Division Description Changes — Bills — Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022; Second Reading — 22nd Mar 2023

Change	Division
representatives vote 2023-03-22#6 Edited by mackay staff on 2023-03-24 16:23:18	Title Bills — Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022; Second Reading Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 - Second Reading - Don't stop Hawke MP from speaking Description ~~<p class="speaker">Sharon Claydon</p>~~ <p>CLAYDON (—) (): I can certainly say that the delay, denial and dysfunction we saw over the last 10 years has just been writ large for the Australian people to see in the last 10 minutes. More of the same from those members opposite. I can also say that, having listened for hours and hours to members opposite speaking on the safeguard mechanism—indeed, having sat in that chair and presided over many hours of debate, listening to them speak on this—it is astonishing that they should try to gag me, or anybody, on this side of the chamber. I've got to tell you, the people of Newcastle won't take kindly to you gagging voices that differ to yours. That's what you've done. Now that you've got through your speaking list, and others on this side have got a few things to say about reducing emissions in this country and driving some real action on climate change, you want to gag that voice. You want to gag it. It is despicable behaviour from members opposite.</p> <p>I have got no doubt that the truth hurts when your own constituency base, like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, say to you that it is very clear that support for these reforms is necessary in order to drive good planning, good investment and good innovation in this country. They know the requirement to decarbonise our economy. They understand. But they don't want to be sacrificing everything in that process. They want an orderly, planned process for what needs to happen. We have been consulting for months and months now to provide the plan. We talked to the Australian people; we got the mandate for it. Now it's on the table for debate, and members opposite want to gag this debate. They want to gag this debate. Well, we know that it will add to what those industry groups have already said to those opposite, both in private and in public—that is, their past failure to deal with the realities before us has crimped certainty for industry and investors. It's left our energy sector in Australia in disarray. That's not Labor saying that. That is the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Australian businesses and households are paying the price for the dithering, delay and incompetence of those in the former government and administration.</p> <p>Why is this bill so necessary? We've heard from those industry groups about the economic necessity for these reforms. And the people of Australia understand about the need to start acting swiftly. We've all read the intergovernmental climate change report that came out last week. There's no time to waste. There are no more opportunities for dithering or for a decade of inaction. I'd say to all members in this House: this is your opportunity. Whether you are sitting on benches opposite or on benches on the crossbench, this is your opportunity to get behind the single-most important reform, to be responsible, to be part of the solution, to think about the need to deliver some progress, not simply protest, whether it is in opposition or because you want to see something more. This is not the time to hold the Australian people to ransom with more inaction. Surely we have learnt something from the more than a decade now of unrelenting climate wars, of unrelenting inaction? Surely we have learnt something.</p> <p>We cannot go back to that deep, dark place. We can't afford to go back in any sense of the word 'afford'. This is a time now for real action. This is a time to support the best plan that is before the Australian parliament to reduce a massive amount of carbon emissions in our environment. As I said earlier on, it is like ripping two-thirds of cars from Australian roads today; that's the kind of impact we are talking about.</p> <p>Seriously, if you are to vote against this today you vote against progress. No-one wants to see no action. I think we can learn many things from the results of the last election. There is nobody out there saying, 'Please do not do anything on climate change in this country.' There is no-one. It doesn't matter if you are in remote, regional or metropolitan Australia. The Australian people are far more advanced than many people sitting in this chamber in terms of their understanding of the need to act and to act now.</p> <p>There is a choice for those opposite and a choice for those on the crossbench. You can join with us to make progress, to deliver on a commitment to the Australian people to reduce our carbon emissions by 43 per cent by 2030. You can join us now and be part of that. Or you can just sit and protest or make a point, but there is a profound difference between progress and protest in this regard. I am here to make progress. Everybody on this side of the House is saying: 'We want to make progress. We are here. We are deeply committed to reducing emissions, to decarbonising our economy, to ensuring we progress without leaving anybody behind in our society. We are committed to that progress.' People who want to make a point can do that, but making a point is not progress. There are lessons in our history, our recent history, that would be good for everyone to consider. I urge you all to support this bill.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Adam Bandt</p>~~ <p>I rise to speak on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. You would think that one of the first things you would make sure of when designing a climate policy is that pollution from coal and gas would come down. That's because coal and gas are the causes of the climate crisis. Labor wants more coal and gas. More coal and gas means more pollution going into our atmosphere and the climate crisis being turbocharged.</p> <p>There has been much talk about progress and action and what this policy actually does. It may have escaped some of the members of the government that this policy actually can allow pollution from coal and gas to go up. Why is it that it not only allows it but the government's own forecasts say coal and gas pollution is going to go up under this? Why is that the case? Two reasons: because new coal and gas mines can come into the system without any restriction and because the coal and gas mines that are here already can keep on polluting as long as they buy a few tree-planting permits and count that as a pollution cut. Government members on the backbench may not have sat down and actually read the policy, but actually pollution from coal and gas can go up and is forecast to go up. They're the three words that this government dare not say, 'coal and gas'.</p> <p>We have been given a very clear final warning this week by world scientists and the UN Secretary-General. He singled out countries like Australia, and he said something very, very clearly. He said we are on the verge of going over the climate cliff. Why that's critical is the decisions that we make now will determine whether we can keep climate change under control or it becomes a runaway chain reaction that our kids and our grandkids cannot wind back. That is a world of pain, a world of devastation, a world of worse droughts, floods and fires, and they will not be able to put the genie back in the bottle. He said to countries like Australia, 'I've got one thing that I want you to do that's critical: stop opening up new coal and gas projects.'</p> <p>I ask all those Labor interjectors: are you now prepared to say you'll stop opening coal and gas? No, they're not prepared to say they won't open new coal and gas, and so, at the same time as the UN Secretary-General is saying very, very clearly that countries like Australia have got to stop opening up coal and gas, the government and the opposition say: 'We don't care. We're going to act as if we haven't heard a thing you've said.' You can't put the fire out while you're pouring petrol on it. If this is a genuine attempt to fix a problem, surely the first step is to stop making the problem worse. That is what confronts us here and now, a simple question because climate change and global warming are caused by the burning of coal and gas.</p> <p>There's a simple question people in this House need to answer: do you want more coal and gas or not? Do you want to open up new coal and gas mines or not? At the moment everyone except the Greens and people on the crossbench are saying they want more coal and gas in the middle of a climate crisis. That is something they will have to answer for to their constituents and their kids and grandkids because opening new coal and gas now, after we have heard this very clear warning, is not only negligent, but it's a criminal. It's absolutely criminal to say we need more coal and gas in the face of the warnings from world scientists and the UN Secretary-General that we've heard this year—absolutely criminal. There are no other words for it.</p> <p>I want to hear those people interjecting on both sides explain why they want more coal and gas. Go to those flood-hit areas and see people still trying to recover from the flood and the fires and the drought, walk into those communities and tell them that opening up more coal and gas mines in the middle of a climate crisis is a good idea. They won't do it—they're not prepared to justify that because it is unjustifiable—it is simply unjustifiable. There has also been talk about what pollution might be cut from this scheme—assuming it's not all through offsets because it could all be through offsets. What they don't tell you is that even one big one of the 13 new coal gas projects that this government is forecasting will be opened before 2030—before 2030, 13 new coal and gas projects—just one of those, one big one of those, wipes out all the climate gains that will be made from the safeguard. They don't tell you that, but that's what will happen. Scarborough project, if that goes ahead, over 230 million tonnes—bang, there goes everything that supposedly has been saved by this mechanism. What the Australian people voted for was legislation that will see pollution go down, not up.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Sam Rae</p>~~ <p>This delivers that.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Adam Bandt</p>~~ <p>There's an interjection that this delivers that.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Scott Buchholz</p>~~ <p>To assist the honourable member for Melbourne, I'll make an observation for the benefit of the member for Hawke. The honourable member, whilst in the chamber, sat in silence and listened to alternative positions. I notice you're on the speaking list, and I hope the same courtesy is applied to you, my friend.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~ *The majority voted in favour of disagreeing* with a [mo*tion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-03-22.143.1) introduced by Page MP [Kevin Hogan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/moncrieff/angie_bell) (Nationals), which means it failed. The motion was a gagging order* which would have prevented Hawke MP [Sam Rae](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hawke/sam_rae) (Labor) from speaking any further in this debate. ### Motion text *> That** the Member be no longer heard.*

~~Sharon Claydon~~
CLAYDON (—) (): I can certainly say that the delay, denial and dysfunction we saw over the last 10 years has just been writ large for the Australian people to see in the last 10 minutes. More of the same from those members opposite. I can also say that, having listened for hours and hours to members opposite speaking on the safeguard mechanism—indeed, having sat in that chair and presided over many hours of debate, listening to them speak on this—it is astonishing that they should try to gag me, or anybody, on this side of the chamber. I've got to tell you, the people of Newcastle won't take kindly to you gagging voices that differ to yours. That's what you've done. Now that you've got through your speaking list, and others on this side have got a few things to say about reducing emissions in this country and driving some real action on climate change, you want to gag that voice. You want to gag it. It is despicable behaviour from members opposite.
I have got no doubt that the truth hurts when your own constituency base, like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, say to you that it is very clear that support for these reforms is necessary in order to drive good planning, good investment and good innovation in this country. They know the requirement to decarbonise our economy. They understand. But they don't want to be sacrificing everything in that process. They want an orderly, planned process for what needs to happen. We have been consulting for months and months now to provide the plan. We talked to the Australian people; we got the mandate for it. Now it's on the table for debate, and members opposite want to gag this debate. They want to gag this debate. Well, we know that it will add to what those industry groups have already said to those opposite, both in private and in public—that is, their past failure to deal with the realities before us has crimped certainty for industry and investors. It's left our energy sector in Australia in disarray. That's not Labor saying that. That is the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Australian businesses and households are paying the price for the dithering, delay and incompetence of those in the former government and administration.
Why is this bill so necessary? We've heard from those industry groups about the economic necessity for these reforms. And the people of Australia understand about the need to start acting swiftly. We've all read the intergovernmental climate change report that came out last week. There's no time to waste. There are no more opportunities for dithering or for a decade of inaction. I'd say to all members in this House: this is your opportunity. Whether you are sitting on benches opposite or on benches on the crossbench, this is your opportunity to get behind the single-most important reform, to be responsible, to be part of the solution, to think about the need to deliver some progress, not simply protest, whether it is in opposition or because you want to see something more. This is not the time to hold the Australian people to ransom with more inaction. Surely we have learnt something from the more than a decade now of unrelenting climate wars, of unrelenting inaction? Surely we have learnt something.
We cannot go back to that deep, dark place. We can't afford to go back in any sense of the word 'afford'. This is a time now for real action. This is a time to support the best plan that is before the Australian parliament to reduce a massive amount of carbon emissions in our environment. As I said earlier on, it is like ripping two-thirds of cars from Australian roads today; that's the kind of impact we are talking about.
Seriously, if you are to vote against this today you vote against progress. No-one wants to see no action. I think we can learn many things from the results of the last election. There is nobody out there saying, 'Please do not do anything on climate change in this country.' There is no-one. It doesn't matter if you are in remote, regional or metropolitan Australia. The Australian people are far more advanced than many people sitting in this chamber in terms of their understanding of the need to act and to act now.
There is a choice for those opposite and a choice for those on the crossbench. You can join with us to make progress, to deliver on a commitment to the Australian people to reduce our carbon emissions by 43 per cent by 2030. You can join us now and be part of that. Or you can just sit and protest or make a point, but there is a profound difference between progress and protest in this regard. I am here to make progress. Everybody on this side of the House is saying: 'We want to make progress. We are here. We are deeply committed to reducing emissions, to decarbonising our economy, to ensuring we progress without leaving anybody behind in our society. We are committed to that progress.' People who want to make a point can do that, but making a point is not progress. There are lessons in our history, our recent history, that would be good for everyone to consider. I urge you all to support this bill.
~~Adam Bandt~~
I rise to speak on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022. You would think that one of the first things you would make sure of when designing a climate policy is that pollution from coal and gas would come down. That's because coal and gas are the causes of the climate crisis. Labor wants more coal and gas. More coal and gas means more pollution going into our atmosphere and the climate crisis being turbocharged.
There has been much talk about progress and action and what this policy actually does. It may have escaped some of the members of the government that this policy actually can allow pollution from coal and gas to go up. Why is it that it not only allows it but the government's own forecasts say coal and gas pollution is going to go up under this? Why is that the case? Two reasons: because new coal and gas mines can come into the system without any restriction and because the coal and gas mines that are here already can keep on polluting as long as they buy a few tree-planting permits and count that as a pollution cut. Government members on the backbench may not have sat down and actually read the policy, but actually pollution from coal and gas can go up and is forecast to go up. They're the three words that this government dare not say, 'coal and gas'.
We have been given a very clear final warning this week by world scientists and the UN Secretary-General. He singled out countries like Australia, and he said something very, very clearly. He said we are on the verge of going over the climate cliff. Why that's critical is the decisions that we make now will determine whether we can keep climate change under control or it becomes a runaway chain reaction that our kids and our grandkids cannot wind back. That is a world of pain, a world of devastation, a world of worse droughts, floods and fires, and they will not be able to put the genie back in the bottle. He said to countries like Australia, 'I've got one thing that I want you to do that's critical: stop opening up new coal and gas projects.'
I ask all those Labor interjectors: are you now prepared to say you'll stop opening coal and gas? No, they're not prepared to say they won't open new coal and gas, and so, at the same time as the UN Secretary-General is saying very, very clearly that countries like Australia have got to stop opening up coal and gas, the government and the opposition say: 'We don't care. We're going to act as if we haven't heard a thing you've said.' You can't put the fire out while you're pouring petrol on it. If this is a genuine attempt to fix a problem, surely the first step is to stop making the problem worse. That is what confronts us here and now, a simple question because climate change and global warming are caused by the burning of coal and gas.
There's a simple question people in this House need to answer: do you want more coal and gas or not? Do you want to open up new coal and gas mines or not? At the moment everyone except the Greens and people on the crossbench are saying they want more coal and gas in the middle of a climate crisis. That is something they will have to answer for to their constituents and their kids and grandkids because opening new coal and gas now, after we have heard this very clear warning, is not only negligent, but it's a criminal. It's absolutely criminal to say we need more coal and gas in the face of the warnings from world scientists and the UN Secretary-General that we've heard this year—absolutely criminal. There are no other words for it.
I want to hear those people interjecting on both sides explain why they want more coal and gas. Go to those flood-hit areas and see people still trying to recover from the flood and the fires and the drought, walk into those communities and tell them that opening up more coal and gas mines in the middle of a climate crisis is a good idea. They won't do it—they're not prepared to justify that because it is unjustifiable—it is simply unjustifiable. There has also been talk about what pollution might be cut from this scheme—assuming it's not all through offsets because it could all be through offsets. What they don't tell you is that even one big one of the 13 new coal gas projects that this government is forecasting will be opened before 2030—before 2030, 13 new coal and gas projects—just one of those, one big one of those, wipes out all the climate gains that will be made from the safeguard. They don't tell you that, but that's what will happen. Scarborough project, if that goes ahead, over 230 million tonnes—bang, there goes everything that supposedly has been saved by this mechanism. What the Australian people voted for was legislation that will see pollution go down, not up.
~~Sam Rae~~
This delivers that.
~~Adam Bandt~~
There's an interjection that this delivers that.
~~Scott Buchholz~~
To assist the honourable member for Melbourne, I'll make an observation for the benefit of the member for Hawke. The honourable member, whilst in the chamber, sat in silence and listened to alternative positions. I notice you're on the speaking list, and I hope the same courtesy is applied to you, my friend.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2023-03-22.143.1) introduced by Page MP [Kevin Hogan](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/moncrieff/angie_bell) (Nationals), which means it failed. The motion was a *gagging order* which would have prevented Hawke MP [Sam Rae](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/hawke/sam_rae) (Labor) from speaking any further in this debate.
### Motion text
> *That the Member be no longer heard.*