Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) 2019 was the hottest and driest year ever recorded in Australia, resulting in catastrophic bushfires, extensive coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef and ever-increasing rates of extinction of our native flora and fauna;

(b) in the face of runaway climate change, and according to the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia is on track to warm by 4.4 degrees Celsius;

(c) the Government has just committed to new fossil fuel exploration and infrastructure which will lock in continued greenhouse gas emissions and global heating for years to come; and

(d) gas is a fossil fuel, not a transition fuel, while carbon capture and storage has a long history of absorbing taxpayers money for little benefit to the climate; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) stop fossil fuel exploration and extraction of coal, oil and gas, including the Adani project and drilling off the New South Wales coast;

(b) end direct and indirect taxpayer subsidies to the fossil fuel industry; and

(c) invest in large-scale renewable energy generation, storage and transmission through community-owned solar, wind, tidal, wave, hydro, geothermal and green hydrogen.

It is unbelievable that here we are in October 2020 and we're going to have another debate about climate change and what to do about it. Surely all sensible people in this place who can read the science, or at least read the newspaper, would be in agreement. We would be in agreement with the first part of the motion that 2019 was the hottest and driest year ever recorded in Australia, resulting in catastrophic bushfires, extensive coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, and ever increasing rates of extinction of our native flora and fauna. Surely every member in this place would agree that in the face of runaway climate change, and according to the Bureau of Meteorology, Australia is on track to warm by 4.4 degrees Celsius. Surely sensible people in this place who can read the science or read the newspapers would agree that the Commonwealth government has just committed to new fossil fuel exploration and infrastructure which will lock in continued greenhouse gas emissions and global heating for years to come. Surely we can agree that gas is a fossil fuel, not a transition fuel, while carbon capture and storage has a long history of absorbing taxpayer money for little benefit to the climate.

Surely all parties that claim to be focused on the public interest would agree with the second part of the motion: that we must stop fossil fuel exploration and extraction of coal, oil and gas, including the Adani project and drilling off the New South Wales coast. Surely we would agree that we must end direct and indirect tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, and we must start investing in large-scale renewable energy generation, storage and transmission through community-owned solar, wind, tidal, wave, hydro, geothermal, green hydrogen and other emerging technologies.

But no: we are still here in the Federation Chamber again arguing about climate change and what to do about it, squabbling and carrying on. The government, for its part, is cooking the books by bringing forward the Kyoto credits. The government is cooking the books by having the community believe that the temporary reduction in global and national emissions on account of the pandemic is actually some part of structural change in this country. When the pandemic is over, not only will emissions return but they'll come back with a vengeance as global industry and transport et cetera seek to catch up.

I'm sorry to say that the opposition is no better, because the opposition's continuing support for oil and gas is really very, very similar to the government's. It is just that the opposition thinks that, if we export our emissions to another country, that will be okay because, presumably, emissions in other countries will respect the borders between our countries. And both sides of the chamber will peddle this altruism nonsense—that it's all about providing cheap power to the poor in places like India. What nonsense! There is no altruism here. It's big corporates wanting to make a buck by trashing the environment.

What is needed is for the government, with the support of the opposition, to put this country on a credible pathway to 100 per cent reliance on renewable energy and zero net carbon emissions. That's what the community wants. That's what's affordable. We know it's an undeniable fact that new renewable energy production is markedly cheaper than building new oil or gas energy plants. And it's reliable. Sure, the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine, but, when wind and solar are integrated into a broader network that includes other technologies, like pumped hydro, battery storage, wave, geothermal, tidal and other technologies, we genuinely come up with a holistic solution that is reliable.

Australia needs to take a global lead here. Let's not forget that, when we include our exported emissions, we contribute five per cent to global emissions. We are a significant emitter and we are a significant global leader. We need to set an example for other countries. We need to use our considerable know-how and our resources and our abundance of renewable energy resources to put this country on a credible pathway, as quickly as we humanly can, to 100 per cent renewable energy and zero net carbon emissions, and finally this country can be all that we are capable of being—a global leader doing something about climate change.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for the motion?

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

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Julian Simmonds (Ryan, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on this motion today, because it gives us the opportunity to talk about the hard work that this government is doing to take action on climate change and our commitment to ensuring that future generations and young people have opportunities for work and to succeed in the economy, because the two go hand in hand. The Morrison government knows the heavy impacts that this country has felt as a consequence of COVID-19 and the bushfires, which are referenced in this motion, which is why we have made record investments in recovery efforts. This government has also dedicated itself to action on climate change and waste reduction. In this budget alone, we have invested $674 million into oceans and marine ecosystems and $319 million into parks and heritage areas; improved research and development in the Great Barrier Reef and in the Antarctic; and, of course, helped encourage ecotourism.

The Morrison government is committed to taking real and meaningful action to address the challenge of climate change. To this end, we know that it is a global problem that requires a global solution. That's why we've committed to our international target of reducing emissions to 26 to 28 per cent below the 2005 levels by 2030. The target is achievable and responsible. It represents one of the most ambitious reductions in per capita emissions among the developed countries, all the while ensuring that our economy doesn't wear an unmeasured burden like that suggested by the Labor Party during the last federal election. We have targets which are in line with the Paris Agreement and we are on track to beat those targets. We beat our Kyoto targets, so Australians know that we can do it. We have a plan to invest in technology that will allow us to meet and beat these targets. We know that all governments, businesses and communities must work together to achieve this goal, particularly as natural disasters occur and we set our minds to the recovery efforts. That's why the Morrison government has invested over $15 billion in natural resource management, water infrastructure, drought and disaster resilience and recovery, including $325 million in climate science and adaption research and services.

This government knows that, in the COVID-19 recession, Australia is facing the greatest ever economic challenge that we have seen since the end of the war. To put it in perspective, as this chamber knows, we have seen the global economy reduce by some four per cent. When compared to the GFC, it reduced by less than one per cent. So it is a significant mountain that we have to climb as an Australian economy to get back to where we were, but we are dedicated to do it. But we are also aware that, as we do that, we need to continue the work to protect our environment. Gas will help us re-establish a strong economy as part of the government's JobMaker plan, making energy affordable for families and businesses and supporting jobs as part of Australia's recovery from the COVID-19 recession. If we are going to climb this mountain out of the COVID-19 recession, we need cheap and reliable energy. Gas is an important ingredient in delivering that, along with renewals, but our focus has to be on achieving cheap and reliable gas while we reduce our emissions as well.

Gas doesn't prevent us from reducing emissions, as this motion would claim. In fact, it is a key part of the government's plan to reduce emissions without imposing new costs on households, while, at the same time, creating jobs, growing businesses and the economy. Only the coalition government can be trusted to be responsible stewards of our economy and only the coalition government has a responsible plan for Australia to meet its international targets without destroying the jobs that we so desperately need to retain during the COVID recession. That was very starkly shown during the last federal election and endorsed by the Australian people. We are taking climate action to ensure Australia reduces its emissions, but we are also protecting our economy during that transition.

Under the leadership of Minister Ley and Trevor Evans as the assistant minister for waste reduction, we're investing millions of dollars in improving our environmental practices and, in doing so, are creating jobs for the future and reducing waste. I'd particularly like to point out the significant efforts that will be made with the passage—it's being debated in the House right now—of our first Recycling and Waste Reduction Bill. Along with the other investments, this is a truly transformative step in encouraging more responsible waste management and facilitating the industry to be more innovative in creating new technology to solve the issue of waste in our community. As you can see, the Morrison government are the ones to be trusted to reduce emissions and assist our environment.

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

I thank the member for Clark for moving this motion, which I was proud to second. The member set out the facts in this motion. Climate change is the biggest challenge that we face as a society. Last summer's bushfires showed the worst of climate change impacts to date. Over 400 people died, over 4,000 were admitted into hospital with respiratory illnesses and still more have mental scars from forced evacuations. Over 5,900 buildings and 18.6 million hectares were incinerated, there was an estimated $20 billion in lost economic output and $2.4 billion in insured losses, and three billion animals were wiped out. The fires left no person on the East Coast untouched. The issue is on top of my electorate and many others.

In the last years, there have been Warringah community surveys. Eighty-eight per cent of respondents said climate change or preservation of the environment was the issue that most concerned them. People in Warringah care about a safe and prosperous future for their environment, but they are not alone. Many other electorates care the same. There are dozens of initiatives in Warringah on climate happening at the moment, from early work on Warringah renewable energy zones through to Zero Emissions Sydney North going from house to house, helping people switch to solar. Unfortunately, it's not enough. Economists, like Professor Tom Kompas, are warning that, if we don't move faster and meet our Paris targets, the cumulative economic damage of not reaching those goals will be some $2.7 trillion over the next three decades. We must take the handbrake off and address the pandemic and climate crisis simultaneously.

Australia is in recession for the first time in 30 years. Sensible future-forward policies are what are required to lift us out and ensure our competitive advantages going forward. While so many other countries around the world are embracing those opportunities, our government seems determined to put the brakes on our transition and undermine our opportunity to be leading the world. Countries around the world, including the UK, Germany, France and the EU, have recognised that acting on climate change will lead to a jobs boom in electric vehicles, in energy efficiency and in renewables. China and Japan have recently joined the fray, announcing net zero targets. As our largest trading partners, these announcements will have significant ramifications for us. Many of these countries have also realised that the best way to leverage private investment and direct government policy is durable bipartisan climate change framework legislation, like the UK's Climate Change Act, which includes a net zero target by 2050.

If the government wants to attract private capital, and I know it does, it will support the climate change bill that I'll be introducing on 9 November to legislate a net zero by 2050 goal to attract that private investment. Modelling by Energetics, an investor group, on climate change released only a few days ago, found that a long-term framework and a net zero target by 2050 would attract over $64 billion in private investment by 2025 and over $375 billion by 2050. If the country keeps to its current targets and climate policies, investment worth some $43 billion would be lost over the next five years, growing to some $250 billion by 2050. In comparison—and in significant contrast—since the UK enacted their bill, they've grown and put people in jobs. They now have over 400,000 jobs in the clean industry sector, and low-carbon industries will have grown from about two per cent of UK GDP in 2015 to an estimated eight per cent of UK GDP by 2030 and 13 per cent by 2050. Acting on a green recovery and passing a climate change act would ensure a positive future.

In last year's survey, 77 per cent of people in Warringah said they wanted me to advocate on climate change legislation, so that is what I am doing by bringing forward the climate change bill, which will set a net zero target, do risk assessment and adaptation plans, establish new green technologies and establish an independent climate change commission.

This issue is not going away. To the contrary, it's only going to get more pressing. We can hear the political discourse constantly, but what we need is action. I would say to the Morrison government: do you want to be the Kodak government, the government that missed the opportunity to be at the front of the curve? It's time to act.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to speak on the member for Clark's motion, and I do have a great deal of respect for the member for Clark and the work he has done in this parliament, but on this issue we disagree. It's not that we all don't want a clean environment and a greater future for our children. That is not in dispute. It's about how we go about it.

I note, as I rise to speak on this motion about the issues of global warming, that it's currently nine degrees Celsius outside here in Canberra. In Sydney, its current temperature is 14.4 degrees, and yesterday the hottest afternoon temperature we had was 14.8 degrees, which actually occurred at 10.30 pm at night. From what I can see, the 25 and 26 October were actually the coldest two days in October that we've ever had in Sydney's history going back to 1859. I think that's a rather apt fact that we should look at as we're doing this debate. Also, the other good news is that our dams, which we were told would never fill again—the good news is that Sydney's massive Warragamba Dam is currently at 96.3 per cent. That was actually said by, I think, one of the member for Warringah's advisers. They actually said the Warragamba Dam would never fill again. Well, I make the prediction that within the next few days the Warragamba Dam will, in fact, yet again fill up.

When we also look at the rainfall patterns over the last 120 years, it's often said, 'Oh, the country is drying out,' but the facts are we had more rain in the first 20 years of this century than we did in the first 20 years of the last century. So from 1900 to 1920, we had less rain than we had from the year 2000 to the year 2020. We're getting more rain, not less.

The other good news is, if we look at the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, a UN based organisation, they've shown over the last 20 years we're getting fewer climate disasters. Also the insurance data from Munich Re show the relative cost of disasters over the last 30 years is actually falling, not increasing. And, of course, there are deaths from climate disasters. There is an unprecedented 95 per cent decline in the number of deaths. In the first 20 years of this century compared to the last 20 years of last century, the number of deaths from climate related disasters has almost halved. On top of that, crop yields for almost every crop continue to increase and increase and increase.

I'm told that these wonderful renewables are so much cheaper than fossil fuels. If that's the case, I say, 'Absolutely fantastic.' The government just needs to step back and allow that cheaper product to get into the market as it would in any other market. But of course we know that is a complete and utter nonsense when you look at the data and you compare apples for apples, because, if you are comparing intermittent generation that is dependent on the weather to a form of generation that is actually baseload and you have a supply and demand, they are not the same like-for-like product.

The other interesting fact is when people talk about how we must set this target for net zero emissions. That's always very interesting, but, if the world was to get to net zero emissions, we'd have to freeze any further additions in energy. So there'd be no more energy for people in Africa and Southeast Asia—places where they are desperate for more energy. And what would we have to do? If we were able to build one over-1000 megawatt nuclear power station every single day until the year 2050 we still would not get down to zero emissions by the year 2050.

One thing in this debate we often hear is about the confusion about the subsidies renewables. There is confusion about not understanding how our road excise is an excise on road users. Finally, if we look at what's happening in the atmosphere today, if we look at how CO2 is measured, even with the shutdowns that we've had during the pandemic, CO2 emissions as measured in the atmosphere continue to decrease. You cannot even see what has happened because of the shutdown during the pandemic.

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture and Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm going to resist responding to the provocation of the member for Hughes because I will run out of time, but I respect his contribution—I mean, the member for Hughes does show a keen interest in this important subject. But extreme views from the Right, just like extreme views from the Left, are our biggest challenge within this debate. We need a consensus on this important issue. That's why I rise to oppose the motion from the member for Clark, not because I disagree with everything he says in his motion—in fact, there are points on which we can absolutely agree—but I have no opportunity to amend the motion so therefore I am left with no choice but to oppose it.

We've been having these climate wars now for more than 20 years, and sadly I've been around for more than 20 years and have been involved in them. The only way we're going to front up to our responsibilities as a country is to work with the international community and to build a consensus here at home. We need to be realists, not idealists. I remind members of the House that 90 per cent of our country's energy still comes from fossil fuel sources, and of course I'm not just talking about the electricity generation sector, which usually focuses the minds of most people—that's what the member for Hughes spent most of his time talking about. I'm also talking about our planes and our cars and our trucks and our mining equipment and our tractors and other equipment on our farms. I'm talking about heating for our manufacturing plants. All of these things rely heavily on fossil fuels. There will be a time—sadly, I won't be around, neither in this place or else well—when we won't be so dependent on fossil fuels, but it is a long way down the track. We use coal to make steel, we use gas as feedstock, we use gas to keep us warm, we use gas to cook and, of course, we use gas to make PPE—a very topical product at this point in time.

We have had our industrial revolution. That is behind us, but many other countries around the world are still having theirs, and they can't come into modernity without the assistance of fossil fuels—many of which will come from our country. Adani builds a mine in Central Queensland. What for? To provide its industrial revolution in India. Should we deny them that? No. But what we should do is work as an international community to ensure that we address this very important challenge.

The climate is changing in adverse ways. Mankind is making a contribution. Mankind needs to do something about it. That's what the Paris Agreement is all about. We have signed the Paris Agreement, and Scott Morrison, our Prime Minister, should fulfil his obligations under Paris. But it is apparent to me that he is not on track to do so—and he needs to get on track to do so. He needs to stop listening to the extreme right, to stop listening to the extreme left, stop putting domestic votes in front of his responsibility as a Prime Minister and get on with it.

We know the Greens don't really want to address climate change. We saw that when they voted against Kevin Rudd's CPRS. We saw that when they Adani convoy through Central Queensland—because they wanted to whip up the debate, because that wins them votes. Where would the Greens party be without climate change? What would they campaign on? What would be their relevance? How would they raise funds if they didn't have climate change? They don't want to fix this problem. The centre of Australian politics has to fix this problem and sensible people in this place need to get together and do so.

There is a thing called the economy. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. The market is moving. It will move without government, but it needs the guiding hand of government. This government needs to embrace an energy policy so that business investors have a certain environment in which to invest. That's what we need to doing. These silly climate wars are making that difficult. As reluctant as I am to say it, the motion from the member for Clark isn't helpful. I'm sure it will win him a few votes in Hobart, but it won't save jobs in Central Queensland and it won't lead to any real and meaningful action on climate change.

Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Sitting suspended from 13:28 to 16:00