ADJOURNMENT

Senator McLACHLAN (South Australia) (19:58): In the Murdoch media, there's been recent criticism of the Climate Change Authority which I think is incredibly unfair. I'd like to defend the Climate Change Authority—not that it needs much defending, with its excellent leadership under Mr Matt Kean. The criticism is largely around saying it's Orwellian and trying to suppress debate.

It's doing nothing like that. In fact, it's doing the exact opposite and encouraging debate as we move forward in the incredible transition to a decarbonised economy. Mr Rupert Murdoch gave a speech in, I think, 2007 and said these things: Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats.

We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction. He went on to say: Climate change and energy use are global problems- News Corp is a global company. Our operations affect the environment all over the world.

He goes on to say they had an ambition to become carbon neutral. I think Mr Murdoch may have softened that view over time, but in a pithy article Peter Hannam pointed out that News Corp is still committed to net zero emissions across all three scopes of emissions by the fiscal period of 2050 or earlier. Why is this relevant?

Because the Murdoch press effectively accused the Climate Change Authority, when it committed a supposed sin of releasing an insights paper that talked about climate misinformation and disinformation, of becoming Orwellian, of becoming 'the Ministry of Truth' and using all the tropes that you can find throughout that wonderful novel of Orwell's, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

It just does not make sense, and this hyperbole does not assist us as a community to find social licence with each other to make our economy decarbonised and also to protect nature and defend and arrest the loss of biodiversity. The purpose of this paper is as follows. This paper explains how misinformation affects climate change policy and what it means for the Climate Change Authority's work.

The paper draws on evidence from the findings of the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, independent research, and engagement with misinformation experts in government, academia, industry and the community sector. I was privileged to serve on that committee, under the incredible chairmanship of the former senator Peter Whish-Wilson.

And it was very clear that, if there was going to be any misinformation or disinformation, the fossil fuel industries were well resourced to either defend their position or in fact manipulate or shape the narrative. So I don't understand why the Murdoch press needs to defend companies that are well resourced and can articulate their position for themselves. Nonetheless, they did so.

The Climate Change Authority—here's its purpose—is required by law to give independent expert advice to the government on the targets Australia should include in its next nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. So I don't understand how it could be Orwellian, when it's a public instrumentality that has a web page that produces materials, has no legislative power to censure, and is designed to advise government in an open and transparent way on how it should address and respond to achieving its targets.

The government's targets are not a secret. The government went to the last election with some of these targets and won—formed government, with a handsome majority. How could this possibly be described as Orwellian or as shaping the debate?

In fact, it informs the debate. And I know the Climate Change Authority would welcome debate in the public forum. It's also an organisation that has to be held to account by this chamber and in estimates.

The Senate can hold it to account. We can ask for information on how it made its calculations. Instead of criticising the Climate Change Authority, perhaps we should, as a community, be supporting its work.

For me, it is very much like, as has been suggested, the Reserve Bank. It has to make decisions. It has to form a view.

We don't criticise the Reserve Bank for forming a view on interest rates. That's its job, as it is the job of the Climate Change Authority to form a view on the best pathway forward to reach the targets the government has set transparently ahead of and post the election. But, again, the Murdoch press has to denigrate an institution that I think is instrumental in being transparent in our journey to net zero.

It's clear in these debates that, for some quarters of our community, simply having 'environment' or 'climate' in a title is enough for them to oppose it, rather than engaging in proper debate. I noted the conga line of critics from the usual quarters. The Centre for Independent Studies was also one of them, claiming with the usual outrage that it was suppressing or manipulating debate—I don't know how, given it has its own webpage and can publish its own papers.

There was also a recent article--not necessarily on this point. It was expressed by, I think, the Minerals Council, which said, 'It's clear Australians want more say on reforms'—they always do—but tied it to saying, 'They're tired of a small minority of noisy activists.' What, they're tired of democracy? That's what a democracy is—noisy advocates.

Be noisier. Argue better. For me, I think that, if you put nature at the heart of all decision-making, if you deeply respect the natural world and see it as supporting our life, you can do that in an infrastructure way and an economic way, or you can do that as I do and see nature as an intrinsic benefit to us—we are part of nature, not separate from it—or as a great steward of nature.

Those that claim that they speak for the community and actively avoid talking about pollution from their activities will be shown for what they are: false prophets.