Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

The IPCC report out today reaffirms something yet again. For those of us who have been reading these reports for many years, this comes as no surprise, because report after report after report has made the same point, with increasing degrees of urgency to the plea. This report makes it clear that we have agency and urgency—agency because it is not too late to hold the world as close as possible to a 1.5-degree rise, but urgency because we must move now. The best time to move was 20 years ago. The second-best time to move is now. And the parliament has an opportunity to make that move this week. The parliament has an opportunity, for the first time in a decade, to put a measure in place to reduce emissions from our biggest emitters. That is the choice facing the parliament this week. This is a big choice for the parliament. The parliament can seize this opportunity or squander this opportunity. That is the choice before the parliament this week.

Last year we had a debate in this House about targets. The parliament agreed with us on a 43 per cent target. Some honourable members said that target should be higher. I understood that and understand that and respect that. We all agreed it was a floor, not a ceiling. That's what we all agreed: it was a floor, not a ceiling. But our projections tell us: unless the parliament passes the safeguard reforms, our projections will be for 35 per cent, not 43. So those honourable members who argued for more, who said that target should be higher, have a choice to make this week. If you vote against the safeguard mechanism, you are voting for a lower outcome, you are voting against achieving a 43 per cent emissions reduction.

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. That's what we're talking about in this parliament this week. Honourable members—the Leader of the Greens and others—have talked about fossil fuels. Well, fossil fuels covered under the safeguard mechanism emit, currently, 73 million tonnes a year. Projections tell us that, without reform, 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.

The same goes for new facilities. I want to see a regime in place which covers all new facilities, which covers industrial facilities, which covers resources, which covers them all, because, if the safeguard reforms do not pass, there will be no regime that encourages emissions reduction. New proposals, regardless of what they are, will be able to be developed. There will be no regime in place to require an emissions reduction regime. What we're talking about is putting a framework in place for that investment that is so necessary, that business has been crying out for for the last decade. Business have been asking for it, saying, 'We want to see emissions come down, but we need a framework to invest in that emissions reduction.' This government is prepared to give them that. The question is: is the parliament? That is the choice facing this parliament in this sitting fortnight.

Will we grasp that nettle? Will we give Australians the action on climate that they voted for last May? Will parties of goodwill and good faith come together to work together to deliver that or will they not? If honourable members call for higher targets and say 43 per cent is not enough, there is an obligation on them to vote for policies which achieve emissions reduction, even if they're not, from their point of view, 100 per cent perfect, even if they're not what they would design. There is a choice before the parliament. No member can criticise this government on targets if they then vote against policies to achieve emissions reduction. No member can do that. I don't care what seat they represent or what party they represent. They cannot criticise this government about emissions reductions targets and say that they're not good enough if they then come in here and vote against policies to achieve emissions reduction. That is not an acceptable outcome.

This government will continue to work in good faith and in goodwill with parties and individuals of good faith and goodwill. We'll continue to work together to make sure that the perfect is not the enemy of the good. But we will stand by the policies we took to the election. We will implement policies in line with our agenda and our mandate. Those policies are emissions reduction. If this parliament doesn't want emissions reduction, if this parliament wants to vote against policies for emission reduction, that will happen. If they want to vote for policies for emissions reduction, then the country will be the beneficiary. The planet will be the beneficiary. We will see jobs created across our country, particularly in Australia's regions. This country, after a decade of denial and delay, a decade of dysfunction, can finally grasp at nil. That's the choice before the parliament that we'll be putting to the parliament in this sitting fortnight. That's the choice available to honourable members.

I feel some confidence the parliament won't squander that opportunity. I feel some confidence that after a decade the parliament will recognise that it's time to come together and take that step forward. They say 35 per cent emissions reduction is not enough. If you think that 43 is not enough, then 35 is certainly not enough. Honourable members who vote for a 35 per cent emissions reduction because they throw out the safeguard reforms, if that is what they choose to do, will be making that choice. I don't think that is what the Australian people voted for last May. I think the Australian people voted for people of goodwill and progress to make progress. This parliament has a choice: make a point or make progress. I want to make progress. If others choose to make a point, that is a matter for them.

See this speech in context