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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to opposition questions without notice asked today.

Today there were a lot of important questions asked of the government. It's a day where they've announced a huge deal with the Greens party to establish a massive new carbon tax on job-creating projects in this country, but unfortunately there were no answers given to these very important questions.

This dodgy deal that has been done between Labor and the Greens potentially means that all new coal, gas and other mining projects will be required to have all of their emissions offset. That means they'll have to buy carbon credits for all of their emissions. Previously, the government announced they'd only have to buy offsets for the amount of emissions they're reducing—five per cent a year. Now it won't be five per cent next year; it'll be 100 per cent for these projects next year.

There is a new mine being built in my area, in Central Queensland, near Moranbah, the Olive Downs mine, and I asked about that particular mine. The acting leader of the Labor Party in the Senate couldn't even tell the 500 people who are working there tonight, who will be going to sleep in a camp away from their families tonight, whether they have a job tonight.

Those opposite claim they're the party representing workers, they claim they represent the people who go to work to help this country be strong, and they can't even give them basic answers. They haven't done basic analysis. Maybe the people responding to this motion could provide these answers to workers in this country? Can they provide them answers? Will this Olive Downs mine have to offset 100 per cent of its emissions? And if it has, what analysis, what consultation have they done with the mine to know whether those people will have their jobs or lose their jobs overnight? What have they done?

According to Mr Bandt, the Leader of the Australian Greens, who seems to be in charge in this place right now—

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's in charge?

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

Yes, it's been confirmed he's in charge. He's in charge of the government. Hardly anyone voted for Mr Bandt in this country, but he's in charge of this place. He's giving more detail than the Labor government at the moment, but he says that one of these projects, the Beetaloo gas field, will be required, from day one, to offset all of its emissions in scope 1, scope 2 and scope 3 for domestic use.

I particularly want to remind people what that last bit means, 'scope 3 for domestic use'. Scope 3 emissions are the use of the gas, so when you use the gas or the coal and you burn it to create energy and electricity—more than half the world's energy still comes from those sources—that's scope 3 emissions. The deal that the Labor Party have done with the Greens would tax, would penalise, the use of coal and gas in Australia—for domestic use; that's what Mr Bandt said. If you send the coal and gas over to Japan, Korea or China, they're tax free—tax free. How absurd is this, that we're going to penalise the use of our own energy for our own purposes but not other countries'?

With this deal that's been announced between Labor and the Greens today, it's a bit like Game of Thrones: winter is coming. And unfortunately, if this deal goes through this place, it's going to be a long, cold, dark winter—many winters to come—in this country, because we're not going to have enough energy for our own use. There are not going to be the gas projects or the coal projects that we need to keep the lights on in this country. We know and the government knows, from the Australian Energy Market Operator, that we are facing massive gas shortages in the next few years. We have a huge problem that the Bass Strait is declining as an oil- and gas-producing field. We need to replace it with new projects, like Narrabri in New South Wales and like, hopefully, the Beetaloo in the Northern Territory. The Greens want to stop it. We know that. But that is going to mean that people have to pay massive amounts for their power. If you think your power bill's bad now, wait until we stop all new coal and gas projects in this country. We still need coal and gas for more than 70 per cent of our electricity needs. Wait until we stop all those and then see what real pain looks like in your power prices. We'll be paying what they're paying in the UK and Europe—in Germany—before you know it, and that will hurt poor people in this nation.

The Australian Labor Party is an absolute embarrassment, that they cannot answer questions right now about the impact of these policies. These policies will mean that more than a million Australians who rely on the mining sector for their jobs now face uncertainty. And keep in mind that it's not just coal and gas. It's also lithium mines, nickel mines and copper mines. They're all captured by the safeguard mechanism, too. They use a lot of diesel. Senator Sterle knows this. They don't have a lot of electricity in some of these parts of Australia. They have to use diesel, and they're captured. So, why would we put restraints on mining the very resources we need in order to have batteries, wind turbines and all this other stuff? How stupid are we? They're going to put a massive constraint, basically a big stop sign, on nickel mines, lithium mines—the stuff they claim they want to power the world. This is going to be an absolute disaster in this country, and every power price rise and every blackout is on the heads of Greens and Labor parties who are in charge in this place.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to clarify the record before I respond. In her first question to Minister Farrell, Senator Ruston stated: 'Last week the Senate agreed, without dissent, to the coalition's second agreeing reading amendment to the national health amendment bill requiring the listing of all medicines approved by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.' This is a mischaracterisation of the government's position. Whilst we did not call a division, the government did not support the second reading amendment, for the reasons Senator McCarthy outlined in her summing-up speech when she stated: 'There are longstanding considered processes for PBS listings through PBAC, not second reading amendments.'

I'd like to touch on the question that was asked by Senator O'Sullivan to Minister Farrell about the cashless welfare card. It is extraordinarily well known in this chamber and outside of this chamber that I am a loyal member of the Australian Labor Party but had a bit of a different view on the abolition of the cashless welfare card. I believed that it was not a silver bullet. I honestly believed we could do a lot better. But I made it very clear here in this building on a number of occasions that, from talking to my mates, the Aboriginal leaders in the Kimberley, there were mixed views. I also remember the passionate arguments when the card first started, not in Leonora, Laverton and Kalgoorlie but certainly up in Kununurra and then into Wyndham. I remember the leadership of the Indigenous corporations and communities in Kununurra—my very dear friend Ian Truss, Lawford Benning and Teddy Carlton. And I remember the passion in the speeches. As they made very clear to me, what was happening up in the Kimberley—I'm only talking about the Kimberley; I know it happens all over Australia, and it was not unique to just Aboriginal communities—they were sick of seeing their children being buried. They were sick of seeing their population, their people, being buried way too early, and they wanted change. They wanted something different. Unfortunately, the card didn't deliver what it was hoped it would deliver. It split the community. There's no argument about that.

But I do want to say that I think it's disingenuous for a lot of us sitting here in Canberra. This is not to slight Senator O'Sullivan because Senator O'Sullivan works very hard up in the Kimberley; we are cochairs of the Gurama Yani U, the men's shed in Fitzroy Crossing, and I know Senator O'Sullivan's commitment to Indigenous advancement in his previous life working for Minderoo. But I must say that I have worked in Indigenous communities in the Kimberley longer than any other senator in this building. I'm not saying I've got all the answers because I don't. But one thing I hold dearly as I wander through the Kimberley, not only in my role as a senator but in my role I providing preloved furniture to communities in Fitzroy Crossing, is to supply preloved furniture like bedding through Fitzroy Crossing. It is all donated stuff—road trains of the stuff—where my mates in the trucking industry throw a prime mover at me, three trailers, two dollies, and I run all that preloved furniture to the Kimberley to help service those in remote communities through Kununurra, Wyndham, Warmun and Halls Creek. We've even had people coming from Balgo to get hold of this very, very cheap second-hand furniture. We also create opportunities for Indigenous people to get training and employment throughout the Fitzroy Valley and the east Kimberley.

But it really does point to one thing. I must say this, and I can't stress this enough: through all my meetings and conversations in the Kimberley for the last 30-odd years as a truck driver—longer, 40 years as a truck driver and as a senator—there is one thing that Aboriginal leaders say to me, whether they're male or female, I'm talking to the women's resource centre or to training and employment service providers or to health providers or to those in the justice system. My Indigenous leaders and my Indigenous friends throughout the Kimberley make it very, very clear to me when I go there that there is one common denominator. They say: 'Glenn, when is someone going to listen to us? When is someone in Canberra or in government actually going to ask us what we want?' I can't think of a more powerful reason to stand up and support the referendum to deliver the Voice so that Indigenous people can actually have their say and they can actually be listened to. I cannot wait for the referendum, and I applaud everyone in the Aboriginal communities that I work in and represent. I will be there alongside you, for you and with you.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to take note of the answers given today. I take the point Senator Sterle made about this issue. It's a fair point that we haven't done a very good job of listening to people when we've sought to make policy in this country over the last 250 years. There are a range of views on how this should be done. When you travel into remote parts of the states we represent, you get a range of views about how that could be improved. I think people do want to see new institutions, and that is the best argument for the Voice, that there should be new institutions to help communities make decisions about their own affairs and their own arrangements. That has always been my view. We're now at a point in time when there is going to be a referendum, and we need to give people comfort that this can be done in a way that is going to preserve institutions that have otherwise served the country well because, of course, you wouldn't seek to introduce new institutions if you thought they were all working well. The reasonable view here would be that Australia has been a very good country, but it has let Indigenous people down too often, chiefly because of this terrible problem of paternalism. That is what these initiatives are about.

As someone that wants to recommend a yes vote, I would like to understand exactly what the advice is. I think that's a reasonable proposition. I'm not seeking to make any political points here other than that we want to make sure that this is a safe change for our Constitution. I think it is a reasonable point that there could be cases where the Voice as a new institution or as an institution that's been running for some time would seek legal remedies through the High Court, and that may be reasonable from time to time. The point here is that we wouldn't want to see a situation where things were extraneous to the core function. For me, the question is: are the words that were released last week good enough to ensure that the Voice is effective and has all the power it needs but doesn't bung up the system of government we have and bind up the courts. That's the question.

There may be good reasons why the advice can't be released; I don't know. There appear to be precedents for advice being released in connection with referenda, but if there is a good reason then I'll look forward to understanding that when we hit the committee stage of this process. I understand that there is to be a joint committee of the parliament which will look at this constitutional alteration bill—that's what we're talking about at the moment—and we'll have the opportunity at those hearings to ask the department about the wording. If the advice isn't going to be provided in the usual way, then I'm sure the committee can find a way to get a sense of the department's view but also the view of the various legal minds. There are many former High Court justices and other legal people, with much bigger brains than mine, who are offering their view on this wording. People will have to make a decision about whether they are prepared to support or oppose something based on the legal interpretation of various people. These people will be in the department. There will be retired judges and people who are working in the law today, and we will all have to hear from those various minds. I look forward to doing that and then landing on a position.

I would repeat myself again: I don't think this is a good place to play politics, but I do think it would help if we could have the advice, or at least some sanitised version of the advice, so that we could be more satisfied that the changes that were made last week are going to be satisfactory. I, personally, have an open mind about these changes, but I don't understand the genesis of them.

Fatima Payman (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's one thing that my good friend Senator Bragg and I agree on, and that is that the previous government could have done better. They had almost 10 years in government, and we saw what the outcome was. If laughter is medicine, then the track record of those opposite when they were in government must be curing the world, don't we think?

I would like to take note of Senator Canavan's question to the minister. He said, 'Winter is coming.' Well, Senator Canavan, winter may be coming, but the Albanese government is manning the walls whilst your party is bickering over who will sit on that throne. We saw the results of the election over the weekend. In case anyone missed it, let me remind them: those opposite lost in New South Wales. They suspended their whip in Victoria and they don't exist in WA, but they also don't participate here. The election outcome is just one way of Australians saying that they've had enough of the decade of delay, denial and destruction and they want to see action.

Those opposite sit there asking us what we're doing for workers, what we're doing for Australians out there doing it tough, what we're doing about the housing crisis and what we're doing on climate change. Let me tell you that, with the announcement today, Australia is one step closer to achieving net zero by 2050, with confirmation that we've secured additional parliamentary support for the safeguard mechanism reforms. These are overdue, sensible reforms that ensure Australia's largest emitters are competitive in a decarbonising global economy and are doing their fair share, making a contribution to ensuring that we reach our reduction target.

Those opposite have, of course, made themselves irrelevant despite calls across industry for bipartisan support for these reforms. These reforms are our chance, our first chance in a over a decade, to implement transformative climate change action that gets us towards net zero and that has broad support across the economy and the community. We've had extensive consultation with business groups, with industries and with community groups, and this is what they've been crying out for for way too long. These reforms have been carefully designed to cut pollution by our biggest industrial emitters while minimising costs and allowing flexibility of least-cost abatement opportunities to be deployed.

The Albanese Labor government recognises that Australians and Australian industries are smart. They will choose the least-cost abatement, and these reforms allow them to do that. Unless the parliament passes the government's safeguard reforms, Australia's 2030 emissions reduction projections will be 35 per cent, not the 43 per cent we legislated. No MP or senator can criticise this government on emissions reduction targets and say that they are not good enough if they come into parliament and vote against policies to achieve emissions reduction.

It's important to understand that there are sensible and prudent buffers in the scheme which take into account the possibility of new entrants. We've been hearing from those opposite, who I think are probably suffering from delusions of adequacy. They think they did so well over the last decade and that we haven't been doing enough in the last 18 months. I'd like to highlight and remind those opposite of who it is that the Australian people trusted and put in government. Who elected us to be the adults in charge to fix the mess that your government put us in? We know Scomo doesn't hold a hose. Can any of you hold a hammer to fix this mess?