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

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the private Members' business orders of the day relating to the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2021 and the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021 standing in the name of the Member for Warringah being called on immediately, debated together and given priority over all other business for final determination of the House.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the private Members' business orders of the day relating to the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2021 and the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021 standing in the name of the Member for Warringah being called on immediately, debated together and given priority over all other business for final determination of the House.

We need to suspend standing orders so that we may debate these climate change bills. We are less than a week out from the Olympics of international policy, the Conference of the Parties 26 in Glasgow. The UN Emissions Gap Report was released today. Current pledges have us on track for 2.7 degrees of warming. The alarm bells are ringing. It's a code red. World leaders need to come together and commit to significant emissions reductions by 2030. It's time to stop playing politics with our future and listen to the science. The report makes clear that cuts of at least 55 per cent by 2030 are needed. The world needs an orderly transition away from fossil fuels. Australia needs a plan for an orderly transition away from fossil fuels. But we don't have one.

Yesterday we were presented with a slideshow of graphs and no new commitment to 2030, no increase in investment in clean technologies, no education or training program to assist workers and communities worried about their future, and no process or programs to ensure scientists, experts and communities have a voice and are part of the road map to net zero. There are moments in history when leaders have the opportunity to show what they're made of, and this is one of them. This is the time to join nations of high ambition and restore our international standing.

I welcome the government's commitment to net zero by 2050 and I thank all those who have campaigned relentlessly and pushed for that minimum commitment. But it's a baby step, and it will be meaningless if it's not backed by actual transition. Technology, business and investment need policy certainty. That is the purpose of parliament—to ensure that we have a robust debate and pass legislation that addresses the challenges ahead.

We need to set Australia up. That's why it's so urgent that we debate and vote on the climate change bills. We must legislate a clear framework to enable a clear, sensible, cost-effective transition—one that is based on expert advice and listens to the regions and impacted communities. If you believe it, legislate it. Anything less than this is passing the buck on to the next generation. We need to pass the bills, not the buck.

The government wants to ignore the proven technologies that we have now, that are ready now, and instead wants to focus on hypothetical technologies that have failed to deliver—carbon capture and storage—and hope that they will somehow offset continuing business as usual. We can't commit to net zero but approve new coal and gas fields. We can't present a 129-page pamphlet to address the biggest security, economic and environmental threat we face.

To put things in perspective: the United Kingdom's plan, as required under their Climate Change Act, is 21 documents and some 1,868 pages long. It has heat pump grants, EV incentives and plans for ending gas boiler and fossil fuel powered vehicle sales. It's Treasury reviewed and climate change committee approved. It has a pathway for every sector to 2037. What does Australia have? We have a 15-page PowerPoint slideshow and a 129-page information brochure that is empty of actual substance.

That's why this motion needs to pass, so we can debate the climate change bills. It's very important that we put this behind us. We need to lock net zero into law and lock in a framework that will ensure proper planning, accountability, integrity, transparency and the most efficient pathway possible. That's what these bills deliver. It's worked overseas; it is a proven model. The United Kingdom have had their Climate Change Act since 2008. It has directly contributed to emissions reduction and their transition to low-emissions technologies. They are on track for 68 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. Their framework works, and that's why we need it as well.

Our economy is badly exposed to climate impacts. Simultaneously, it's uniquely positioned to thrive in a net zero world. Deloitte Access Economics has forecast there will be 880,000 fewer jobs by 2070 if we leave climate change unchecked. The Business Council of Australia has commissioned Deloitte to model what will happen if we do act. Remarkably, we can add $890 billion to the economy, almost 200,000 jobs, and households will be $5,000 better off per year. Importantly, if we adopt a stronger 2030 target of at least 50 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels, we will add $210 billion. These figures are dependent on policy certainty and confidence. We can provide this policy certainty with a debate and a vote on the climate change bills.

The economic case is compelling; there is no doubt. That's why every sector of the Australian economy is demanding more action from the government. From unions to academics to health professionals to business to communities, they have all lent their voices to those of mine and my colleagues here on the crossbench to call for the bills to be debated in this House and passed. There have been 6½ thousand submissions to the inquiry into these bills, with 99.9 per cent in support. Businesses, most importantly, want certainty. They want a pathway out of COVID and towards a new resilient economy. We cannot keep putting obstacles in their path. The Business Council of Australia said the bill will be 'critical to mapping out a pathway to net zero'. Responsible Investment Association Australasia said the bill is 'integral to providing certainty to investors'. We need to smooth the way for business, and that can only be done with clear legislation.

Today we can debate this important measure. We can put the climate wars to bed. Your power in this place is to actually debate and pass meaningful legislation. We know that two in three coal jobs will disappear in the next two decades, whether the Nationals like it or not. We have been warned. Change is coming, and we must plan for the fair employment transition for these communities, not sell them fantasies that their industries will be around for ever. We must protect people, not old industries. We must be prepared, and that can only be done with clear legislation.

So I call on the members of this parliament who tell their communities that they are here for climate action, that they believe in the science: this is your opportunity for your words to be met with action. I urge you to vote in support of this motion. Australian climate policy needs to be taken out of the hands of the National Party and openly debated in parliament—to get past the blockers. The government can allow debate today and an open vote on the climate change bill, like we had for the same-sex marriage vote, and then members can represent their communities. They can vote in favour of a sensible, proven solution to climate policy impasse. We can stop passing the buck for future generations. I urge members of this place to support the motion.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to second this motion, and I commend the member for Warringah for bringing it to the House, and I do so as a representative of a rural and regional Australian electorate. It is time to debate and vote on this bill, a bill which sets out a clear framework through which we can pursue a bright economic agenda in regional Australia in response to climate change. This bill sets out in law a commitment that the vast majority of Australians support—that we will decarbonise our economy by the middle of the century.

The government told us this week that, finally, it has committed to reaching net zero emissions by 2050. What this bill does is require that the government of the day, whether it be this government, the next government or any government that follows, has detailed plans to meet legislated emissions reduction targets. That's why it is so important. It gives our nation confidence that any government—this one or those that follow—will do this. I worked closely with the member for Warringah to make sure this bill would actually deliver for rural and regional Australians in a transparent way, not in a secret way and not in a fingers-crossed-and-let's-hope-we-make-it kind of way.

I've inserted a regional economic safeguard mechanism that requires the new climate commission to make sure that regional Australia secures an equitable share of the economic benefits of a net zero transition, and we have just heard the member for Warringah lay out so articulately what those possibilities are for economic growth. I've also inserted a regions-first clause that requires the climate commission to implement a strategy to maximise the economic benefits for rural and regional Australia in the transition to net zero. I want rural and regional Australians to listen and think about this, because this gives us the guarantees that the government is not giving us right now. The Business Council of Australia estimates, as the member for Warringah just told us, there could be $890 billion on the table for us to be better off with a net zero economy. This bill would ensure that the regions maximise their share of that incredible opportunity before us. I've also inserted a regions-at-the-table rule that says that the board of the new climate commission must have expertise in regional development. This is the bill we should be debating and voting on today. This is the bill that would take us to Glasgow with credibility. More importantly, it would take us to the future with certainty.

Regional Australians have every right to feel completely let down by the coalition government right now. The economic opportunities for regional Australia from the growth of zero carbon industries are simply enormous. The government promised a detailed plan to capture that opportunity, but yesterday the Prime Minister gave us no such plan. The Prime Minister seemingly announced nothing at all for the regions—zero new policies, zero new investments and zero new opportunities for regional Australia. They've had eight years in power to figure this out. The parliament could legislate this bill today. Members on all sides could vote today if they wanted to. Australia is lagging at the back of the pack when it comes to climate action, and now we are not even at the starting line when it comes to clarity and certainty. Right now, farmers in Germany own 10 per cent of all renewable energy generation—10 per cent! The first loads of green steel have already rolled off production lines in the factories of Sweden! Tesla's Gigafactory in the USA is already churning out lithium-ion batteries and employing 10,000 people in the process. This could be happening right here, right now. This really distresses me.

If we pass this bill, and others like it—like my Australian Local Power Agency Bill that's sitting before this parliament too—there could be regional Australian industries and regional Australian jobs, but these opportunities are sailing right by us, because this government is incapable of offering up detailed economic plans for our regions. There is no plan to make sure regional Australians see the benefits in the renewable energy boom that's coming. There is no plan to help the timber mills of my electorate to transition off gas and onto cheap renewables. There is no plan to guarantee that bushfire affected communities in my electorate will have community batteries and energy security. The National Party has struck a secret deal with the Liberals over this issue, and, apparently, they have nothing to say for regional communities beyond a Productivity Commission review. I welcome a review, but it is neither a plan nor a blueprint for regional Australia. I commend this motion.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm elated to be able to speak against this motion. I do so for a very simple reason. I think I must be one of the few people who have actually read the bill. Many of my constituents and constituents in other areas have contacted their representatives to talk about the member for Warringah's bill and whether we would vote in favour of it. Now we have a motion wanting to bring the bills on. I actually read the bill and tried to understand what it was trying to achieve and what its objective was. It's quite clear what its plan is: it's to establish a new bureaucracy. If you actually look at the detail of the bill, what it talks about is building a bureaucracy so that they can then go on to develop a plan. It isn't a plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, it isn't a plan to improve the Australian economy and it isn't a plan to take the Australian community with us.

I'll show you what a plan is: it's the plan that the Prime Minister tabled in the parliament yesterday—130 pages that goes through, step-by-step, how we're going to work towards delivering a net zero target by 2050 for the Australian community. It is a plan that is comprehensive. In fact, it's the first economy-wide plan to achieve net zero by 2050 that has ever been presented by a government in this country. That is a critical change from the past. By comparison, the member for Warringah's bill focuses on how we build a bureaucracy to be empowered over this parliament to make those decisions for us.

Make no mistake, I am a democrat and proudly a democrat. The foundation of the Morrison government's approach is to make sure that we take positions to the Australian people, we get them endorsed at an election and then we go on and implement them. The alternative under the member of Warringah's bill that she presented previously is to create a new climate czar and a series of bureaucrats that would literally have veto powers over this parliament. That is not just an attack on this parliament—though it is—it is an attack on the Australian people and their capacity to be able to have a voice, to have a discussion and to be part of the process of considering and developing policy to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions.

To her credit, the Member for Warringah outlined this in her speech only moments ago. She spoke explicitly about taking climate policy 'out of the hands' of democratically elected representatives. Frankly, I can't imagine the members of even the Labor Party would agree with such a plan to take climate change policy out of the hands of democratically elected representatives, but this is consistent with her approach where she has sought to undermine not just our democracy but also the Australian people in being part of this conversation. We want to make sure that Australians are part of this conversation, because it's not just a discussion about improving the environment, though it is. It's not just a discussion about the future of the Australian economy, though it is. We want to take rural and regional communities and those communities that may have disproportionate impacts on them along on the journey, because we want to improve their communities and seize the moment and the opportunity.

The other thing we heard from the member for Warringah was a comparison with the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom they have thousands of pages of legislation in different areas of strategies. Well, the simple reality is, yes, we have a 169-page plan without a giant new bureaucracy established by this parliament, as was tabled by the Prime Minister in question time yesterday, but it builds across the pillars that the government has already built in areas such as our Modern Manufacturing Strategy and our Critical Mineral Strategy, where we will seize the moment and the opportunity to extract minerals to be part of the technologies of the future, particularly renewable technologies. It also integrates environmental standards that go into things like the Building Code.

The member for Warringah then went on and said: why not legislate a target? Firstly, we took our target to the people at the last election, and it was endorsed by them. The Labor Party took a different target, and they were defeated. But, more critically, we actually did an international analysis of the number of countries that have legislated targets. Of the 193 countries or there abouts that have made international commitments, only seven have legislated their targets. The state governments of Western Australia and Queensland have not legislated targets.

But the member opposite, the member for McMahon, raises the United Kingdom, and I am quite happy to talk about that. One of the reasons why we didn't go down the path of legislating targets is that it empowers people outside this parliament to override it. We know from the member's legislation that she previously presented to this parliament that she wants to appoint bureaucrats who could veto this parliament on climate change policy, as despicable as that is. But you just need to look at how—and the member for McMahon raised what's happening in the United Kingdom. They legislated their target, and now activists are using that as a vehicle to use the courts to shut down democratic decision-making. We just need to look at it here:

Campaigners have launched a legal challenge to try to prevent billions of pounds of taxpayers' money being spent on a huge road-building programme, which they say breaches the UK's legal commitments …

I'm a democrat. I believe that parliamentary sovereignty matters. I think that the people who are elected to this parliament should decide the law. And it isn't just new road projects; they're trying to shut down the development of new airports. It doesn't matter what push the Labor Party and the independent member for Warringah have, I will stand by the Australian people.

We've seen now the human consequences of the European approach. In the lead up to this winter, we had a backing by bureaucrats on a small number of technologies and the rising risk of higher energy prices, with many people increasingly unable to afford the capacity to heat their homes. That is a despicable approach in terms of public policy. We're going to take an approach that backs the Australian people, that backs households and, of course, that backs building the future of the Australian economy so that we can take the community with us. That's why yesterday we hit such a milestone: a coalition government hitting out a target for net zero by 2050 and then a comprehensive plan, a 130-page plan, about how we are going to get there.

Let's look at that in comparison to the Australian Labor Party. We know that they don't have a 2030 target. They have a 2050 target, but literally the detail of that plan could fit on a fortune cookie. You compare that to the coalition: We take targets to an election. We get them endorsed by the Australian people. We then go on and develop a plan, and, of course, we then go on and implement said plan. The planet that doesn't care about good intentions alone; it cares about outcomes. Let's look at the record of outcomes. The average emissions reductions since 2005 for OECD countries is seven per cent. Australia has already reached 21 per cent emissions reductions since 2005. That's times three. If you look at comparable countries, the United States has only achieved about 10 per cent. Then you look at a country like China, which, of course, has seen emissions rise by nearly 70 per cent over the time frame. What we are showing is leadership. We are showing leadership as to how we are going to cut our emissions and provide the pathway for so many other countries to follow that leadership, in an Australian way that focuses on building the foundations of the Australian economy.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The assistant minister will resume his seat. The member for Warringah, on a point of order?

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

On a point of order: this is a motion as to why we should debate this today.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's no point of order. The assistant minister is to continue.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I appreciate the member's irrelevant interjection. What we're talking about is the substantive issue of how we're delivering a lower carbon future for Australia and building the future of the Australian economy. One of the critical things about the member for Warringah's bill is that it doesn't rule some things out. This is important. By staying silent, there's a secret agenda. What we know from the Labor Party is that they have gone to elections previously and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government we lead.' Then they have gone on and implemented it. We know that the member for Warringah wants carbon taxes. This isn't a secret. If she doesn't, then she can simply rule it out in her bill and say that there shouldn't be carbon taxes. But we know, in practice, there will be, because what she wants to do is empower bureaucrats to make decisions at the expense of the sovereign people. Our interest is in what we need to do to save the planet. Our interest is in what we need to do to cut emissions and continue the trajectory in which we are delivering. But, more critically, we want to focus on how we build jobs for the future so that every Australian can realise their ambitions, save the planet and make a buck. (Time expired)

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

The Labor Party is delighted to support the suspension of standing orders so this parliament can do its job. The assistant minister just asserted, in one of his more bizarre performances—and that's a low bar—that it is anti-democratic for a member of parliament to introduce a piece of legislation to be debated in the parliament and voted upon.

I don't agree with every single thing in the honourable member for Warringah's bill. That's fine. That's what the parliament is for. If it came on for a vote, we'd have the chance to move amendments, to discuss the situation and to actually pass a law with the support of the parliament. But I make this prediction: the suspension of standing orders today will unfortunately fail because the government will use its numbers to crush debate in the House of Representatives. The government will use its numbers to stop this parliament doing its job, and the government will abide by a recommendation from that well-known modern liberal, the member for North Sydney, not to bring this bill on for a vote. The member for Wentworth will vote against bringing this on for a vote. The member for Higgins will vote against bringing this on for a vote. The member for Goldstein has already spoken against bringing this on for a vote. The member for Kooyong will vote against bringing this on for a vote. These modern Liberals, who are lions in their electorates and mice in Canberra, will stifle this vote.

I predict this bill will not come on for a vote. I predict this bill will not have the chance to be debated in this parliament. The member for Goldstein had arguments against it—pretty weak ones—but he could have made those arguments in a substantive debate before the parliament and explained why this government thinks we shouldn't legislate for net zero and all the other things that are in the legislation. This bill should be debated, and this parliament should do its job.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for this debate has expired.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion moved by the member for Warringah be disagreed to.