SENATE

More documents

Recommendations

Info

58 <strong>SENATE</strong> Thursday, 13 October 2016 Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT: On my right! Senator Cormann interjecting— Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Senator Cormann and Senator Collins! Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting— The PRESIDENT: I mentioned Senator Cormann first, but you were shouting; you couldn't hear me. Senator Cormann interjecting— The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Cormann! Senator Wong, a point of order. Senator Wong: Again, this goes to direct relevance. I do not understand how quoting Mark Dreyfus can possibly be relevant to the question. Unlike the Attorney, the former Attorney-General Mr Dreyfus never had Solicitors-General like Gavan Griffith come out and say the things about him that this man has said about you. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Wong. You are now debating the point. Order! There is no point of order. The Attorney-General answered the question at the commencement of his answer quite succinctly. Senator BRANDIS: As Mr Dreyfus said: … despite the fact that I say that the Solicitor-General has got higher status, she or he is still just a barrister. And, most difficult legal problems are capable of another outcome. I mean, if I've learnt [anything] in my legal career, I've learnt that. (Time expired) Climate Change Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:16): My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Minister Birmingham. Minister, today the UN asked 30 questions about Australia's lack of ability to meet its pledged climate change targets. In fact, the UN achieved the impossible by bringing the US and China together to criticise and question Australia's climate policy. Minister, how can the government make it all the way to 2020, or even 2030, and achieve a reduction in pollution without any credible policy pathway to get there? Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (14:17): I thank Senator Di Natale for his question. I am very pleased to report to the Senate—and to ensure that Senator Di Natale is well informed of the reality—that Australia is not only on track but ahead of track to meet our 2020 emissions reduction targets. The government is absolutely confident that, just as Australia has been a global citizen, every time we have made a commitment in relation to emissions reduction targets we have not only met those commitments but exceeded those commitments. We are a country— Senator Back: Kyoto. Senator BIRMINGHAM: Thank you for that, Senator Back. Indeed, the first Kyoto reporting period saw Australia meet and exceed its commitment. We are confident that the 2020 target will be met and exceeded by the actions of the Turnbull government and predecessors, and that we can deliver—as we do, as a good citizen—the types of actions that people expect us to. We welcome the fact that the Paris Agreement is coming into force of entry. We welcome the fact that there is strong global cooperation, which Australia is, yet again, a party to, in setting 2030 targets that are amongst the toughest targets in the world on a per capita basis, and amongst the toughest targets in the world in terms of their relativity to the size of our economy. This is actually strong action from Australia which, once again, we will deliver. The 26 to 28 per cent reduction compared to 2005 levels under the Paris Agreement is a target that is comparable with other developed countries and delivers significant reductions in emissions per capita and per dollar of GDP, as I indicated. We have met every single target to date; we are confident we will meet every single target into the future. The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question. Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:19): Market analysts RepuTex do not agree. They have modelled that by 2030 Australia's pollution will have declined by just two per cent under current policy settings—nowhere near the measly 26 to 28 per cent target, and an insult to the 60 to 80 per cent reduction that the science demands. Minister, will you answer the question from the US government about whether the Australian government plans to introduce any new policies that we do not know about? Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (14:20): Australia submitted its last biennial report in December 2015, as part of the UNFCCC processes of assessment against activity and actions in relation to climate change policies and the meeting of targets. In that report, Australia CHAMBER
Thursday, 13 October 2016 <strong>SENATE</strong> 59 scored better than New Zealand and the Netherlands, and the same as France, the US and Germany on completeness. On transparency, Australia scored better than France, Norway and Germany and the same as the EU, New Zealand and the United States. It is a demonstration that we have in place peer assessed and globally assessed measures and activities that demonstrate Australia delivers and meets its commitments. We have policies in place that are meeting the 2020 commitments. Those policies are subject to reviews over coming years that are well-known and well-published. As a result of those reviews, the pathway will become clearer for meeting the 2030 targets—just as we have done on every single prior occasion. The PRESIDENT: Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question. Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (14:21): Given the government's scare campaign on the carbon price, will the government now answer the question from China requesting modelling on what the repeal of the carbon price has meant for our fast-accelerating energy-sector emissions, and how this has led to poorly allocated investment in our already pollution-intensive economy? Senator BIRMINGHAM (South Australia—Minister for Education and Training) (14:21): As is frequently the case in this debate, the Greens confuse means with ends. The ends are that Australia is meeting its international obligations in relation to reducing emissions levels. The means that the Greens want to talk about are, of course, the application of new taxes to get rid of parts of the economy that they just do not like. We are committed to the means of reducing our emissions most efficiently in a way that best protects Australia's economic interests and meets our international obligations—but without destroying the jobs or livelihoods of other Australians. The Greens can continue, if they want, with their fixation on wanting to introduce new taxes and new measures that would be focused more on disrupting the Australian economy, creating job losses across the Australian economy and creating higher prices for Australians. We will stand by the fact that our policies in place, right now, are working and are meeting and exceeding the targets we have committed to. Attorney-General Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (14:22): My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to the submission of the former Solicitor-General, Dr Griffith QC, to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee in which he says the result of the Legal Services Amendment (Solicitor-General Opinions) Direction 2016—I stress the direction, not the minister's attempt to divert attention by referring to Attorneys-General's conduct—'will be the demeaning of the office to the equivalent of attracting monkeys'. Does the Attorney-General agree? Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:23): I do not agree. The PRESIDENT: Senator Collins, a supplementary question. Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria) (14:23): I again refer to the submission of the former Solicitor- General, Dr Griffith QC, in which he states: The Law Officers Act might be better to be repealed rather than the Office demeaned to this level … Does the Attorney-General agree? Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Attorney-General, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (14:23): Senator Collins, I do not—I do not agree with Dr Griffith. As Mr Dreyfus observed recently, if I have learnt anything in my legal career I have learnt that most difficult legal problems are capable of another outcome. I know Senator Collins is not educated in the law, but legal propositions are innately contestable. That is the point about the law. The PRESIDENT: Senator Wong, a point of order. Senator Wong: My point of order is on relevance, again. The Attorney continues to refer to Mr Dreyfus seeking additional opinions. The issue in question is that this Attorney is trying to stop, prevent, ministers and other parts of the Commonwealth seeking advice from the Solicitor-General. It is entirely different. He is seeking to prevent ministers and other parts of the government seeking independent legal advice from the Solicitor- General unless he ticks off on it. The PRESIDENT: On the point of order, Senator Brandis. Senator BRANDIS: On this question and previous questions today and previous questions throughout the week the point that is being sought to be made in various ways is that I am on my own on this. Senator Wong: You are. CHAMBER
Page 1 and 2:
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA SENATE Ha
Page 3 and 4:
FORTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT FIRST SESSIO
Page 5 and 6:
Senator State or Territory Term exp
Page 7 and 8:
Title Minister Minister for Health
Page 9 and 10:
Title Shadow Minister Deputy Manage
Page 11 and 12:
CONTENTS—continued International
Page 13 and 14:
Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 1
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 7
Page 69: Thursday, 13 October 2016 SENATE 57
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125:
show all

SENATE

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?