David Littleproud now says he accepts the science of manmade climate change – politics live
|
Version 10 of 14. The motion to suspend standing orders was tied - and then lost - because when there is a tie in the Senate, the status quo remains (in this case, not to suspend standing orders) Ok, before I burn my computer because of the internet issues I have been having all week, Rex Patrick supports the substance of the motion, but not the motion to suspend standing orders. Over in the Senate, Centre Alliance has announced it will support Labor’s motion to suspend standing orders. Question time ends with a “Go Sharks.” That happened. *Contacts Elon, leaves planet* Scott Morrison has just taken a dixer about the mining tax. What even is this. Sorry, not a dixer. It was a question from Joel Fitzgibbon: “When will the PM introduce legislation into the parliament to establish the biosecurity import levy that he promised in the 2018-19 budget? Why has he already banked the $300m in revenue to prop up his budget bottom line?” (Phil Coorey at the Fin has taken this issue on with gusto.) Morrison answered with a response on the mining tax. Again, what even is this. In the Senate, Labor is moving to suspend standing orders. Penny Wong has put forward this motion: I move that – (1) The Senate notes widespread reports in the media about the member for Chisholm this week which raise questions concerning her fitness to be a member of the Australian parliament. (2) At 12.20pm on 16 September 2019, before government business is called on: (a) requires the minister representing the prime minister (senator Cormann) to provide, for no more than 20 minutes: i. an explanation of the government’s response to the allegations raised against the member for Chisholm, and ii. an assurance to the Senate that the member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to remain a member of the Australian parliament; and (b) a senator may, at the conclusion of the minister’s explanation, move without notice, that the Senate take note of the explanation. Sarah Martin, who is in the chamber, tells me Gladys Liu is crying. Mark Dreyfus to Scott Morrison: Did the PM receive any advice about the current member for Chisholm from government agencies before or since the May 18 election?” There is some back and forth over whether or not the prime minister can answer a question involving security advice, but Tony Smith rules it in order. Morrison: Your ruling on the matter makes clear that just as the member did yesterday in coming to this dispatch box, that on this occasion that member has come to the dispatch box again, particularly given what the attorney general has set out, with the very clear knowledge that he would know, as I would know, having sat around the national committee of cabinet table for five of the last six years, that on no occasion would any responsible minister and in particular a PM go into any operational matters regarding Asio or any of these intelligence agencies. So what is the intent of the question? The intent is to infer, infer against a member of this House, a disloyalty to this country, and that member has in some way been the subject of some investigation. And that member knows, who raised this question, that member knows that by simply coming up here and speaking to smear a member, knowing that the PM is not in a position to make comment on these matters, that he hopes the mud sticks. Now, Mr Speaker, what this member is doing here in seeking a smear a member and I refer to the member for Chisholm, the member for Chisholm who has probably done more than anyone else in this place, but like many to overcome barriers in her life to overcome discrimination, to overcome domestic violence, to overcome disability, and there are members on the other side of the House who I applaud for doing exactly the same thing. Now the member for Isaacs should take a good hard look at himself and he should have a good hard look at the 1.2 million Australians who will see exactly what he is doing to Australians of Chinese descent. Just because someone was born in China doesn’t make them disloyal. What the member for Isaacs is doing a casting a smear on Chinese-Australians. But this is not unknown in the Labor party, because we remember Michael Daley, the former Labor leader before the last state election, on most of those remain silent: “Asian migrants taking our jobs.” That’s what the Labor party wreaks of. She’s a great Australian who deserves to be in this house [which is more than I can say for the member for Issacs].” Mark Dreyfus to Scott Morrison: “Yesterday the PM specifically referred to the media statement released by the member for Chisholm. Is the report by journalist Sam Maiden correct that the PM’s office prepared that statement? What steps did the PM or his office take to verify the information contained in the statement?” Morrison: “I have the statement. I’m happy to table the statement for the benefit of the House as I indicated I would do earlier today when I addressed the press. “This is a statement made by the member for Chisholm.” Angus Taylor, who can’t answer questions on the details and impacts on Australia’s ACTUAL emissions reduction policy, is attacking Labor for not having answers on the details and impacts of a policy which is not being enacted. Mark Butler has a follow up question for David Littleproud: My question is to the minister for drought and various other things. And I refer to the minister’s earlier answer. And also to an article in the Guardian in which the minister responded to written questions about whether or not there was a link between human activity and climate change and he responded that he was not convinced about that. Does he still hold that view? Littleproud: I thank the honourable member for his question. With respect to my response: I accept the science. I’m just a poor humble bloke with a year 12 education but I’m prepared to accept, prepared to accept what our scientists are telling us. As simple as that.” A “poor, humble bloke” who just happens to be helping to shape our climate change response. That new planet is looking better every minute. And here is the exchange he says he was interrupted in. David Speers: You say the climate is changing and that is certainly true. The question is: is this manmade climate change? David Littleproud: I have no idea, but does it really matter? DS: Sorry, you have no idea whether ... DL: I am not a scientist. I haven’t made an opinion one way or the other, but I don’t think it really matters. DS: Sorry, I just want to be really clear on this. You are not sure whether manmade climate change is real? DL: I am going to be honest with you. I don’t have an opinion, but I don’t think it really matters. I think these extremes from both sides have taken away the maturity of debate we should have about keeping, simply, a clean environment and making sure we give our people the tools they [need to address it]. Just on that answer from David Littleproud there, Paul Karp’s article which was followed up by David Speers, leading to that “interrupted exchange” was based on an emailed question to Littleproud’s office. Here was the emailed question sent to Littleproud: Q: Parts of Queensland that are not expected to burn are now burning. The overall fire danger index has increased for most of southern Australia over the past 40 years and the bushfire and natural hazards cooperative research centre says the trend is expected to continue. It says the frequency of really bad fire days like those on Ash Wednesday or Black Saturday will increase. It says we need to prepare for that. Given that expert advice, why step around the human contribution to climate change as the minister did yesterday on the ABC (by arguing whether climate change is manmade or not “is irrelevant”)? And here is the emailed answer: “I don’t know if climate change is manmade. “I’m about practical outcomes. Whether that’s about having a cleaner environment or giving farmers and emergency services the right tools to adapt. “I am responsible for making sure we have the tools we need to adapt to a changing climate.” Justine Elliot to David Littleproud: The minister was asked, “Just to be clear on this, you’re not sure manmade climate change is real?” The minister responded, “I’m not.” The Washington Post leads with the headline Australia’s natural disaster minister doubts manmade climate change is real. Does the minister still doubt the science? Littleproud: Let me make this clear. I accept the science ... (the Labor side of the House arcs up). ... I thank the member for her question. Let me make it clear. I accept the science on manmade impact on climate change. Always have. The interview that was taking place was interrupted by a division. And I wasn’t able to finish my response. Let me make it clear: I have a track record with respect to climate change. The future fund, the drought future fund, the $5bn future fund that will be paid, part of that $100m dividend has a response around climate adaptation for our farmers, equipping our farmers with the tools to be able to adapt to a changing clime. That is what my record is. My record in relation to the budget last year was to get a stewardship fund, a $34m project that will see our farmers rewarded for the stewardship of our land, protecting their environment. This is a debate about protecting our environment, having cleaner air. I believe in it. I’ve led it.” It’s another question to Michael McCormack, from his new best mate, Joel Fitzgibbon, because politics in 2019 means hugging in front of the cameras when a 2GB radio host tells you to, apparently: “I refer him to the answer he gave yesterday with respect to the terrible drought impacting upon our farmers and our rural communities. In six years the government has appointed a drought coordinator, a drought taskforce, and the member for New England as the drought envoy. Deputy PM, why hasn’t the government ever made any of these reports available to the parliament? McCormack: Mr Speaker, reports are one thing. Getting on the ground and doing the real work, the real work that regional Australia wants and expects and deserves is another thing. We have been very responsible, as a government, to help our regional communities through this drought.” He continues with more buzzwords. Anthony Albanese asks him to stick to the question’s relevancy. McCormack: Indeed, Mr Speaker, they have reported to government and government has acted accordingly to their advice and that has been important, and I also commend the member for New England for his role as the drought envoy. Indeed, we cannot make it rain. If we could we would have. These are desperate times for farmers throughout Queensland, farmers throughout New South Wales. Indeed in the member for Parkes’ electorate they have destocked. There are farming communities on their knees. He is working hard, as we all are. I appreciate parts of your electorate are not affected by this drought as much as ours but we are working very, very hard. Whether it’s Victoria, South Australia. That’s why we’ve provided a million dollars to 110 councils throughout the drought-affected community to keep employment generating in their towns. To keep money in their towns. We can, as I said, and we must and will do more to help those drought communities. And I know the farm household assistance has provided valuable assistance to those farming families and getting rural financial councillors around the table to talk to farming families.” Fitzgibbon asks him to table those reports he referred to, but he doesn’t have to. Josh Frydenberg takes a lickspittle where he again refers to Wayne Swan as “Chairman Swan” and siggggghh. |