Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The latest IPCC report that was released only in the last day or so could not have been more clear. It reiterates that climate change is real; that temperatures have increased by 1.1 degree Centigrade since the pre-industrial era; that the earth is on track to reach an increase in temperature of 1.5 degrees Centigrade by around 2030, which is much sooner than had been previously expected; that, over the past three decades, atmospheric carbon levels have increased exponentially; that developed nations, as the highest per capita emitters, must do more to reduce emissions; that extreme weather events already costing the world billions of dollars each year in damage will continue to increase in frequency and severity; that environmental degradation is already so extensive that it is making a difference of the planet that we live on; and that climate change already causes food shortages and, indeed, an incredible amount of health costs associated with both food shortages and health related climate change impacts. The cost of that alone should be sufficient to say to people that we need to reduce carbon emissions—if not for the environment and for all the other reasons that we should do it then for no better reason than that it will create a much healthier society.

The reality is that global action has been way too slow for the last three decades, ever since this issue was raised as an international issue of concern and there was consensus that it was an international issue of concern. Whilst countries have come together over the years to talk about it, and certainly there have been a lot of changes made, we have simply not acted fast enough and sufficiently to constrain the effects of climate change. The reality is that the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 is timely, in that right now, when that IPCC report is being discussed and debated, we in this parliament want to pass legislation that moves us forward in terms of reducing the amount of emissions here in Australia. The reality is that the global response, including our response here in Australia, must be not only escalated but also measured and realistic. If it's not realistic, we simply won't achieve the targets that we set. The targets that have been set by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy are, indeed, realistic if we are prepared to do the work that is required.

In the last three decades, the research and analysis of climate change throughout the world by literally tens of thousands of scientists has become more precise, more reliable and more credible. Yet, listening to members opposite, I hear so many of them, in my view, still questioning the science and the credibility of climate change. Quite frankly, I believe that most of their opposition to this legislation comes because they are still sceptical about the science that underpins the arguments on climate change.

The truth is that time is ticking and the world must do more to reduce both the rate and the impacts of climate change. Australia, as one of the highest per capita emitters of carbon, has both an obligation and a responsibility to play its part in reducing global emissions. If we don't act, why would other countries who, per capita, emit much less than us respond in the way that they possibly can? They will say, 'Well, if you folks, who are among the highest emitters, are not prepared to make some drastic changes to your own way of living, why should we?'

This legislation attempts to do that in a very responsible way. It places limits on the largest emitters here in Australia—the nation's highest emitters—and it provides credits to them for the reductions they achieve. The Albanese government has set, I believe, a very responsible emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030 on 2005 levels. That's the baseline. Certainly, if we can do better than that, I'm sure we would all want to, and we should all strive for that. But at least setting ourselves a 43 per cent target gives us something to aim for. This legislation, I believe, allows us to achieve that.

Those entities who do better than reducing their emissions by whatever their limit is will get credits which they can in turn pass on to those other industries that, sometimes for very good reason, have not been able to reach the limits that were set on them. I think that that's a responsible way to deal with an emissions reduction strategy, because not every entity or every business is in the same position as another to make reductions. For some it will be easier than for others, and, where that is the case, they should, in a sense, share the load of reduction. Indeed, the notion of sharing the load was one that was raised some 13 years ago when we tried to introduce into this place the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, you would recall the debates in respect of all of that, and that was all about trying to share the load where you can in fact have carbon trading as a marketable item. The reality is that this legislation—and I will come back to this in a few moments—does what is possible in this country. In fact, by doing what is possible, we would be able to make a huge difference to the amount of carbon that is currently being emitted in Australia.

I want to make a couple of other points that I think are relevant to this whole debate. The first is this: if Australia acts to reduce emissions by providing encouragement to industry to do so, there will be huge economic opportunities for those companies and other entities that get on the front foot. That has been proven time and time again. Those companies that are prepared to show initiative upfront are likely to be the ones that benefit the most in the years to come. So I believe that encouraging companies to follow that route means that, in the long term, they will actually benefit.

Secondly, the longer we delay, and the longer the world delays, the more difficult it is to transition and, quite frankly, the more costly it will be. So, if members opposite are concerned about the cost to their individual communities and their individual businesses, I can tell you that there is universal consensus that the cost will be much greater the more we delay this issue. Thirdly, if we don't act there is every likelihood that those countries that do act will start to impose penalties on our products because we have not done our fair share in reducing carbon emissions.

The fourth point I make—and I've made this point on other occasions—is that one of the areas causing an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is the additional consumption that the globe has embarked on—consumption that accrues from an increase or an improvement in the standard of living of people around the world. If we all consume more then there is more carbon produced. Combined with that is also the fact that increased population levels in total across the world make a difference to the amount of carbon that's in the atmosphere. Yet we very rarely talk about what we can do to reduce consumption and to perhaps look at the impact that population growth is having on carbon dioxide levels throughout the world.

I want to finish on this note. I mentioned the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme earlier on. It truly amused me this morning when I saw the Greens come into this chamber and talk about the need to do so much more to reduce carbon emissions in this country and how this legislation doesn't go far enough—they've been saying that all the way through—and how we need to act urgently and time is running out et cetera. In 2010 the Greens did not support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Had they done so 13 years ago, it would not be the same race against time that we are facing right now. Carbon emissions in Australia would have been much lower. The transition ahead would have been much easier, less disruptive and less costly. All the crisis rhetoric from the Greens is simply not matched by their actions.

We see their hypocrisy and their double standards again with respect to this legislation. Whilst they call for more action to be done, the truth is that, when it came to voting on measures that could be achieved, they were nowhere to be seen and, in fact, voted them down. In my view, they should be held responsible for the situation we are in right now and for the climate crisis that we supposedly face here in Australia and across the world, because they opposed legislation which would have made a difference. It's always easy to come into this place, make claims about what we should be doing, grandstand—as the Leader of the Greens did today—and call for unrealistic changes when you're not in government. But when you're in government you are responsible for all of the people of this country and you're responsible for the impacts of legislation across all sectors of society. That is what this government, the Albanese government, is trying to do: bring in a responsible policy.

I finish on the words of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in the debate earlier today, when he said:

These are the stakes. There are 205 million tonnes of emissions, between now and 2030, at stake in this vote. That is the equivalent of taking two-thirds of the cars off Australia's roads … fossil fuels covered under the safeguard mechanism emit, currently, 73 million tonnes a year … without a change of policy, this will grow to 83 million tonnes, but, with a change of policy, it will be a net 52 million tonnes. That's the question facing the parliament. It's a 205-million-tonne question facing this parliament as to whether we pass these reforms or not. That is the choice facing this parliament.

I think that those comments from the minister say it all, and I urge members to support this legislation.

See this speech in context