|
senate vote 2021-08-10#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-09-10 17:01:19
|
Title
Motions — Climate Change- Motions - Climate Change - Speed things along
Description
<p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>The result of the division is ayes 18, noes 18. It is 18 all. I assumed that that would close the debate, but it does not. The debate continues. With the extensive pairing arrangements, I'm sure the chamber will let me give a moment for the whips to—Senator Birmingham?</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-08-10.9.3) to put the question. That is, they voted to stop discussing the matter and instead vote on it immediately.
<p>As we know, these are quite unusual sittings with very extensive pairing lists in place. On the understanding of where senators and parties were voting, and of pairing arrangements, the expectation was for a different result. Between the whips we don't seem to be able to identify quite what caused the result to be a tied vote. I request the indulgence of the Senate for the vote to be recommitted.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Given that 40 senators were absent from the division, they are quite extensive pairing arrangements. Is leave granted to recommit the vote? Senator Patrick, you wish to object to that?</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I would object if any additional senator came into the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I can't determine that. Leave is either granted or not to recommit the vote. Where an explanation is provided, it is the custom of the Senate. Senator Wong?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>We have always allowed for recommittal provided the appropriate steps are taken, which are that someone turns up and says, 'Oops, I missed it for these reasons.' We will extend that courtesy, as we expect it to be extended to us, but the government has not yet said what happened. They can't just recommit in hope.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I've been here for that to happen too, but that has been the case where we have four or five pairs. Someone may have been erroneously asked to pair without there being an error on that individual senator's part. Senator Patrick?</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I think that's fair, but that needs to be explained to the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>I have asked leave and I've got an objection, so on that basis I'm going to call for debate to continue.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>I'd like clarification as to where Senator Griff's vote is going on this. This is an important issue for South Australia, and I think it needs to be on the record where he is voting on the topic of climate change and action.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>It is not up to someone to speak on behalf of another senator. I don't think Senator Griff is online. There have been longstanding arrangements with respect to crossbenchers and Independents. I'm going to call for the debate to continue because I don't have leave to put the division again. Senator Waters, on the motion to suspend the standing orders by Senator Wong.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>It's great that we're suspending the standing orders—as we should—to be debating this most crucial issue facing humanity, but it is incredibly disappointing that in the challenge put to the government by Labor all they want the Morrison government to do is finally commit to net zero emissions by 2050. I'm sure folk had a chance to read the report last night, and it is a clarion call for action by 2030. This issue should be above politics, and the report calls on us to act by 2030.</p> <p class="speaker">Hon. Senators</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>I'll take those interjections, but I urge everyone in this chamber to read the report. It talks about 2030—2050 is too late. We have a government that has barely mentioned a response to this report. The Prime Minister is standing up to have a press conference only to complain about protesters, who are rightly registering their concern about the inaction from this government on the climate emergency. We will shortly be moving to suspend the standing orders, once again, to talk about the need to take action on 2030. We've already seen the absolutely devastating impacts of the climate emergency—</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Order!</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>I'm happy to keep going, President; it's not bothering me at all, but, if you're going to call the chamber to order, you go for it.</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Order! Senator Waters to continue.</p> <p class="speaker">Larissa Waters</p><p>The report last night talks about the devastating impacts of exceeding a 1½ degree climate rise. We've got 10 years, and all we see in this chamber is both parties taking massive donations from the coal, oil and gas companies. Yes, here we go again, because we will keep raising this issue until we get science based policies. We will say, until we are blue in the face, that we want to see a different government, but, if you want to get climate action, you need the Greens in the balance of power to push a new government to go further and faster on the climate crisis. If you want action on the climate crisis in the next decade—which, as last night's report says, is urgent—then you need the Greens in the balance of power, because frankly this debate about 2050 is too little too late.</p><p>While we see millions of dollars sloshing around in donations from the coal, oil and gas sector, and while we see public money being given to private companies, headed up by Liberal donors, to open up new gas basins against the wishes of a First Nations community in the Northern Territory, you will not see science based climate policy. That is why it is urgent that we suspend standing orders today—not to talk about net zero by 2050 but to talk about decent climate targets by 2030, so that we have some chance of saving agriculture in this nation and of reducing the severity of awful bushfires like those we saw not two years ago, when the Prime Minister was taking a holiday in Hawaii. We've seen awful fires now hit the birthplace of democracy, Athens, and we've seen flooding in Europe. This is real. It is not something for the future. This is happening now. We've seen saltwater incursion into our Torres Strait Islands food-producing land. This is not something that can be delayed. We need action now, and, if we want to have any chance of staying below 1½ degrees, we need rapid and urgent cuts to emissions.</p><p>The government haven't even read the science; they've never met a scientist, and they're certainly not going to start listening to them now. The flaccid pressure on them by the so-called opposition for a 2050 target, which will be too late, is frankly embarrassing. We need science to be deciding policies in this place, not donations from the coal, oil and gas companies. Until such time as other parties join the Greens in refusing donations from those fossil fuel crony capitalists, then we won't get science based policies—and, in fact, that's what the Australian populace expect and deserve from us.</p><p>We had a decent carbon price; it was working to bring down emissions. The Greens want to see good climate policy, we want to see a change of government and we want to work with the next government to push them to go harder and faster on the climate crisis, because, at the minute, without the Greens, you won't see urgent action. You will see donors getting their wishes delivered upon, which is not enough. We need a decent opposition, we need a government to listen to science and you need the Greens in the balance of power if we're to have any chance of taking climate action.</p><p>Honourable senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>Order! I'm going to go to Senator Brockman.</p> <p class="speaker">Slade Brockman</p><p>I rise to apologise to the chamber: I made an error in the pairing arrangements. I sent Senator Hume from the chamber in error. She was not included on the pair sheet. It was my error, and I apologise to the chamber—in particular, I apologise to my colleagues for making the error. I wish for the vote to be recommitted.</p> <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p><p>On that basis, with the leave of the Senate, I'll recommit the motion. The question is the motion moved by Senator Birmingham that the question be now put be agreed to.</p>
|