Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Last year the Albanese government was elected to take climate action, and we've hit the ground running. Amongst a long list of achievements, we also enshrined our emissions reduction targets into law—opposed by those opposite. If our current government and all future governments don't meet those targets, they will be breaking the law.

This bill, the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill, is a critical policy instrument in our path to achieve these legislative targets. Without this system we will not meet them. While most of the changes to this policy can be done by regulation, this legislation formalises the crediting scheme. This scheme allows those who offset their emissions by more than the mandated 4.9 per cent per year to bank those credits for future years or sell them on a market. This is a good amendment to an important policy. It encourages our largest emitters to go harder and rewards them for doing it. I applaud the minister for bringing this legislation into the chamber and bringing on this debate. But we know that the debate on this piece of legislation is a bit bigger than the technical changes we are seeking to make. On issues of climate, we know through history that, unfortunately, it nearly always is a bit bigger. With the safeguard mechanism, we are faced with an opportunity to take strong climate action that Australia and Bennelong voted for.

For over a decade, the wellbeing of our planet has been used as a political football rather than being treated as the crisis that it is. The science is clear: climate change is real and it's caused by human activity. The consequences of inaction are dire, with rising sea levels, more extreme weather events and threats to our food and water security very real. We have a responsibility to future generations to act now to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and to transition to a cleaner, more sustainable economy.

Yet, despite the overwhelming evidence of the need for action, we have found ourselves in an ongoing climate war—one that the people of Australia voted to end. The previous government's record on climate action is one of delay, denial and disregard for the future of our planet, and it's a record the coalition are happy to maintain. They voted against our Climate Change Act, and they have said they will vote against this. You would have thought that after the last election they would have read the room. Australia voted for action on climate change, and those opposite continue to ignore our country.

On the other side of this place, we have those who deny the science, ignore the warnings of experts and cling to the false promise of continued economic growth at any cost. They had 10 years to do something about climate change and the threat it is to our environment, and they chose over and over again to do nothing. The previous coalition government repealed effective climate policy that was addressing climate change and a policy that encouraged a shift towards cleaner energy sources. The Liberals told Australia and the world that they weren't serious about tackling climate change and that they would not take any urgent action to stem the climate crisis, and then they backed that up with 10 years of inaction.

The former government failed to meet emissions reduction targets, and they delayed the implementation of renewable energy policies. They signed the Paris Agreement but then made sure that their initial emissions reduction targets would be too low to limit global warming, which was the whole point of signing the agreement. They made it clear that the only action they would take would be to issue empty press releases. The National Energy Guarantee, a policy designed to reduce carbon emissions and promote renewable energy, was delayed for years. They had 22 energy policies, and they all failed.

The former government's lack of urgency in implementing renewable energy policies shows a disregard for the urgent threat of climate change and a delay in transitioning to a cleaner energy system. In 2017, those opposite dismissed the link between climate change and the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. They had scientific evidence in front of them, but they ignored it. They were being criticised by UNESCO for failing to stop agricultural run-off from impacting ecosystems, and yet again they ignored it. There's a bit of a pattern going on here. Just last year, days before the federal election, it was revealed that those opposite had been hiding a scientific report on mass coral bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef, trying to cover up the evidence to shield themselves from criticism during the campaign.

Those opposite cut funding for two organisations that support the development of renewable energy in Australia. Despite the critical role that these organisations played in the transition to a low-carbon economy, the Liberals and Nationals cut funding to both ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in their time in government. The list goes on. The transition to a low-carbon economy requires a significant investment in renewable energy, and both ARENA and the CEFC played a crucial role in facilitating that investment. Those opposite know that their long-term inaction on climate change and the environment cost them at the last election.

It's important to know all that context, because here we are yet again. Once again we have a Liberal-National coalition in this place actively opposing and criticising sensible, achievable climate policy. This is a policy that is backed by business and by industry, and it is, in fact, an enhancement of the coalition's own legislation that they brought to government. Not satisfied with blocking government policy, they're now voting against their own policy. It's absurd. Then we have the Greens, and it seems that they haven't learned the lessons from 2009 when they also voted against sensible emissions reduction policy. While I remain hopeful that they can work with the government with sensible and achievable amendments, all indications are that they have continued to take an approach that has been counterproductive and divisive. When we have had opportunities to bring in legislation and policy that plays a significant role in addressing climate change opportunities, the Greens continue to oppose and reject a proposal which the government has a mandate to deliver.

Not only has this uncompromising approach made it difficult to achieve meaningful action on climate change over the past 14 years but it has also created a sense of hostility and division amongst the Australian people. This approach has also alienated many Australians who are concerned about the environment but who are worried about a swift and rapid change. They're painted as climate deniers or enemies of the environment, and the Greens have further entrenched the political polarisation around climate change and made it more difficult to build a broadbased consensus for action. That's what Australians voted for at the last election. It was an opportunity to end the climate wars. Business, industry and the community had a very long look at this policy which was released a long time ago. Labor was delivered a mandate to implement this policy, yet we have those opposite opposing it against the wishes of the majority of industry across the country. Achieving meaningful action on climate change requires cooperation and consensus building between different stakeholders. To date and in our recent history, the Greens have made this more difficult to achieve, as have those opposite. Climate policy should not be political, yet again and again and again, the environment is politicised. It's something that Australians voted to end.

Like many in this place and like many people in my electorate in Bennelong, I too want ambitious action on climate change. I would personally like to see us reach emissions reductions greater than the 43 per cent we have legislated. Like many in my electorate, I too look forward to a time when coal and gas are not an integral part of our electricity generation and when more and more renewable energy is providing emissions-free, cheap power to our grid. I too have reservations on the unlimited use of carbon offsets by big emitters. I too want to ensure that those offsets are genuine and that they stack up. But what's worse is voting down this legislation and destroying the consensus that Australians voted for.

I simply won't stand in the way of a policy that will allow us to make progress and take steps towards our climate goals. I won't be one to shoot down a good policy because it isn't perfect. We've been down that route. We've seen it before, and look where we are today. I won't stop pushing and fighting for ambitious policy in action, but I also understand that Australians voted for consensus and they voted for this policy. It's time for the Greens to recognise the importance of balance and compromise in achieving their environmental goals and to work collaboratively, both in this place and outside, towards a sustainable and prosperous future. We have a responsibility to act now to ensure a sustainable future for generations to come. We need to take action right now to meet our emissions targets. I wish we had another 10 years up our sleeve, but we saw what those opposite did. They wasted that time when we should have been reducing emissions. We need to make sure that our country's largest emitters are playing their part in meeting our national targets. We have the opportunity to do that right now with this bill.

The safeguard mechanism needs to be reformed. With this enhanced version, we can ensure that Australia's transition to net zero is well supported with robust legislation. It will ensure that Australia's largest industrial facilities are on the path to reducing their emissions predictably, gradually and in line with our legislated targets. These reforms will make sure that, as we decarbonise and reduce our emissions, Australian businesses will remain competitive and active. According to a report by the Climate Council, the safeguard mechanism amendment has the potential to reduce emissions from large industrial facilities by up to 50 million tonnes by 2030, which is the equivalent of taking 10 million cars off the road each year.

I'm aware of the criticisms of some regarding this policy. I want to speak specifically about concerns regarding the offset provisions. It's a matter of reality that we must decarbonise Australia while maintaining and caring for our economy and jobs. This bill gives major industrial emitters—whether they be aluminium smelters, concrete producers or miners—the opportunity to deliver the majority of their emissions reductions by choosing low emissions options while they're planning for their future. This bill will influence the next set of investment decisions by major emitters by prioritising and highlighting low-emissions technologies over other available options.

Carbon offsets provide the opportunity for some, where technology doesn't exist, to have a clear path to net zero. When carbon offsets are done correctly and with integrity, they can ensure that big businesses are funding environmental protection and registration. We know that the minister has taken steps to ensure that our carbon offset system is better than the one we inherited. The Chubb report made further recommendations to the scheme to ensure that it will continue to align with our expectations and best practice, and the government is working with stakeholders to implement those recommendations.

I'm hopeful that, as our country finally works together and achieves climate consensus, the undisputed short-term need for the use of offsets will diminish. I would hope that future governments could review the use of offsets to encourage real reduction as opposed to just net reduction. Unlike some in this chamber, I don't believe offsets are the same as emissions reductions, but I wholeheartedly acknowledge their importance at the beginning of our nation's decarbonisation journey. I don't believe they should be used in perpetuity and without accountability, but I understand their importance, particularly at the start of this journey.

I'd say to those opposite to again listen to industry on this. We know that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have been very clear in support of this safeguard mechanism. They said:

This is the best way to secure the planning, investment and innovation that will underpin the decarbonisation of our economy without sacrificing reliability or affordability.

We have industry calling out for fundamental change to the decade of inaction on climate change, and we have the Australian voting public calling out for the same thing. We cannot waste this opportunity again, as it was wasted years and years ago. That's why industry backs this. That's why our community back this. They're sick of the climate wars. I'd encourage those opposite, in particular the Greens, to support this legislation, which is crucial to the government meeting its emissions reduction targets.

See this speech in context