simultaneously being concerned that the target that's been set doesn't have enough detail attached to it—a recently inconsistent internal position, I'd suggest. Then Senator Abetz put the position that what we ought to have done over the last 30 years was spend all of our time investing in yesterday's technology and ignoring the technology that all of the global investment community tells us is the future—and that is renewable energy. It goes to the heart of the division in the government, and it explains, if anyone needs an explanation, why it is that for seven years this government has been completely unable to formulate an energy policy of any kind—not an emissions intensity scheme, not a clean energy target, not a national energy guarantee and not any of the other mechanisms that have been floated and discarded in the chaos of their party room.

The sad truth is that this is a group of people desperately torn between the siren call of populist denialism on display this afternoon and sensible, evidence based policy. They are torn between crude oppositionalism and the responsibilities of government, and they are increasingly landing on the wrong side of that divide. They're lured in by the culture warriors to the detriment of people they would ordinarily call allies.

Imagine what the business community makes of all this. Imagine the captains of industry, whose position on this has been clear for a long time. A net-zero-emissions-by-2050 target, consistent with the science, has been endorsed by the Business Council of Australia, the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science, the Property Council of Australia, Ai Group, the Grattan Institute, BHP, Qantas, the Commonwealth Bank, Telstra, AGL, Origin and Energy Australia. What do they make of all this nonsense here in this chamber? What do they make of a group of people who'd rather stoke wars on Twitter than get on with governing? What do they make of this?

You have to ask what state colleagues make of this. What does poor old Ms Berejiklian, the Premier in my state, think about this? That state has committed to net zero emissions by 2050—words that cannot be said by either Senator Ruston or Senator Cormann in their answers this afternoon. Obviously, Mr Falinski and Mr Sharma find it all pretty embarrassing. They're willing to go on the record and say that Australia should get with the international community's program to tackle this problem which represents an existential threat—a threat to our biodiversity, a threat to our way of life and a threat to our economy.

All that gets served up is fear. Mr Littleproud was out this morning talking about a dramatic reduction in the national herd. Mr Joyce is upstairs in the corridors of the press gallery, ranting about shrubs and manure. Mr O'Dowd is also talking about manure but in less parliamentary terms. All of them are apparently trying to engage on the question of emissions reduction in the agricultural sector. Their approach is not the approach taken by the National Farmers Federation. They've got a road map for net zero emissions by 2030. They're embracing the future with optimism, they're looking at the opportunities and they're making concrete plans for the future. That's actually what leadership looks like. That's what government requires. That would, amongst other things, require you to have an energy policy, because that is where the big gains are for Australia. Gains are there for consumers, because, if we had an energy policy, we'd have lower prices, we'd have lower emissions and we'd actually have an investment boom that drove jobs and opportunities in regional Australia.

It's very clear that the only way that we are going to resolve this is to elect a Labor government. There is no other party of government with the capacity or the drive to engage seriously on this— (Time expired)

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

Do you wish to speak on the same matter, Senator Hanson? It is on questions by Labor senators to Senators Cormann and Ruston.

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

I wish to speak to a question from Senator Larissa Waters.

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

Resume your seat and I'll call you next. I have to move a motion on where we're up to in the Senate now. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Senator Waters?

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

Since I'm on my feet and since it was the question that I asked, I'm seeking the call.

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

I gave the call to Senator Hanson.

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

I believe I have seniority in the chamber.

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

Senator Waters, I've given the call to Senator Hanson. She was on her feet. Please resume your seat.

Senator Waters interjecting—

Senator Waters, I'm not asking you to debate with me. I've ruled. I've given the call to Senator Hanson. I would suggest that, if there's an issue around this part of the business, you raise it at the whips' meetings, which is what I've suggested to people before. I'm going to the person who was on her feet and that's Senator Hanson.