Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 and related bills. This bill is another chapter in the successful environmental policy story. It's a story that starts with scientists realising the impact that ozone-depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons, have on our ozone layer. Scientists around the world were finding these substances were depleting the ozone layer. These scientists also knew that these substances in the Earth's upper atmosphere absorbed ultraviolet B radiation. Too much UVB is linked to skin cancer, genetic damage, immune system suppression and reduced plant productivity. Ozone depletion was presenting as an existential threat to our planet.

When we look back on the story of the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances, you could be forgiven in thinking that it was just accepted by the governments and the community after the establishment of scientific consensus on the subject, but I think we should remember that between the University of California scientists discovering that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer in the 1970s and the establishment of the Montreal Protocol in 1987 there was opposition. DuPont, who I'd like to acknowledge has changed its tune on CFCs since the 1980s, ran a hard campaign against the science on the harm of CFCs. It was a campaign of denial and delay. DuPont took out an advertisement in the New York Times in 1975 saying:

Should reputable evidence show that some fluorocarbons cause a health hazard through depletion of the ozone layer, we are prepared to stop production of the offending compounds.

The reason for this comment? They didn't believe that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer. The chair of DuPont thought that it was science fiction.

As the evidence mounted, the response came to delay action. DuPont created the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy in 1980 to make it appear as though self-regulation was the key, to keep the conversation away from the need for government action. They took cues from the Reagan administration, and environmentalism wasn't a priority, so chemical companies dropped their research into alternatives to CFCs. When the government deprioritised the environment, it sent a signal to markets that they also shouldn't prioritise the environment, whether that be on CFCs or climate change.

But we all know that President Reagan changed his mind, so what happened? The public weren't willing to accept inaction when the potential risks were the end of life on our planet as we knew it. The evidence was clear, after all. In 1985, British scientists discovered a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica. The link between CFCs and ozone depletion and the harm it caused became irrefutable. The President reassessed his position, spoke to experts and led a bipartisan push for international cooperation to phase out CFCs globally.

What came out of this was the first universally accepted treaty on the environment. The Montreal Protocol was signed 17 years after the link between CFCs and ozone depletion was made. Somehow, at the height of the Cold War, prime ministers Margaret Thatcher, Bob Hawke, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan and even Kim Il-sung of North Korea could all agree that we needed to act upon the science. Since 1987, every Prime Minister has continued to support the Montreal Protocol, and Australia has met or exceeded all of its targets under this agreement, because, if we acted early, we could reverse the damage, but we would have to make changes. Industry needed to change. They knew that there would be cost, and this is why some campaigned for inaction.

Consumers also need to change their behaviour. In 1988 Prime Minister Hawke wrote to premiers and chief ministers about the hard task ahead to phase out CFCs, stating that it was important that all practical steps be taken to reduce the emission of ozone-depleting substances. He did this because it was important that we had an effective national strategy on this important environmental issue. The Montreal Protocol sets out targets to reduce the usage of and eventually phase out ozone-depleting substances, with an implementation date of 1 January 1989. Because of the harm of the substances, they had more stringent time lines for the phasing out—for example, HCFCs were seen as a transitional halogenated hydrocarbon and given a longer phase-out time.

There was also an acknowledgement that the phase-out would be easier for some countries than others. I am reminded of Minister Bowen's experience at COP27, where the Egyptian president, Sameh Shoukry, approached Minister Bowen to talk about an agreement on what financing of developing countries would be needed, where funding might come from and what mechanisms such as the World Bank would deliver it. A multilateral fund was established to support developing countries that are party to the Montreal Protocol. This funded things like converting existing manufacturing processes, education, training, access to intellectual properties and new technologies.

Communities must be led and supported by governments that make major policy matters. Whether it's inaction on climate change on the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances, there must always be a transition that supports workers and communities. Transitioning away from ozone-depleting substances is not a matter of set and forget; it must be a process of continual improvement. This bill today is a great example. I note that schedule 1 of the amendment will insert a reference to Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement. There cannot be a conversation about HCFCs without acknowledging that they are also greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide has a global warming potential of one, but reportable HCFCs under the act are as low as 140 times and as high as 12,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Meeting our climate targets will have a dual benefit while we are also phasing out HCFCs. This needs to be acknowledged, and I commend the amendment to the bill for doing so.

I also recognise that this bill overhauls the governance processes that continue to meet our targets. Ensuring financial stability of the ozone protection synthetic gas program means supporting industry in understanding their legislative obligations and better oversight over legislative enforcement. This bill achieves this in simplistic terms by removing caps on the levies of ozone-depleting substances, removing the existing levy on existing equipment that can't be phased out at the moment and also making other, minor amendments to the machinery of the act.

Our original ozone protection legislation is about 33 years old, but successive governments have improved upon it and have brought it to the form which we have discussed today. This has been done in a bipartisan manner, and I would like to acknowledge the member for Fairfax for celebrating this. I would like to make it clear that the bill before us today originates from the previous government. I commend them for this work and I commend the minister for the Environment, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, for making the legislation a priority in the 47th Parliament.

This public policy success story inspires me. It gives me hope that we, as we have our fight against climate change, will come together and cross party lines at all levels of government in all nations to act in humanity's best interest. The catastrophic impact of ozone depletion was discussed in years, not decades. It caused higher rates of skin cancer in those living under the hole. That's something that was particularly felt here in Australia, but it acted as an impetus for change. It meant a delay of 17 years between the science and action, but we've known about the effects of greenhouse gases in our climate since the 1960s. Average global temperatures have continued to rise since the Industrial Revolution, and we're starting to see the impacts of this. As the effects of climate change are felt at home and abroad, we should remember the success story of the fight against ozone-depleting substances. We should continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is informed by science and done with the support of communities for a just transition and ideally in a bipartisan manner.

See this speech in context