I want to return to the question before the chair just briefly, which is the Greens’ amendment. I haven’t made a contribution to this, but I asked a couple of questions of the Greens, of Senator Waters and the amendment she moved. Very briefly and quickly the questions were: is there any escape clause, if you like, for Australia if other countries don’t act and reduce their emissions to the proposed 75 per cent? Can we not go through with it or are we locked in? The other question was: why are the Greens expecting a different outcome in Australia than in the UK, who have committed to a 78 per cent reduction by 2035—a very similar target—and are in a complete and utter mess right now, at least in part thanks to that target?
Not only have I not received answers to those questions; the leader of the Greens in the Senate, Senator Waters, had the temerity to stand up and dismiss it and say, ‘We don’t need to answer that, because this is about a government bill.’ She’s too good to answer questions.
I think it’s very important to point out that the Australian Greens are very good at asking for transparency and information from other groups, from the government and from us when we are in government, but when the shoe’s on the other foot and they are moving an amendment and seeking to change our nation’s laws—it’s their proposal, not anyone else’s—they refuse to answer basic questions about their own proposal. If nothing else, that is why we should vote this down, because they are not a responsible political party. This is clearly a stunt from Senator Waters, not a sensible and realistic attempt to change these laws, because she won’t even answer basic questions about her proposals. I give respect: at least the government minister has answered a number of questions in this place through this committee process. But this is a committee of the whole; it’s not a committee just to look after the government. It’s not Senate estimates. It’s a committee of the whole. If you are going to come into the committee of the whole and move amendments, you should be expected to answer questions about the amendments you are moving. If you can’t answer those questions, we certainly should say no to this amendment. That’s what we should do.
I briefly want to take issue also with the many interjections—the remarks might have been in contributions, but at least in interjections—saying, ‘You’re just in the pockets of the fossil fuel companies.’ Apparently we’re all funded by the fossil fuel companies. We all know, don’t we, that there’s no money in renewable energy! No-one makes any money out of renewable energy! It’s all a charitable act! We know all the companies in the renewable energy space, and they’re all doing it out of the goodness of their hearts! They don’t make money, they don’t have dividends, they don’t have shareholders—it’s all just charity! I just want to pay tribute and respect to all of those hardworking Australian investors out there who are building wind turbines and putting up solar farms and don’t expect anything in return! They don’t expect anything! All those people importing solar panels made from Uighur slave labour—they’re good, charitable organisations! I will not stand here and have a word said against them!
