This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2020/feb/24/coalition-reignites-climate-war-over-labors-emissions-policy-politics-live

The article has changed 20 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 5 Version 6
Coalition reignites climate war over Labor's emissions policy – politics live Coalition reignites climate war over Labor's emissions policy – politics live
(32 minutes later)
Government MPs have lashed out at Labor over its emissions target, with arguments in parliament’s corridors. All the days events, liveGovernment MPs have lashed out at Labor over its emissions target, with arguments in parliament’s corridors. All the days events, live
Just a reminder that Pauline Hanson is paid to say things like this on the Nine Network’s Today show:
Don’t just take my word for it - the Today Show also highlighted it in a tweet:
AAP has looked at Barnaby Joyce’s latest brain spurt, so we don’t have to:
Barnaby Joyce is sick of most senators being from capital cities and has a plan to change that.
The Nationals backbencher has introduced a private member’s bill to parliament which would split each state into six regions – like mega-electorates – that each vote for two senators.
“This is something that is so important,” he told the lower house on Monday. “We need for our Senate to have a constituency and to have the capacity to represent a geographic area.”
Joyce said that in most instances, 11-out-of-12 senators came from capital cities. He also pointed out that New York had two senators, while Adelaide had 11.
“We need to make sure that as the seats get bigger and bigger and bigger in the House of Representatives in regional areas, that this is offset by the capacity to get more Senate representation.”
Under the plan – which was seconded by independent MP Bob Katter – no region could be bigger than 30 per cent of the state’s landmass and the capital city would be confined to a single region.
Joyce said this would also help to improve indigenous representation in parliament.
The backbencher, who recently launched a failed bid to reclaim the Nationals leadership, said the proposal would not warrant a change to the Constitution. It was up to the parliament to change how senators were elected.
Senate president Scott Ryan was quick to shoot down Mr Joyce’s idea after he floated it last year.
“The current Senate is actually very reflective of the national vote despite the differences in state populations,” Ryan said. “But this proposal would destroy that.”
Father Frank Brennan, one of the Ruddock review panel members who conducted the inquiry on religious freedom, has had some interesting thoughts on the government’s religious discrimination bill and the way the debate has gone.
Brennan told the Australian Catholic University on Thursday:
“The Morrison government has decided not to pursue the Ruddock recommendation of a clean, lean religious discrimination act. Rather, in response to those who have long advocated a religious freedom act, the Morrison government is attempting to formulate what we might call a Religious Discrimination PLUS Bill which will include some bells and whistles you would not expect to find in a standard piece of anti-discrimination legislation.”
Brennan agreed with the Australian Human Rights Commission that legislating for individual cases - such as Israel Folau and Archbishop Porteous- “is not good legislative practice” and said that he is “not convinced” that the commonwealth overriding Victorian rules requiring doctors to refer patients for abortions is the best way to go.Brennan predicted the bill will not pass, and hopes the states will fix issues with their laws without commonwealth intervention:
“I think there is little prospect of any Religious Discrimination PLUS Bill passing the Senate. When such a bill is ultimately rejected by the Senate, I do hope that our federal politicians will have the good sense to legislate a neat and clean Religious Discrimination Act, and our politicians in the NSW and South Australian parliaments will have the good sense to bring their legislation up to an appropriate standard honouring our commitments and undertakings under the ICCPR.”Brennan noted that the Coalition and Labor had agreed that schools should not be able to discriminate against students on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, but said he “[despaired] at our parliament’s protracted delay and incapacity to deliver on this commitment”.
A friend of the blog has also pointed me in the direction of this handy website, which, with the help of Monash university resources, is helping to track those looking at net zero emissions by 2050
I have just been reminded by a reader of the Montreal protocol, which was signed in the late 1980s and was designed to phase out the chemicals that were harming the ozone layer.
It’s working. Practically the whole world signed up. And guess what? The world hasn’t ended.
The science outlining what was happening to the ozone layer was published in 1973. Less than 15 years later, an international agreement was created and signed.
Imagine having that “debate” now.
At the same time:At the same time:
Just some of those driving the energy policy in this country at the moment, being completely normal humans.Just some of those driving the energy policy in this country at the moment, being completely normal humans.
One of the reasons Barnaby Joyce wants this bill is because he believes the regions don’t receive good enough representation.One of the reasons Barnaby Joyce wants this bill is because he believes the regions don’t receive good enough representation.
The same regions which are represented by his party.The same regions which are represented by his party.
At the UN conference of parties (Cop), Chile’s environment minister Carolina Schmidt laid out the alliance of “silly” countries, cities, businesses and investors who have signed up to “follow the recommendations of science as regards climate change” (as in, working towards net-zero emissions by 2050).At the UN conference of parties (Cop), Chile’s environment minister Carolina Schmidt laid out the alliance of “silly” countries, cities, businesses and investors who have signed up to “follow the recommendations of science as regards climate change” (as in, working towards net-zero emissions by 2050).
There are 73 parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC), 14 regions, 398 cities, 786 businesses and 16 investors.There are 73 parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC), 14 regions, 398 cities, 786 businesses and 16 investors.
So. Far.So. Far.
For the record, the list of countries who have committed to a “silly” zero net emissions target by 2050, include:For the record, the list of countries who have committed to a “silly” zero net emissions target by 2050, include:
Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Beliz, Benin, Cape Verde, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, European Union, Federated Stated of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Grenada, Guyana, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kiribat, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Nauru Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Marshall Islands, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Spain, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu.Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bahamas, Barbados, Belgium, Beliz, Benin, Cape Verde, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Estonia, Ethiopia, European Union, Federated Stated of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, France, Germany, Grenada, Guyana, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Kiribat, Lao PDR, Lebanon, Luxembourg, Maldives, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Namibia, Nauru Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niue, Pakistan, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Portugal, Republic of Marshall Islands, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, South Sudan, Spain, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu.
It’s silly to have a target without a plan.It’s silly to have a target without a plan.
But apparently you can have a “strategy” without a target. Or a plan.But apparently you can have a “strategy” without a target. Or a plan.
This is the level of stupid we have reached today.This is the level of stupid we have reached today.
Compounding that stupid, is the fact we have signed up to the Paris agreement. We keep hearing about how we are meeting our obligations. A big part of the Paris agreement is to work out how to become carbon neutral by the second half of the century.Compounding that stupid, is the fact we have signed up to the Paris agreement. We keep hearing about how we are meeting our obligations. A big part of the Paris agreement is to work out how to become carbon neutral by the second half of the century.
Which is just another way of saying – ZERO NET EMISSIONS BY 2050.Which is just another way of saying – ZERO NET EMISSIONS BY 2050.
And what did Angus Taylor say this morning, in between talking about how silly Labor’s “uncocked” policy was?And what did Angus Taylor say this morning, in between talking about how silly Labor’s “uncocked” policy was?
I swear I have become dumber today just following this “debate”. I have actually lost brain cells.I swear I have become dumber today just following this “debate”. I have actually lost brain cells.
We are literally at “YOUR FACE IS” phase of this debate.We are literally at “YOUR FACE IS” phase of this debate.
*packs bags, moves to Mars**packs bags, moves to Mars*
The bells are ringing, and with it, my ears.The bells are ringing, and with it, my ears.
In the midst of all of this, the government is looking at expanding the powers of the Australian Signals Directorate – a story first broken by Annika Smethurst in 2018 – who not only got a bunch of quite personal denials for her trouble, but now lives with the threat of prosecution over her head, after the AFP raided her home and office.In the midst of all of this, the government is looking at expanding the powers of the Australian Signals Directorate – a story first broken by Annika Smethurst in 2018 – who not only got a bunch of quite personal denials for her trouble, but now lives with the threat of prosecution over her head, after the AFP raided her home and office.
The government wants ASD to be able to spy on Australians, suspected of serious crimes, within Australia. Currently, it can only focus on overseas servers. The moment an investigation reaches Australian shores, it has to stop.The government wants ASD to be able to spy on Australians, suspected of serious crimes, within Australia. Currently, it can only focus on overseas servers. The moment an investigation reaches Australian shores, it has to stop.
The ABC reported last week the government was advancing the proposal, although it is yet to confirm it.The ABC reported last week the government was advancing the proposal, although it is yet to confirm it.
The argument is that Australia’s crime-fighting and intelligence agencies should have the powers they need to follow investigations into child abuse and terrorism in Australia. No one debates that. The problem is, this government has a habit of expanding national security powers without actually laying out how broad those powers are. Everyone wants paedophiles and terrorists stopped. But suddenly, it becomes anyone suspected of a crime that brings more than two to three years imprisonment, if convicted. And then a whole heap of other people are having their personal affairs opened up to spy agencies. You don’t have to be convicted. Just suspected.The argument is that Australia’s crime-fighting and intelligence agencies should have the powers they need to follow investigations into child abuse and terrorism in Australia. No one debates that. The problem is, this government has a habit of expanding national security powers without actually laying out how broad those powers are. Everyone wants paedophiles and terrorists stopped. But suddenly, it becomes anyone suspected of a crime that brings more than two to three years imprisonment, if convicted. And then a whole heap of other people are having their personal affairs opened up to spy agencies. You don’t have to be convicted. Just suspected.
This government has not been shy with the national security brush. There have been 19 tranches of national security legislation since the government came into power.This government has not been shy with the national security brush. There have been 19 tranches of national security legislation since the government came into power.
Do you know what they all do? Chances are, you don’t.Do you know what they all do? Chances are, you don’t.
From AAP:From AAP:
Liberal senator Sarah Henderson has said she believes She Who Should Never Be Named Because She Feeds Off The Outrage should have her Order of Australia award revoked, given her comments following the Camp Hill tragedy.
Samantha Maiden at the New Daily reported the governor general has received complaints about the award, which have been forwarded to the council, with the honour now up for review.
No one knows who nominated her. Or who supported that nomination. And yet, here we are.
The not-actually-a-psychologist has made some pretty abhorrent comments before this. We all know them. And she was still given the honour. It seems almost anything is forgivable in this country, if you claim your right to free speech is under attack. Unless of course, you are standing up for a minority, pointing out an inconvenient truth or trying to point out the facts about climate change.
The government’s big argument against Labor’s zero emissions by 2050 policy, which is something that every single state and territory has taken up, including Liberal governments, and is something the resources industry and farmers are in support of, is that New Zealand has quarantined its agriculture industry from its target.
So suddenly, after years and years of rhetoric over how we don’t need to look to other countries for our policies, including New Zealand, in the wake of its (repeated) offer to take additional refugees from Nauru, New Zealand is the gold standard of policy.
Parliament starts at 10am.
Tellingly, Joel Fitzgibbon is on board with Labor’s plan. Here he is writing for his local paper, the Newcastle Herald over the weekend:
For a reminder on what Labor’s policy is, here is where Katharine Murphy broke the story on Thursday:
No target without a plan, says Angus Taylor, which you would think is actually part of the government’s job – developing plans. Given it is actually in government.
“What we’re not open to, is a target, any target, which has got no plan, is uncocked and unfunded,” he says.
Why would anyone invest if they don’t know what the target is, Sky News asks Taylor.
So does the government have a long-term strategy or a long-term target?
This debate is all happening while the market is actively moving away from thermal coal. BlackRock, one of the world’s largest fund managers, if not the largest, is moving away from coal investments. India has announced it will phase out thermal coal import from the 2023-2024.
The change is coming no matter how much Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack and Angus Taylor shake their fists at clouds.
The bigger question is whether Australia’s workforce is being prepared for the inevitable market change. Based on history, it doesn’t look like it.
Is there a single voter who finds any of this productive? Who wants this? Who thinks, yes, that is what I want in my politicians?
“Ideological path.”
As expected, the government has lost its mind over Labor’s zero emissions by 2050 policy, despite major private interests, including BHP, the Business Council of Australia, as well as the UK conservatives, and practically every single state and territory in Australia already on board.
Angus Taylor says we don’t need targets. Except for the 2030 target. That’s fine. But 2050 – pffft. What the government has is a long-term strategy. See the difference? People will just get on with it, he says. It has to be “technology not taxes which lead the way”, Taylor says. Labor has ruled out a carbon tax.
Stunningly though, Taylor hasn’t been the headline act today, because Barnaby Joyce is feelingly stunningly unleashed, and decided to bring his particular brand of discourse – yelling over people in hallways – to a press conference with Labor’s Joel Fitzgibbon.
Here’s a taster from the Barnaby Joyce school of debate:
It’s not just mercury which is in retrograde – Australia’s political discourse is so backwards on this topic, it’s like watching your neighbours take up the wheel and pretending you’re fine just pushing your rocks around with your back.
Oh, and emissions in Australia dropped by just 0.3% in the year to September last year.
NAILING IT.
We’ll bring you all of the latest meltdowns, as well as everything else – hey, maybe we’ll get some legislation to talk about this fortnight – with Mike Bowers, Katharine Murphy, Paul Karp and Sarah Martin at your service.
I’ve had about a third of a coffee. Blessed be.
Ready?
Let’s get into it.