The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. John Hog g) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.
That—
(a) the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate today, from 10 am to 11 am, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013; and
(b) the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today.
That the division be deferred until 12.30.
That government business orders of the day Nos 2 to 10, relating to the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and eight related bills, may be taken together for their remaining stages.
The weather bureau is normally conservative—
but Bureau of Meteorology climate expert Neil Bennett said the data was staring climate change sceptics “in the face”.
It’s climate change. It’s warming. It’s staring you in the face …
Removing this policy suite for the sake of a slight reduction in utilities costs in one financial year is reckless and irresponsible.
If governments are serious in their fight against climate change, the core message of this reform must be that the cost of CO2 emissions will gradually increase, creating a strong economic incentive to reduce the carbon entanglement and to shift towards a zero carbon trajectory.
A central feature of such an approach is placing a price on carbon.
The carbon pricing mechanism currently in place is an economically sound basis for climate change mitigation policy in Australia. Repealing Australia's Clean Energy Legislation and related bills is undesirable if a lasting policy framework for greenhouse gas emissions reductions is to be established, and if emissions reductions are to be achieved cost effectively.
If emissions reductions are to be achieved without carbon pricing, then regulatory and subsidy approaches will need to play a larger role. These are generally more costly and less effective in creating incentives for long-term investment in low-carbon options by Australia's businesses. Repeal will exacerbate policy uncertainty, with adverse effects on investment.
… an emissions trading scheme is by far the most cost effective way for Australia to contribute to global efforts to mitigate climate change.
… the best assistance the government and the opposition—
can provide is the removal of the carbon tax, which has cost this industry hundreds of millions of dollars.
To that end, I just say we applaud the government's position on this.
While the Carbon Tax has only been in effect for just over 15 months, it has impacted business and in particular small business. The South Australian economy has, according to preliminary estimates, contracted over the past 12 months and the Carbon Tax is putting further constraints on an already struggling economy which has a significant manufacturing component. South Australian small business has also faced the most rapid increases in energy prices across Australia in recent years and the Carbon Tax is an avoidable component of these costs.
That is not to say South Australia shouldn't do its fair share to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, South Australia reached its 20% renewable energy target back in June 2011, well before the introduction of the Carbon Tax. This furthers the argument that Australia can and will meet its obligations to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions without a Carbon Tax.
South Australian business and in particular small businesses have had to absorb significant energy price rises since 2008 with electricity costs alone rising approximately 80% of this period. Repealing the Carbon Tax is one step towards easing the rise in the cost of electricity to reduce the cost pressures on our businesses.
The carbon pricing mechanism currently in place is an economically sound basis for climate change mitigation policy in Australia. Repealing Australia’s Clean Energy Legislation and related bills is undesirable if a lasting policy framework for greenhouse gas emissions reductions is to be established, and if emissions reductions are to be achieved cost effectively. If emissions reductions are to be achieved without carbon pricing, then regulatory and subsidy approaches will need to play a larger role. These are generally more costly and less effective in creating incentives for long-term investment in low-carbon options by Australia’s businesses. Repeal will exacerbate policy uncertainty, with adverse effects on investment.
Nations are implementing emissions reductions policies that make sense for their circumstances.
It is our view that an emissions trading scheme with a cap makes sense for Australia's circumstances. That is because it is in the interest of Australian companies to be able to contribute to emissions reductions at least cost while reducing their own emissions from domestic plant and equipment over time, and in a time frame that makes sense to them.
Thanks to this bill, household electricity bills will be $200 lower next financial year without the carbon tax. Household gas bills will be $70 lower next financial year without the carbon tax.
Off-grid mining operations in Australia tend to have electricity supplied either through diesel generation or through gas pipelines. At the diesel-supplied sites, ARENA estimates costs of around $200/MWh to $500/MWh, while at the pipeline-supplied sites around $100/MWh.
"With over one hundred mine sites chewing 700 MW diesel a year, that’s a potential $2 billion market in WA alone,"
… … …
"The metric is that every 1 MW of solar would save almost 500 000 litres of diesel."
This inefficient tax needs to be repealed to put Australia’s accommodation industry back on a more level playing field with international competitors…Profit reductions of up to 12 per cent are attributed to the increased cost related to the carbon tax.
Following the September 13 election the Abbott government was given a clear mandate to remove the carbon tax. We ask that the Senate promptly passes the bills to remove the carbon tax as it is in our national interest that businesses have certainty and policy clarity.
…agricultural businesses are primarily cost takers and consequently suffer the impost of any cost imposed through the supply chain.
The climate change argument is absolute crap…
We are already seeing the social, economic and environmental consequences of a changing climate. Many of the risks scientists warned us about in the past are now happening…Three years into the Critical Decade it is clear: substantial progress is being made globally to reduce emissions.
A Fairfax Media survey of 35 prominent university and business economists found only two believed direct action was the better way to limit Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Thirty, or 86 per cent, favoured the existing carbon price scheme.
…surprised that any economists would opt for direct action, under which the government will pay for emissions cuts by business and farmers from a budget worth $2.88 billion over four years'.
…any economist who did not opt for emissions trading 'should hand his degree back'.
The recent report by the Productivity Commission which looked at more than 1,000 different carbon policies across nine countries concluded unequivocally that market based interventions achieve reductions in carbon emissions at lower cost than interventions based on direct action.
Repealing the Clean Energy Future package is irresponsible policy making. Repeal:
We can find no evidence that the government’s Direct Action policy is capable of achieving such a target.
Achieving the scale of emissions reductions to avoid dangerous climate change will require a range of institutional responses. All such policy decisions should be informed by the best information from relevant experts, including scientists and economists.
The Wentworth Group accepts the advice of economic experts, including the Australian Productivity Commission, that an emissions trading scheme is by far the most cost effective way for Australia to contribute to global efforts to mitigate climate change.
The Grattan Institute in evidence before the Committee highlighted how Direct Action can have no longevity as a policy without further significant budget appropriations.
My understanding from every conversation I have had with the senior representatives of the government is that direct action has been targeted directly to achieve the five per cent target by 2020; that is shorthand, obviously. Many have criticised whether it might even do that. But, just focusing on your question, there is fundamentally no reason why the Emissions Reduction Fund, which is the centrepiece of direct action, could not be expanded. But because it is funded on budget, which is by the very nature of the instrument different from an emissions trading scheme or a renewable energy target, it would require additional budget appropriations in future times to be able to achieve that outcome.
In its submission, ACOSS highlighted the increased network expenditure as a factor that would impact any reductions in electricity bills:
Based on currently available evidence, it remains unclear whether repealing the carbon tax will lead to a significant decrease in household living costs. ACOSS has been advocating for low income energy consumers in energy market reform processes for the past seven years. The drivers of energy price rises are much broader and more complex than the introduction of the carbon price alone including, for example, increased network expenditure.
If you want to put a price on carbon, why not just do it with a simple tax …
Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more …
The Senate divided. [12:35]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
The Senate divided. [12:39]
We took to the election a commitment to terminate the carbon tax, as it happens on the same date that Tony Abbott intends to terminate the carbon tax on the 1st of July next year. But we also took a very strong commitment that in place of the carbon tax we would put an emissions trading scheme, a scheme that has a legal limit on carbon pollution and then lets business work out the cheapest and most effective way to operate.
It's a market, a so-called market, in the non-delivery of an invisible substance to no one.
Abbott's comments, parroted or not, suggest firstly that this Rhodes scholar who studied for an economics degree does not understand financial markets. They are full of commodities traded in their trillions but never actually delivered, be they invisible substances such as natural gas, or very visible products such as cattle and pigs.
The emissions reduction targets of both sides—
are the same. Both accept that Australia must contribute to the long-term objective of keeping global average temperature increases to less than 2 degrees.
The debate should now be which policy is likely to achieve the target most efficiently and which prepares Australia for the long haul of addressing the climate change challenge.
… become a very expensive charge on the budget in the years ahead.
… a carbon price has to be the centrepiece of any policy on climate change. A price on carbon acts in more subtle ways than any regulator will be able to, encouraging a switch away from coal and towards … renewables, encouraging energy efficiency in every choice we make, and in the last resort, encouraging us to do without products, services and activities where the energy cost is just too high.
… the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion "climate change is crap" or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, its cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world.
Sure, but that's not really relevant at the moment. We have agreed to get a 5 per cent emissions reduction target.
… took a unanimous decision to have an extensive cost-benefit analysis done that was due to report back to the forum in June this year and it was premature to have the website live until this was completed.
I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water.
I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water.
"Where it got to by the end of 2013 was the number of folks coming by boat was overwhelming the whole (Australian) refugee intake," he said.
That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Assistant Treasurer (Senator Sinodinos) to questions without notice asked by Senators Wong and Carr today relating to Australian Water Holdings Pty Ltd.
I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water.
… the cost of being in public life is, where possible, to make full and frank disclosure. I am disappointed that it took a journalist to remind me of these directorships on this occasion.
… I was shocked and disappointed to learn that a company whose mission I believed in and was passionate about was financially linked to the Obeid family.
I played no role in the awarding of the January 2012 contract to AWH by Sydney Water. I was by then in the Senate and Mr Michael Costa, who succeeded me as chairman, was responsible for securing that agreement. I understand from public statements by New South Wales government ministers that this process was conducted at arm's length between the two parties to the contract, AWH and Sydney Water.
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Minister for Social Services (Senator Fifield) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ludlam today relating to homelessness.
That general business order of the day no. 9 (Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2013) be considered on Thursday, 6 March 2014 under the temporary order relating to the consideration of private senators' bills.
That the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Regaining Control Over Australia's Protection Obligations) Bill 2013 be extended to 18 March 2014
That the Senate acknowledges that:
(a) underage and forced marriage is a totally unacceptable illegal practice and will not be tolerated in Australia under any circumstances;
(b) the Australian Government is deeply concerned by this illegal practice and is keen to work jointly with state and territory governments on tackling this issue;
(c) under the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961, it is an offence to solemnise a marriage where one or both parties is not of marriageable age;
(d) it is also an offence to go through a form of ceremony of marriage with a person who is not of marriageable age;
(e) under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, it is also an offence to force a person into marriage without their full and free consent through coercion, threat or deception;
(f) the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Slavery, Slavery-like Conditions and People Trafficking) Act 2013 has strengthened Australia's response to slavery, slavery-like practices and human trafficking, including by criminalising forced marriage; and
(g) the Government provides support to victims of forced marriage through the Support for Trafficked People Program, which provide victims access to accommodation, financial support, counselling, medical treatment, legal and migration advice and interpreter services.
That the Senate—
(a) notes that:
(i) poor kidney health continues to be a serious problem for Aboriginal people in Central Australia with an alarming growth in the need for dialysis both now and in the future,
(ii) the release of a report by the Western Desert Nganampa Walytja Palyantjaku Tjutaku Aboriginal Corporation and EY into Service Delivery Model of remote dialysis in Central Australia, and
(iii) this report finds That the Western Desert Dialysis model of care:
(A) offers a unique combination of services and approach to patient care and community engagement that has allowed for significant success particularly in terms of patient participation,
(B) is cost effective,
(C) encourages higher patient participation rate,
(D) creates better clinical outcomes,
(E) offers higher levels of clinical safety, and
(F) supports people to be able to remain on country, which means that there is a greater prospect of children accessing education, adults contributing economically and communities remaining safe and stable; and
(b) calls on the Government to ensure that:
(i) the $10 million earmarked by the previous government for renal services is urgently spent on improving central desert infrastructure, and
(ii) a community approach to renal services is at the heart of any renal treatment strategy.
That there be laid on the table by the Attorney General, no later than 2 pm on 6 March 2014, evidence to substantiate the Attorney General's claim to the Senate on 11 February 2014 that former National Security Agency contractor Mr Edward Snowden 'has put Australian lives at risk'.
What work has been undertaken on the impact on Australia's national security of the revelations of the whistleblower Edward Snowden—in particular, on whether his revelations have placed Australian lives in danger?
… … …
What I am particularly interested in is whether you can identify a single individual whose life has been placed in danger.
… … …
… I just wonder what particular intelligence you have to hand to contradict that?
You asked me if I am aware of particular cases. The answer to your question is yes, on the basis of the intelligence briefings I receive.
Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:
The failure of the Abbott Government to be accountable and transparent.
Ministers are required to provide an honest and comprehensive account—
of their exercise of public office, and of the activities of the agencies within their portfolios, in response to any reasonable and bona fide enquiry by a member of the Parliament or a Parliamentary Committee.
Ministers are expected to be honest in the conduct of public office and take all reasonable steps to ensure that they do not mislead the public or the Parliament.
Divest themselves, or relinquish control, of interests in any private company or business and/or direct interest in any public company involved in the area of their Ministers’ portfolio responsibilities.
There is no connection whatsoever between my chief of staff and the company Australian Public Affairs.
…the forum took a unanimous decision to have an extensive cost-benefit analysis done that was due to report back to the forum in June this year. It was premature to have the website live until this report was completed.
… that Ministers divest themselves of investments and other interests in any public or private company or business …
… arrangements are consistent with the standards of ministerial office.
There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. but at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You have to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.
I can confirm that there are only 39.7 full-time equivalent staff employed in that area of my department.
Sure. While I have not, as a norm, and would not offer comment as to advice I provide to government ministers of the day, a range of officials and I have discussed this question and we are very appreciative of the opportunity to provide regular periodic briefings to the media, the reason being that there is an absolute respect for the need for the Australian people to be aware of what is occurring.
But, there's also a balance that is struck operationally to ensure the protection of the conduct of current and anticipated activity operationally which might otherwise message to people smugglers how we intend to conduct our business. And so, for that reason, a periodic and appropriate routine to media briefings is something I very much support.
That committee documents be printed in accordance with the usual practice.
That—
(a) the time for the presentation of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into a public interest immunity claim be extended to 6 March 2014;
(b) the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on its inquiries into the effect on Australian ginger growers of importing fresh ginger from Fiji, the effect on Australian pineapple growers of importing fresh pineapple from Malaysia, and the proposed importation of potatoes from New Zealand be extended to 31 March 2014; and
(c) the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into care and management of younger and older Australians living with dementia and behavioural and psychiatric symptoms of dementia be extended to 19 March 2014.
That consideration of those documents be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day.
Responses to Senate resolutions:
Ambassador of the Kingdom of Cambodia (Chum Sounry) – Cambodia (agreed to 13 February 2014)
Minister for the Environment (Mr Hunt) – Great Barrier Reef (agreed to 12 February 2014)
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the document.
That the Senate take note of the report.
HSU to insert motion re committee membership here.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
PRIMARY INDUSTRIES (EXCISE) LEVIES AMENDMENT (DAIRY PRODUCE) BILL 2014
Australia's dairy farmers lead the world in producing efficient, sustainable, and quality produce to meet domestic and international demand. In the 2012/13 financial year, the Australian dairy industry produced 9.2 billion litres of milk for domestic use. The dairy industry overall represents a $13 billion farm, manufacturing and export industry, with export earnings in 2012/13 of $2.76 billion. Maintaining the health of Australia's dairy herd is vital to the industry and the nation.
The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 provides for the collection of levies that are used to fund initiatives that will increase productivity and sustainability of industry. Primary industries levies enable relevant industries to pool effort and resources to effectively manage priority issues. These initiatives include research and development, marketing and promotion and plant and animal health programs.
The levy system enables industries to remain highly competitive in world markets. The Australian Animal Health Council levy on dairy produce under the Act was introduced to provide funding for animal health programs carried out by Animal Health Australia. The funding also provides for the dairy industry's annual membership rates to Animal Health Australia. For the dairy industry, the levy is payable by producers who deliver or supply dairy produce for the manufacturing of dairy produce, such as whole milk or whole milk products.
The amount paid by producers is based on the milk fat and protein content.
Australian Dairy Farmers Limited, the industry's national representative body, has requested the preparation and introduction of this Bill into parliament. The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014 will enable the dairy industry to continue to meet its obligations in relation to its Animal Health Australia annual membership and other animal health and welfare initiatives. Australian Dairy Farmers Limited is also party to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. This Bill will allow the dairy industry to meet its obligations as a signatory to this agreement.
The Bill amends the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Act 1999 by increasing the maximum rate of the Australian Animal Health Council levies on dairy produce. The maximum rates will increase from 0.058 to 0.145 of a cent per kilogram of milk fat and from 0.13850 to 0.34625 of a cent per kilogram of milk protein. The increases to the milk fat and protein levy maximum rates will enable application for future increases to the operative levies provided for under the Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Regulations 1999, if required. The current operative rates, which were set in 1999, are at the maximum level allowable under the Act.
While the proposed maximum rate increase is significant, the Bill will not increase the actual levy paid by industry members. It should be noted that any increase to the operative rate requires a case to be put by industry to government, demonstrating widespread industry consultation and strong support as set out in the Australian Government's Levy Principles and Guidelines.
The Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment (Dairy Produce) Bill 2014 is important to ensure Australian dairy farmers are able to be partners in the biosecurity system and maintain the health of Australia's dairy herd.
That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.
That this bill be now read a second time.
This Bill repeals the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act (No. 2) 2009 ('Tax Bonus Act') to ensure that the Commissioner of Taxation does not make any further tax bonus payments, which are more commonly known as the '$900 stimulus cheques'.
The Government made a commitment to end this waste during the 2013 Federal Election, and this repeal Bill delivers on that commitment.
Tax bonuses were paid to Australian residents who paid tax in the 2007-08 income year and who met certain income tests.
The payments were designed to provide stimulus to the Australian economy at the height of the Global Financial Crisis ('GFC').
Eligible taxpayers received $900 where their taxable income was up to $80,000; $600 where their taxable income was over
$80,000 but less than $90,000; or $250 where their taxable income was over $90,000 but less than $100,000.
Most payments were made in 2009, but a number of payments have continued to be made because of either the late banking of cheques, or the issuing of an amended assessment for the 2007-08 income year.
In fact more than 480,000 payments totalling more than $400 million were made over the financial years following the original payment of stimulus cheques between July 2009 and the present, when we are now some four and a half years on from the GFC.
This includes the fact that last financial year (the 2012-13 financial year) in which more than 15,000 cheques were issued totalling around $13 million of borrowed money.
If it wasn't bad enough that the Government was borrowing money to pay for $900 stimulus cheques four years on after the height of the Global Financial Crisis, it is worse that these stimulus payments continue to be sent to taxpayers living overseas.
Since its introduction, more than 16,000 stimulus payments have been sent directly to taxpayers living overseas, totalling around $14 million of borrowed money, all supposedly to provide stimulus to the domestic Australian economy.
Over 1,000 of these stimulus payments worth nearly $1 million have walked out the door in the four years since July 2009.
Worse still is the fact that stimulus cheques have been, and are still being made out to those who are deceased.
Since the introduction of the stimulus cheques more than 21,000 payments have been made to deceased taxpayers, totalling more than $18 million of borrowed taxpayer funds.
Of these 21,000 stimulus payments which have been made to the deceased, over 2,000 of these payments have gone out the door since July 2009.
This includes the payment of 40 stimulus cheques to deceased individuals so far this financial year.
The total amount of borrowed Government money spent on stimulus payments to date is estimated to be around $7.7 billion.
At the time of introduction of the original legislation in 2009, the Government opposed the entire economic stimulus package, including payments to be authorised by the Tax Bonus Act, on
the grounds that the package was poorly targeted, ineffective in supporting employment, and unaffordable.
Given that stimulus to the economy is no longer required and time has moved on since the GFC, the Government considers that further payments are not warranted.
This represents an opportunity to stop further government waste and is a step towards more prudent Budget management.
The ATO has ceased issuing cheques in most circumstances, except when it has been requested by the taxpayer.
Therefore, to ensure that further unnecessary tax bonus payments are not be made by the ATO, this bill repeals the Tax Bonus Act.
We can no longer afford to be borrowing money to pay for this type of spending.
In fact Government spending has never returned to levels prior to that of the Global Financial Crisis. In the 2008-09 financial year alone, real Government spending grew by more than 12%.
The Government is now spending over $100 billion a year more than the final year of the Howard Government.
That is why this Government is proceeding with a Commission of Audit which has been tasked to assess the role and scope of Government, as well as ensuring taxpayers' money is spent wisely and in an efficient manner.
This Bill is a step in the right direction when it comes to ending waste in Government.
To anyone who continues to deny the reality that is climate change, I dare you to get off your ivory tower and away from the comfort of your armchair. I dare you to go to the islands of the Pacific, the islands of the Caribbean and the islands of the Indian ocean and see the impacts of rising sea levels; to the mountainous regions of the Himalayas and the Andes to see communities confronting glacial floods, to the Arctic where communities grapple with the fast dwindling polar ice caps …
At the end of the motion, add:
"but the Senate:
(a) rejects this bill and the related bills;
(b) recognises that:
(i) the world is on track for 4 degrees of warming; and
(ii) warming of less than 1 degree is already intensifying extreme weather events in Australia and around the world with enormous costs to life and property;
(c) calls on the government to:
(i) protect the Australian people and environment from climate change by approving no new coal mines or extensions of existing mines, or new coal export terminals; and
(ii) adopt a trajectory of 40‑60% below 2000 levels by 2030 and net carbon zero by 2050 emissions reduction target in global negotiations for a 2015 treaty."
The Government has decided to terminate the carbon tax to help cost-of-living pressures for families and to reduce costs for small business …
It is important that customers enjoy the lower retail electricity prices that would flow from such a move as early as possible.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.
… … …
Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.
… … …
Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system.
We embrace the philosophy of sustainable development — we reject the false dichotomy of jobs versus the environment. We can have both, at the same time pursuing strategies of ecologically responsible development which improves our standards of living while promoting responsible, conservation policies which improve our quality of life.
We will work with all Australians to achieve these goals and with the States, the conservation movement, industry, scientists and all concerned citizens.
We seek a co-operative, federalist approach to the solution of environmental problems but we will never resile from a willingness to act in the genuine national interest wherever that is required.
First, we are convinced by the science of climate change. Second, we have lived long enough on our land—over 35 years—to experience what we would argue are increasingly severe weather events that we believe are the result of climate change. Third, when our children were young we took them to the Great Barrier Reef. We snorkelled and dived in pristine waters surrounding reefs vibrant with multi-coloured coral and fish. Years later my husband and I returned to celebrate our 50th wedding anniversary and were devastated to see the state of the reefs we visited. They were, in reality and metaphorically, a pale imitation of the stunning World Heritage reef we had previously seen. Fourth, we believe climate change has been brought about by human intervention and that we should all contribute within our own capacities to intervention designed to reverse the change. We think we have already contributed significantly to intervention strategies in our own lives. Now, it seems, the coalition's direct action plan is asking us to pay again. Yet we wonder: when and how do the emitters pay?
One of the most significant multi-day heatwaves on record affected south-east Australia over the period 13 to 18 January 2014…While peak temperatures mostly fell short of those observed in 2009 and 1939, extreme heat persisted for a longer period than it did in those heatwaves over some areas, particularly near coastal regions of Victoria and South Australia (including Melbourne and Adelaide).
…implement a strong price on greenhouse gas pollution across the economy, which would also help to reduce emissions [and] foster the wave of low-carbon technological development and innovation that will drive economic growth and avoid the enormous risks of unmanaged climate change.
… the best assistance the government and the Opposition can provide—
is the removal of the carbon tax, which has cost this industry hundreds of millions of dollars …
The Carbon Tax is … taking over from common sense and … our global competitors are celebrating … as Australia shoots itself in the foot …
… even if dire predictions are right and average temperatures around the globe rise by four degrees over the century, it is still not the ‘great moral challenge’ of our time …
… we and many of our members believe that ETS—that market mechanism—gives them choices and flexibility in a different way than a direct action plan, which is, effectively, bidding for money to support specific projects.
… our membership is wholly behind an emissions trading scheme and the policy certainty that would bring …
To me it is really simple. I now have a grand daughter, just eighteen months old, and I nor anyone else have the right to jeopardize her future. My granddaughter will need a lot of things, but most of all she will need clean air, clean water, clean soil. A biosphere that is habitable, that's what she needs! We must provide this!
I was one of the sixty thousand people that marched for Climate Action (on 17th November). I want my baby grand children to grow up and be able to enjoy fresh drinking water, to be able to see the Great Barrier Reef and all the wonderful and diverse marine life within those waters, to have the same quality of life that I had as a child.
I am rallying on behalf of the future generations, that's the least I can do.
As stewards of this land, we must take care to maintain it in as good a condition as we possibly can.
We should aim higher toward higher clean energy initiatives, it is our duty as human beings.
… the best assistance the government and the Opposition—
can provide is the removal of the carbon tax, which has cost this industry hundreds of millions of dollars.
Let's not forget it was the Opposition—
that first proposed an emissions trading scheme when we were in government.
The idea that somehow the Liberal Party is opposed to an emissions trading scheme is quite frankly ludicrous.
Tax payers, through the 'Direct Action' model, should not be footing a bill while corporations make profits when the markets will drive beneficial, profitable change, if only government policy would guide the market to ensure self-interest is considered 'on the whole' over a longer time frame than the next five minutes. Surely that is the role of government on matters of human survival?
As a teacher for exactly 50 years, I have a duty, on behalf of the thousands of children and adults whose lives I have influenced in classrooms, to speak up on behalf of the children of tomorrow. I cannot understand why so many members of parliament, so many with children, would so blatantly assault the future with pseudoscience and naive economic jargon.
The capital of Western Australia, where some 1.8 of the state’s two million residents live, left this New Yorker mesmerized: Could a city really be so easy, breezy, green and pristine—so positively livable? I’d thought Williamsburg was hipster heaven; it pales beside Perth.
A state investment program pours millions into new infrastructure and big projects, including a 15,500-seat futuristic arena that opened in 2012; a $750 million airport terminal is also now in the works. Australians once joked that “WA” stood not for “Western Australia” but “wait awhile”—a jab at the laid-back west-coast lifestyle, not as up-to-the-minute as Melbourne or Sydney—but that now has a new connotation: If you think Perth is getting trendy, wait till you see what it’s becoming.
That Flanders Battlefield is the limit, Em. Miles and miles of shell holes and what were once villages. In some places, but for the signs, you wouldn't know a village had been there at all.
And the mud. I have gone down to the waist in it, and at times had to struggle to get out. The night is the time when you can't see a thing in front of you and, of course, most of the work near the front line is done at night. You can't move about in daylight.
In these back areas, Fritz bombs the place every night that the weather permits, and a bomb dropping hundreds of yards away shakes the ground like an earthquake.
See some good scrapes in the air occasionally. Just before we left, a Fritz plane dived straight down out of the clouds at one of our captive balloons. He didn't get it—but the two men in the balloon couldn't get out quick enough (by parachute of course) and they got down all right.
The last few weeks we left Ypres and came down just in front of Messines, what they called a quiet front but we had casualties every night.
Joves, I've been lucky—one Sunday evening going in, the man in front and the man behind me was knocked down, and at times pieces of shell came very close—some spent pieces have hit my tin hat but I never got a scratch.
At Messines we had the first real taste of winter—heavy frost and snow—I felt the cold pretty severely. The only relieving features are that the shell holes and mud become frozen hard.
Had it pretty quiet coming across the channel in the good ship "St Patrick". Got into Dover in the dark and had several hours in the train.
Am getting along slowly, but nothing much can be done except complete rest. I expect my next move will be to a convalescent hospital.
I'm nearly OK again, and the doctor says a fortnight out in the country will fix me up. That means I'll be leaving here in a day or so for London where I'll get a ticket to Dublin and county Cork—
Enjoyed the trip down through Tipperary and Limerick and saw the peat boys and ate lots of cakes. We changed train at Fermoy and arrived at Mitchelstown on time at 1.24 p.m. Got outside the station where a young fellow came up and asked if we were looking for Mrs Kent, who was his aunt. His name was Joe Twomey and—of course—some relation to me, as Mrs Kent's father was Gran's brother. I also met the O'Briens, Caseys, Hennessys, Quinlans and Gearys and so on—who were all cousins of some sort.
Food is very plentiful over there, and—indeed—there doesn't seem to be a shortage of anything. The real butter, eggs and bacon were altogether too much for me and, of course, meeting all the relations was grand—I had no idea there were so many there.
The Irish Sea was very quiet as we returned to Holyhead in Wales, and I didn't see anyone crook at all.
About half way across we heard guns firing behind us. I didn't like the noise at all, but we couldn't see anything. We were escorted by a couple of destroyers and a submarine, and reached Holyhead about midday.
On landing I got on the London express, and the ride to Chester—our first stop—was about the prettiest I've ever been on.
It was fairly sunny and the scenery was exquisite, with the Snowden Mountains on one side the sea on the other.
Some of the rugged peaks are grand, and they towered right over the railway. Seems to be all rivers, bays, bridges, and tunnels etc, and some very pretty little towns and fairly big ones too, the names of which I'd never heard.
Places like Bangor, Rhyl and Colwyn Bay which is some place, I tell you.
Then all the little places called Llan this and Pen that. I was sorry when we left Wales behind. Came on through Crewe, Stafford and Rugby and reached Euston, London, about 6.30.
The news is not particularly bright this morning. We are expecting to see every morning and evening where they've pressed the button between Armentieres and Ypres—that's the part on which the eyes of these camps are turned.
Will have to do about three weeks of pretty solid training here, and then sail across the Channel again. It's a bit like soldiering on again here—only three blankets and the hard floor, so I had to come at the old stint of not taking anything off.
We got news of several of the old boys in the Battalion being killed, also that the HQ staff of the Battalion including Laurie Kelly had been gassed—but I don't know if the gassing was bad or not.
There are at least 60 child brides living in south-western Sydney, and many more girls are destined to be forced into under-age marriage, according to the head of a women's health centre.
One woman recently came to her in tears and said her husband, who was still awaiting clearance in the detention centre, threatened to kill her if she learnt English or went out of the house without him.
''This is happening in Australia. We are not in the suburbs of Afghanistan - this is the suburbs of Sydney.''
A mother and father came into her office and proudly spoke of how they had just celebrated the wedding of their daughter in Iraq.