Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Climate Change Bill 2022. I welcome the government's initiative in bringing this bill forward as a priority for this parliament. We need to lock into law Australia's commitment to net zero and a process of accountability on how we will get there. But let's be clear. This is not comprehensive legislation to address climate change and it is certainly not as detailed as the climate change bill that was tabled in the last parliament by myself that enjoyed the support of so many areas of our community. This is a climate targets bill. It is silent on mechanisms to achieve the targets. It is silent on requirements for the government to conduct climate risks, assessments, and table adaptation plans to meet those risks. It does not include a ratchet mechanism or consecutive budgets to set a clear road map to net zero. It heavily relies on the Paris Agreement, which I would argue can be disrupted by geopolitical conflicts, and so could impact that process to net zero.

What this bill does, let's be very clear, is set into law the government's commitment to achieve 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, and I will address the shortcomings of that target in a moment. It sets into law a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. It provides for the minister to report annually to parliament on progress towards those targets, and it provides for the minister to seek advice from the Climate Change Authority more regularly, with a minimum of once every five years. I should say, with respect to the Climate Change Authority, that it needs an overhaul. What we've seen is a loading of the Climate Change Authority with too many people from the fossil fuel industry, rather than climate scientists. We need to make sure that, within that authority, we don't have vested interests pushing a further reliance on gas, rather than scientists focusing on global warming.

There is also provision that the operations of this bill will be reviewed within five years of it passing. The Climate Change (Consequential Amendments Bill) 2022 implements a need to consider climate change in 14 other pieces of legislation across different portfolios. This is incredibly important, because this is where you get down to the detail. I do have an issue. In some circumstances there's a question. Some bills may consider this legislation and the impact of climate, such as the NAIF, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, funding, yet the legislation fails to include the EPBC Act, the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. So I think it will be incredibly important to understand where those consequential amendments are and ensure they are effective. But I welcome the commitment, in the explanatory memorandum of the bill, that the minister will conduct continuous reviews over the next year to identify and incorporate the implications of the climate change bill into additional associated pieces of legislation.

So much has actually been achieved today. The engagement from the minister with the members, including the community metro Independents, if I may describe some of my fellow crossbenchers that way, in trying to move away from the media's obsession with 'teal', has been very welcome, and unprecedented in my experience so far in this parliament. Along with these fellow Independents, we've embraced the opportunity to improve this legislation through collaborative efforts with the government and the minister. We've wholeheartedly engaged in this process and we've been able to insert into the bill some key language from the initial draft that the House is now considering prior to the bill being tabled. Elements inserted reflect concerns that have been raised by our communities and those who have voted to put us here—specifically, that the objects of the bill should reflect that science is the driver for emissions reduction, and the goal of keeping warming to less than two degrees, and ideally to 1.5 degrees, needs to be based on scientific advice. The government has agreed to insert a note in relation to clause 10 of the bill to reflect that 43 per cent is a floor, not a ceiling—that is, it is a minimum ambition—and in relation to the wording in clause 10(6) to clarify that the nationally determined contributions must be more ambitious than the previous indices. We need to make sure we keep progressing. We cannot slip backwards.

The government has agreed to insert greater clarity around ministerial reporting requirements and introduce a new section to the bill which reflects the need for the review of the efficacy of the legislation within five years. I should say, and I welcome, that discussions are continuing with the minister to continue improving some of the elements. I anticipate that further amendments will be moved at consideration in detail to reflect this. I will keep a close eye on the progress of the review of the consequential amendments bill to ensure not only that all necessary associated acts and bodies are captured but also that those added and existing acts considered include language strong enough to drive genuine action. 'May' is not good enough. We need 'must'. We must consider climate impacts of projects.

There are some things missing. What I said at the outset is that this is not quite the full climate change legislation that I feel should be tabled. Some of the areas that have been missed that could be strengthened include a requirement for national risk assessments; a requirement for the government to produce adaptation plans to ensure that we address risk and keep our communities and way of life safe; a requirement for the minister to set emissions budgets regularly to provide individuals, business and industry with the certainty that is needed to drive investment; and a requirement for the minister to produce detailed plans, sector by sector, on how and where emissions reductions are going to be achieved, in particular from energy, transport, industry, agriculture and our built and residential world. There are so many sectors that need to be impacted and that need to progress, and we get stuck all too often on the debate around energy.

Missing in this legislation, importantly, is the need to consider the transition for workers and communities that will be most impacted by the transition, because some traditional industries and jobs will go. So they need a plan, and that plan needs to be a minimum of five years out to have a chance at that transition. We also know that communities are incredibly exposed, and they need to adapt as well. Changing and increasing disasters are making those communities unsafe. Their way of life and their economies: everything comes to a standstill.

Nevertheless, this bill is very important. It is progress towards genuine climate action, which was one of the key drivers for me entering politics in the first place. The major parties did not even recognise in 2019 the need to commit to net zero by 2050. I welcome the shift that occurred during the course of the last parliament. I would say that community voices have been effective in demanding greater action and commitment.

Global warming is the greatest challenge of our time. We've been on notice for over 30 years, clearly, yet we have failed to find the political will to implement the solutions. It's in stark contrast to the way the world mobilised around CFCs and the hole in the ozone layer. We've had this warning on global warming and yet this complete political inability to act. We must not be the generation that had all the facts but failed to act. So many in our communities want to see change. We have an obligation to our planet, to our children and to future generations to do everything within our power to limit global warming.

The Prime Minister and the government are settling for 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030—motivated, I would say, not by science but by politics. So I urge the government to increase its ambition. I accept that the government has heard, in some way, our calls, in the language of saying that it is a floor and not a ceiling. But more needs to be done. We have constant reminders of the need for action: the bushfires of 2019; the multiple flood events this year; the rising sea levels already impacting the islands in the Torres Strait, battering our coastline—particularly the east coast; and the bleaching events of the precious coral at the Great Barrier Reef, with heat waves and temperature records being broken time and time again. We cannot continue using up global carbon budgets. It's a compounding system, and what we do in this decade is incredibly important.

Significant emissions reductions must be achieved this decade. The State of the environment report released last month found that we are in a rapidly changing climate, with unsustainable development and use of resources. The general outlook for our environment is deteriorating. The government made much of that report, but now it needs to act on recommendations that actually give effect to the concerns.

The environmental decline affects the wellbeing of Australians. Changes are already baked into our climate. Immediate action, with innovative management and collaboration, can turn things around, but the government must find the political will to do that. It will have support from communities like mine, like Warringah. We want to see ambition on this because every one degree of warming increases humidity by seven per cent and increases the strength and frequency of storms and floods that ravage and devastate our communities. The International Energy Agency, a body founded for fossil fuel extraction, developed a road map to net zero by 2050 and released it last year. It said that we need to rapidly transition and that there can be no new coal, oil or gas projects approved if we are to achieve a net-zero ambition. I urge the government and the Prime Minister to accept and hear that advice, because the government continues to fall short on this, refusing to stop approving more oil, coal and gas projects.

They argue that these projects are mostly for export and will not impact Australia's emissions reduction targets. But I would say that this is the drug dealer argument: somehow we are not responsible for damage caused by fossil fuel exports down the road. It ignores that the ultimate purpose of the Paris Agreement is to limit warming. Emissions and impact do not recognise or stop at borders. Disasters will not discriminate. We will all be impacted by the choices the government makes. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report showed that current global policy put the world on a course of at least 2.1 degrees of warming by 2100, and possibly as much as 3.9 degrees.

We know that Australia is predicted to warm more than the global average. We should transition rapidly. This shouldn't really be a debate. Our duty has to be to our children and future generations to ensure they have a prosperous economy, businesses and way of life. To all of those who worry about the economic impacts, I say: communities ravaged by floods and bushfires are not economically productive. You do not continue operating businesses. Everything comes to a standstill. The cost is huge. Over the last three years alone, disasters have cost the budget over $10 billion in direct assistance and immeasurable other impacts. We can't even begin to put a real price and real cost on the impacts on peoples lives and the emotions, the stress, the anxiety and the pain caused—and the displacement for communities who don't know if it is viable to remain living where they are.

The frustrating part is also that we are failing to position Australia as a world leader with the new economic opportunities in the clean-energy world. So many in Warringah and around Australia are frustrated that we are being held back from this transition.

This bill will go some way to drive confidence and investment. The global capital pool for investment is over $1.7 trillion per annum and growing. Australia is missing out on that due to policy uncertainty. So the first step of this is to be able to do that. I promised the people of Warringah that I would continue to be a climate leader: to push for greater ambition and to work with the government and to encourage them to be more ambitious. There is a five-step plan that clearly shows a sensible roadmap to net zero. We are talking about reining in cost-of-living, which is big at the moment and is having a huge impact on households. We have no hope of reining in cost-of-living impacts without climate action. Just think: food, fuel and insurance. Climate disasters are the major contributor to cost spikes in all of those sectors. In the last three years, we have seen that just absolutely blowout. So is entirely disingenuous to raise the costs of action against the imperative of why we need to do it.

I welcome this legislation, and I hope that we are going to legislate these targets in this parliament. I urge the government to focus on transforming energy to 80 per cent renewables by 2030. We need to clean up transport, modernise industry and regenerate Australia. We have to stop cutting down trees. It really is that simple. I congratulate and I welcome this legislation, but I urge greater action.

See this speech in context