|
senate vote 2019-12-02#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-01-31 14:55:55
|
Title
Motions — Climate Change- Motions - Climate Change - Suspend the usual rules
Description
<p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I seek leave to move general business of notice of motion No. 314 standing in my name for today, relating to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.</p><p>Leave not granted.</p>- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2019-12-02.12.2) to suspend the usual parliamentary rules so that a vote can happen. In parliamentary jargon, they voted to suspend [standing orders](https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/parliament-at-work/standing-orders/).
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Wong moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to provide that general business notice of motion No. 314 be called on immediately and be considered until 12.20 pm.*
<p>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Wong moving a motion relating to the conduct of the business of the Senate, namely a motion to provide that general business notice of motion No. 314 be called on immediately and be considered until 12.20 pm.</p><p>Let me say: it has been 10 lost years on climate since the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens formed an unholy alliance against effective climate action. Contrary to what they tell us thereabout, the Liberals have delivered higher power prices and the Greens have delivered higher emissions. Partisan pointscoring has been prioritised over fundamental policy change. That the Libs do this is disappointing, but obvious; Labor is their main opponent. But what is not well understood is that the Greens political party also see Labor as their political opponent, and their policy approach on climate reflects this.</p><p>The fact is: Labor's record as a party of progressive reform and a party of action on climate presents a political problem for the Greens. Unlike Greens political parties in other countries, which try and find a constructive role alongside mainstream social democratic parties, the Australian Greens simply want to attack Labor's electoral support and gain their electoral support from progressive voters by attacking the ALP on climate change. This was on display when they voted with the coalition to defeat Labor's CPRS 10 years ago, and we saw it again at this year's federal election when they promoted the anti-Adani caravan as an opportunistic tactic to boost their Queensland Senate vote. They got their Queensland senator back, but they also got Scott Morrison. The question for the Greens is whether they place a higher political priority on winning votes by tearing down Labor or whether they're prepared to support action on climate change. We need to learn from this experience.</p><p>We worked hard to achieve bipartisan consensus on climate legislation 10 years ago. The Liberals punished Malcolm Turnbull for putting the national interest ahead of short-term political interest and replaced him, and consensus evaporated overnight. But let's remember two brave women: Judith Troeth and Sue Boyce, Liberal senators who crossed the floor on 2 December 2009 in the national interest, firm in their support for action on climate change. If the far Green senators had voted with Labor, the carbon price would have passed the parliament and we would have had a transformational climate policy. The Greens' decision has had disastrous and long-lasting consequences for Australia's ability to respond effectively to climate change. Our annual emissions are projected to climb to 540 million tonnes by 2020 and to keep rising to 563 million tonnes by 2030. By voting to defeat the CPRS, the Greens political party voted against cumulative additional reductions of Australia's emissions by 218 million tonnes over the last decade—218 million tonnes over the last decade! As a result of this trajectory, we will see emissions rising until at least 2030.</p><p>The rationale the Greens gave for voting against the CPRS was that its targets were inadequate and that transitional assistance for emissions-intensive industries was too generous. But just two years later they voted for the Clean Energy Future package, which had the same emissions targets for 2020 and more assistance for the emissions-intensive industries. The clean energy package provided more transitional assistance than the CPRS for the coal-fired power generators—I'm unsurprised they don't want to hear this—for the steel industry and for the coalmining sector. So why did the Greens support legislation that was browner? The only explanation is that their political calculations changed.</p><p>Labor doesn't seek to avoid responsibility for our part in what we have seen over the last 10 years. We were on the right side of the debate, but we know we made mistakes, one so significant it destroyed a Prime Minister. The coalition decided to politically weaponise climate change rather than engage in responsible policymaking, and that has come at great cost to Australia—for example, we have a dysfunctional energy market as a consequence. These realities will come home to roost for Scott Morrison.</p><p>We, as a country, must pursue action on climate even though it has come at a great price, politically, over the past decade. That is Labor's commitment. It is time for all members and senators and all parties to put aside their short-term political interests and work together in the national interest. It is still my hope that we can realise how hard reform is and learn that we cannot keep making this issue a pitched battle. We must find common ground. We cannot make it an either-jobs-or-environment choice, because it isn't. The people who follow us in this place will not thank us for the time we have wasted, and they will condemn us if we continue to neglect the future they inherit.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>The government will be voting against the suspension because the Senate unanimously determined—at Labor's initiative—that this morning we should be debating the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017. This is the bill that we are meant to be debating this morning. It wasn't us who listed this, because we respect the fact that non-government senators determine what is debated in private senators' time. However, what the Labor Party is now proposing is to vary the business. That is precisely the basis for why we voted against the previous motion. It is only fair to all senators who've prepared themselves for this debate on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017 that this be the bill that is dealt with.</p><p>Let's not pretend that this has got anything to do with Labor wanting to pursue more effective action on climate change. This is all about Labor wanting to beat up on the Greens. This is all about a tiff between the Labor Party and the Greens—and I see Senator Di Natale nodding. This is just the latest political stunt by the Labor Party. How do we know this? It's because the Labor Party has already been successful in having precisely the same topic as the topic of this motion listed for debate later today as part of the MPI. Labor are clearly so embarrassed by their Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017 that they're desperately trying to avoid debate on it. If they had any commitment to what they've asked the Senate to list for debate this morning, they would have proceeded with it.</p><p>Clearly, Labor is no longer concerned about rising inequality. That was the sort of thing that Shorten was trying to deceive the Australian people about in the lead-up to the last election. Now, under Mr Albanese, they're no longer concerned about rising inequality, so they no longer want to pursue this particular piece of legislation. They're prepared to prioritise a political stunt, trying to flesh out a tiff between Labor and the Greens, ahead of dealing with what, last week, they were telling us was an important piece of legislation.</p><p>When it comes to climate change, our government is absolutely committed to effective action on climate change. We are committed to effective action on climate change in a way that is economically responsible, and we absolutely stand by our decision 10 years ago to vote against Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—so called, because it would not have helped reduce global emissions; it would have just shifted Australian emissions into other parts of the world where, for the same level of economic output, emissions would have been higher. So the world would have been worse off, the global environment would have been worse off and Australian jobseekers would have been worse off. So Australians would have been asked to make a sacrifice for no impact on global emissions at all. In fact, arguably, emissions would have been higher, because we would have made it harder, for example, to produce LNG here in Australia, and, of course, for every tonne of emissions from Australia producing LNG, we are able to displace five to nine tonnes of emissions in China and the same level in other economies around our region. We would have made it harder for Australia to help reduce global emissions, because we would have made it harder for ourselves to attract investment in expanded LNG production and exports into those countries. We would have made it harder for ourselves to keep the aluminium industry here in Australia, which is environmentally more efficient than those aluminium businesses in the other parts of the world. That would have led to higher emissions than would have been the case for the same level of economic output here in Australia.</p><p>There were many flaws with Labor's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The Greens at the time were quite right in joining the Liberal and National parties in voting that disastrous piece of legislation down. But let's just be very clear: this is a debate for later today during the MPI. This is not a debate we should be having during private senators' time, given Labor advised the Senate on Thursday—and indeed the Senate unanimously agreed in the placing of business—that it wished to place on the agenda for this morning the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017. That is the bill that we're ready to debate here and now, and that is the debate that we should be getting on with instead of having one Labor stunt after another.</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>When Anthony Albanese was elected Leader of the Labor Party, he said he was interested in fighting Tories. Well, he's given up on fighting Tories; he's now fighting the Greens. We've got the Liberals, a climate-denying, climate sceptic party that's in bed with the coal, oil and gas industries, and what are the Labor Party doing? Turning their attention to the Greens. We had half the country on fire last week. We have had the east coast burning. We have had people losing their homes. We have had horrific loss of life. Do you know what the response was from the Labor Party? Again, they joined the Liberal Party: 'Now's not the time to talk about climate change.' Well, the first time since those fires that the Labor Party has decided to talk about climate change is not to attack the government; it's to attack the Greens.</p><p>Melinda and Dean have a property that was destroyed. They've got leftover items from their northern New South Wales home. They've got a piece of burnt corrugated iron out the front. Do you know what it says? It says, 'Mr Morrison, your climate crisis destroyed my home'. What's the response of the Labor Party? 'It's the Greens' fault.' Well, how about, rather than looking to the past, you look to the present and actually decide what you want to do now? The Australian people don't give two hoots about a fight that happened 10 years ago. Why don't you go back to the Dismissal, for God's sake? Let's go back to the ALP-DLP split! Things would have been different if the ALP and DLP hadn't split! People care about what happens now. What they want to know is what you stand for.</p><p>If you are so desperate to have a carbon price introduced, let's get together and work on one. Let me remind you that we were the only party that took a carbon price to the last election. You are so desperate to talk about a policy that would have put a price on carbon. Well, let's work together and put one in. Let's do what the Australian people want us to do: let's price carbon so we can phase out coal and get on track to addressing the climate crisis that faces us. But, no, you're not interested in doing this; you're interested in a distraction. You're interested in whitewashing the legacy of Australia's first female Prime Minister. In 2010, after we defeated a terrible piece of public policy, we got what was described by the International Energy Agency as 'template legislation'. We got a price on carbon, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the establishment of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. We got all of those things in place working constructively with Australia's first female Prime Minister and working constructively with the crossbench. We introduced legislation that, for the first time, brought down pollution. We had pollution come down, we had investment and we had model climate policy. And you want to talk about the past? Well, if the Labor Party hadn't torn itself apart with the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd fiasco, maybe Tony Abbott wouldn't have been effective in turning down that carbon price. Maybe we would still have a carbon price if you had your shit together and you actually worked cooperatively—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Order, Senator Di Natale!</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p><p>I withdraw. The question is this: what do we do from this point on? In the lead-up to the last election, I reached out to then opposition leader Bill Shorten. We met privately, and I said clearly and explicitly, 'We want to work together to get climate policy back on track.' Well, what did we hear? Crickets—we got crickets in return. I've met with Anthony Albanese and said to him: 'It's about time you focused your attention on the Liberals. We want to work together, and let us get climate policy back on track.' And what do we see? We reach out to the Leader of the Opposition and say: 'Let's work together on climate policy; let's recognise who the real enemy of climate change is in this place. It's the coal-hugging Liberals. It's the Liberal Party who are more interested in doing the bidding of their big corporate donors.' And what does the Leader of the Opposition do? He attacks the Greens. I say to Anthony Albanese, 'Remember, you're supposed to be here to fight the Tories not the Greens.' We have said we're prepared to work with you. How about you work with us?</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Order! Order! For the notice of the chamber, I'm going to go to the member of the ALP who moved the motion. I'll call for one more government speaker. And then, as the movers of the motion, I'll give a member of the opposition a third opportunity to speak, if they rise. It will be Senator McAllister and then Senator Canavan.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|