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

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Australian Government received its first climate and security risk assessment, carried out by the Office of National Intelligence (ONI) in late 2022;

(b) if similar to risk assessments undertaken by other nations including Australia's allies, the ONI climate risk assessment is likely to have concluded that:

(i) the world is dangerously off track to meet the Paris Agreement goals, that security risks are compounding and that the impacts will be devastating in the coming decades; and

(ii) in the Asia-Pacific region, states will fail and climate impacts will drive political instability, greater national insecurity and forced migration fuelling regional conflict; and

(c) despite numerous requests, the Government has refused to release a declassified version of the ONI report or indicate any policy changes based on the risks identified in the report;

(d) climate change is rapidly accelerating, leading to intensifying extreme weather events and human catastrophes around the world, including humanitarian crises in Hawaii, Greece and now Libya;

(e) Australia's allies including the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands in conjunction with the European Union have all released declassified versions of climate national security risk assessments; and

(f) this week retired defence chiefs briefed Members of Parliament on the national security risks emerging from climate change, outlining what strategies and actions are needed to protect the nation; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) urgently release a declassified version of the ONI climate security risk assessment report; and

(b) outline the specific climate related security threats to Australia and the specific responses the Government proposes to undertake in response to each of those threats.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Warringah moving the following motion—

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Australian Government received its first climate and security risk assessment, carried out by the Office of National Intelligence (ONI) in late 2022;

(b) if similar to risk assessments undertaken by other nations including Australia's allies, the ONI climate risk assessment is likely to have concluded that:

(i) the world is dangerously off track to meet the Paris Agreement goals, that security risks are compounding and that the impacts will be devastating in the coming decades; and

(ii) in the Asia-Pacific region, states will fail and climate impacts will drive political instability, greater national insecurity and forced migration fuelling regional conflict; and

(c) despite numerous requests, the Government has refused to release a declassified version of the ONI report or indicate any policy changes based on the risks identified in the report;

(d) climate change is rapidly accelerating, leading to intensifying extreme weather events and human catastrophes around the world, including humanitarian crises in Hawaii, Greece and now Libya;

(e) Australia's allies including the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and the Pacific Islands in conjunction with the European Union have all released declassified versions of climate national security risk assessments; and

(f) this week retired defence chiefs briefed Members of Parliament on the national security risks emerging from climate change, outlining what strategies and actions are needed to protect the nation; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) urgently release a declassified version of the ONI climate security risk assessment report; and

(b) outline the specific climate related security threats to Australia and the specific responses the Government proposes to undertake in response to each of those threats.

I move to suspend standing orders to urgently debate this motion, because this goes to the heart of Australia's national security. This motion calls on the government to urgently release a declassified version of the Office of National Intelligence report addressing Australia's climate threat and risk assessment. The government has had this report on its desk for 10 months now. Australians are entitled to know the threats and risks they face and whether their government is developing a strategy to address those risks. This is an urgent issue that should, in fact, be debated with urgency—in particular, in the terms set out in the motion.

The recent disasters in other nations highlight the level of threat and risk that is now being caused by worsening and accelerating global heating. A humanitarian crisis is currently unfolding in Libya. More than 5,300 people have been killed and at least 10,000 are missing, after unprecedented rainfall caused two major dams to collapse, resulting in entire communities being washed away, with many bodies swept out to sea. After Storm Daniel triggered catastrophic flooding in Greece, Turkiye and Bulgaria last week, Libya's national centre of meteorology reported that that storm had dropped a record 414 millimetres of rain, which is more than 16 inches, in just 24 hours.

The catastrophe in Libya is just the latest in a seemingly never-ending series of fossil-fuelled, unnatural disasters that have wrought havoc on cities and towns around the world over the past three months. These disasters, now occurring almost daily, have been driven by the unprecedented, record sea and air temperatures that have left scientists around the world shocked. And yet, in Australia, the government continues with business as usual, approving coal and gas projects, refusing to acknowledge the urgency and severity of the situation and to increase their action.

This is not about mitigation. I appreciate that efforts are being made on that front, but, sadly, there is now so much warming and emissions baked into the system that we are now seeing an escalation of consequences and risks.

Australians remember all too well the events of 2019—the bushfires, then the floods. As we see from events around the world, these safety risks and threats are increasing. That is why it's urgent to debate this motion and why I've moved to suspend standing orders, since leave is not granted to deal with the situation.

It's urgent that Australia understands the level of threat and risk it faces from cascading and compounding national security threats that are now emerging from accelerating global heating or, as the UN describes it, 'global boiling'. National security is a core responsibility of every government, and effectively identifying threats is fundamental to a government's ability to ensure the security of its citizens.

I appreciate the presence of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy here, but, respectfully, that is on the question of mitigation and the preparation for domestic disasters. The key question is: how prepared are we in national security and defence? I think the failure of the Minister for Defence to be here to address this motion shows the government still does not recognise the national security threat posed by accelerating global warming.

There is a gaping hole in Australia's national security, and that has been clearly identified by our allies, but it has been kept secret from the Australian public.

The Defence strategic review, released in April 2023, contained only a brief reference to climate change threats, acknowledging climate change as a national security issue, noting that it will increase the challenges for Australia and its defence, in particular noting that accelerating climate events risk overwhelming the government's capacity and the ADF's capacity to respond effectively and defend Australia. But this is only a reference in relation to the use of ADF personnel in responding to catastrophes. There is no mention of the internationally accepted findings that the impacts of climate change will drive regional instability and conflict in our region, with mass population displacement, food and water insecurity and major catastrophes impacting Australia's safety. With respect, AUKUS submarines will not protect Australians from these threats, and there appears to be very little focus or strategy to respond to a threat in this respect.

In late 2022 the government received a risk assessment from the Office of National Intelligence focused on national security threats emerging from now rapidly accelerating global warming. Australia's allies, including the US, the UK, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, in conjunction with the EU, have all released declassified versions of climate security risk assessment, yet the Australian government has repeatedly rejected calls from former Australian Defence chiefs and members of the crossbench to publicly release a declassified version of the climate security risk assessment. If the ONI report makes similar conclusions to climate risk assessments completed by other nations, including Australia's allies, it likely includes findings that the world is dangerously off track to meet the Paris Agreement goals. It would also likely draw the conclusion that security risks emerging from climate change are compounding and will have devastating impacts in the coming decades.

A similar risk assessment conducted by the UK government funded security think tank Chatham House in 2021 concluded that cascading climate impacts will drive political instability and greater national insecurity and fuel regional and international conflict. The now two-year-old risk assessment found that global crop yields will likely drop by 30 per cent by 2050 at the same time that food demand is set to increase by 50 per cent. Earlier this year the Turning the tide report found that the world will face the prospect of a 40 per cent shortfall in our freshwater supply by as soon as 2030. While food and water shortages may not immediately impact Australia, the indirect impacts resulting from geopolitical instability and mass migration in our region should be of immense concern to all members of parliament.

In its own publicly released risk assessment, the US National Intelligence Council identified our region of South-East Asia as one of two regions of great concern. It identifies Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and a number of Pacific Island nations as highly vulnerable to climate change. The US report singles out India, Pakistan and Burma as countries of particular concern as they are at extreme risk of experiencing regional conflict over shared water resources, from the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau. This effectively puts hundreds of millions of people in our region at risk of severe food and water shortages in the near term. The resulting humanitarian crisis would be at a scale never before seen in the world and would result in unprecedented waves of mass migration, geopolitical instability and conflict in our region. How can Australia possibly secure its borders in the face of that kind of mass migration and that level of climate refugees in South-East Asia?

Former Australian Defence chiefs note we would simply be overwhelmed by such events. That is why it is crucial that Australia develop a strategy for how to mitigate these risks in our national security. Ensuring food and water security in our region could be our greatest weapon in defending Australia against such threats. The World Economic Forum places failure to mitigate climate change as the No. 1 global risk over the next decade. Second is failure of climate change adaptation, followed by natural disasters and extreme weather events, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse. The risk of traditional military conflict through geoeconomic confrontation is much lower; it is listed at No. 9. This week crossbenchers were briefed by former Defence chief retired Admiral Chris Barrie and retired Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn, who clearly stated that climate disruption is the greatest threat to the future security of Australians and to the global relationship between states. They have made it their mission for the past four years to highlight the now undeniable truth that climate change is by far the biggest security threat facing Australia.

Why is the Australian government keeping secret from the Australian people what it knows about the magnitude of this threat? Why have the other political parties and relevant committees of the Senate and House of Representatives not been briefed on the contents of the ONI report? How can members of parliament effectively discharge their duties and oversee policymaking and departmental performance in the defence, climate, immigration, intelligence and foreign affairs portfolios when crucial information pertaining to climate risk has not been available to them? Elected officials cannot do their jobs in making and reviewing climate policy when they are kept in the dark by the government about the true scale of the security risks. So I call for this to be released and I call on the members of the opposition who pride themselves on being focused on security and safety to address this risk. This is the greatest threat to Australia's safety and security and must be addressed.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion to suspend so much of standing and sessional orders as would prevent the member for Warringah from moving a motion relating to the release of the ONI climate and security risk report. This should be dealt with by the House immediately, for three reasons. Firstly, the Office of National Intelligence report is likely to show that the security risks of climate change are very significant. Secondly, the public has a right to know what they are. And, thirdly, we can't proceed with a vital integrated national plan without a full picture of these risks.

I remind the members of the House that their support, or lack of it, for this motion will be on the record, and our children and our grandchildren, and the children that I see in the chamber, will be looking back on the decisions that we make today. They will be thinking one of two things: either that the 47th Parliament showed courage—we looked at all the facts, created a shared vision of the world we were creating and started to restructure our economy and how we live on this planet—or that the 47th Parliament denied the urgency of climate change, hid the extent of the challenge and fiddled around the edges.

Releasing the ONI report won't fix everything, but it will allow us to form an informed view of where we are now and where we're heading. We're off track for our 2030 targets, the clock is ticking towards an unlivable planet, 1.5 degrees is unlikely and even two degrees looks uncertain. European experts, and Australian companies behind closed doors, are now talking about 2½ degrees as a likely outcome. This ONI report is likely to contain some sobering information which puts decisions into context. I accept that it can't all be released, but we should see a lot more than we can see at the moment. Other countries, including our allies, have released their equivalent reports. The US, the UK and others have released these with some redacting, and our government is being more secret than our allies.

So what's likely to be in it? Chatham House is the pre-eminent security think tank in the United Kingdom, and the Chatham House 2021 climate risk assessment said that cascading moment impacts would 'drive political instability and greater national insecurity, and fuel regional and international conflict'. These cascading systemic risks include three types of risks. Firstly, there's migration and displacement of people. This happens inside and beyond national borders, and it's likely to cause a refugee crisis, forced or unsafe migration, and trapped populations. Secondly, there's armed conflict. The US National Intelligence Council has disclosed that all the countries north of Australia are highly vulnerable to the physical effects of climate change and a lack of capacity to adapt. It's likely we will see regional conflicts requiring military intervention, conflict between people and states, and civil wars. Thirdly, there's the destabilisation of markets, commodity price spikes, fall in asset prices, large-scale asset sell-offs, failing stock markets and potentially financial market collapses.

We have a right to know about these risks. If the ONI report includes these risks, we have a right to know. If our government is not basing its decisions on these types of risks recognised in international reports, we have a right to know why they have come to different conclusions. Building a common national knowledge base on these types of issues is essential. These are security risks; they require us to look holistically at how we'll resource the challenges ahead. I commend the members of the ADF who've responded to the emerging domestic impacts of climate. We just heard that 50 per cent of Defence members have been allocated to national disaster response in the last year, and I thank the ADF members for their service, including those at Karrakatta and Campbell Barracks in my electorate of Curtin. But, without a more holistic approach informed by an understanding of these domestic and international security risks, we will continue to take a piecemeal approach. As the member for Bruce said, the ADF cannot be treated as a shadow workforce for domestic issues.

We are going to need to make some difficult decisions and investments in the future on mitigation and on adaptation. We will need to take the community on this journey. Once we have a common view of the risks we face, we as parliamentarians can do our jobs and develop a coordinated national plan. This needs to involve rebuilding the Public Service so we have these abilities in house. It needs to cover mitigation and adaptation. So I urge all members of the House to think about how they vote on this and how their children and grandchildren will judge them. We must see this report. We must at least see the findings so we know what information government is using to make these vital decisions. (Time expired)

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this motion today because I can't help but concur with both my esteemed colleagues from Warringah and Curtin that, without a doubt, this is the most single most pressing issue that our 47th Parliament should be leaning into. The reality is that, when it comes to our climate debates, climate discussions and the development of strategy in the area, the only number that matters is 1.5 degrees. We can sit in this chamber and argue about 43 per cent emission reduction. We can sit in this chamber and argue about net zero by 2050. But, if we go over 1½ degrees, which it looks more than likely we are going to, it all becomes about the magnitude by which we go past that number.

A report into the first global stocktake for our climate position at the moment has experts predicting that we will likely hit 2½ Celsius, and that will be the focus of discussions at COP 28. We as Australians have to answer the question: what is our role in climate justice not just for our region but for our planet? Our Pacific nation neighbours are looking to us to help them navigate what the future looks like and, more importantly, to stop contributing to the problems they are facing. I recently had the privilege of meeting with a delegation from Fiji, and those people spoke to me with such emotion about their villages literally disappearing underwater, of sea walls that used to last decades not even lasting five years anymore and of 40 villages in the islands of Fiji that now need to be relocated. As a nation we cannot stick our heads in the sand any longer.

To the member for Warringah's comments, one of the biggest risks to us here in Australia is the sheer magnitude of the population movement that will take place as societies crumble. Let's be really clear. At the moment here in Australia we are fortunate to have three people living per square kilometre. We have heaps of room for lots of people. On the flipside, in Bangladesh, they have 1,250 people living in every square kilometre, while in Jakarta in Indonesia there are 19,000 people living in every square kilometre. It probably goes without saying that Jakarta is disappearing underwater, and Indonesia is seeking to move its capital by 2025.

There are three things we as Australians need from our government right now. We need transparency around the scale of the risk to our nation. We need an office of climate threat, and we need them to have access to the intelligence that is provided by the Office of National Intelligence. We need to rebuild climate science and risk analysis in both the Public Service and the CSIRO.

As both the previous speakers have discussed, the thing that is perhaps most distressing and should be most distressing for all Australians is that our allies have no fear in sharing what they know with their countries and their citizens, and they are doing that because they are facing what is required of them as leaders. They are speaking with their residents about what must be done as nations to survive, yet our government continues to leave us in the dark.

What I would like to know from our government—and I agree it should be the defence minister in here today—is: are the findings of the Office of National Intelligence report consistent with the Chatham House findings from the UK? If they are, why is that information not being shared with Australians? What specifically does this government propose to do to prepare us for the challenges we are about to face?

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

The government won't be supporting this motion. This motion calls for the release of a national assessment by the Office of National Intelligence. No such assessment by the Office of National Intelligence has ever been released publicly—none ever—and that is a precedent this government intends to honour. When the Office of National Intelligence prepare a document for the Prime Minister, that is the Prime Minister's document and it goes to him, and it is important they know that that precedent will be acknowledged and respected by the government of the day.

This government has commissioned the assessment report and has received it, as honourable members know and as I've indicated and acknowledged. The report has been discussed by the National Security Committee of the cabinet, of which I am a member. I believe I am the first Minister for Climate Change and Energy to serve on the National Security Committee of the cabinet, which is a reflection of this government's and this Prime Minister's view that climate change is a national security challenge, as well as an economic opportunity, a moral obligation, an environmental threat and everything that it is.

It is of course a national security challenge for this country and this region. Honourable members opposite referred to the Pacific: quite right. I was just in the Pacific the week before the last sitting week at the Pacific climate ministers meeting, where there was very strong engagement and interaction between this government, through me, and the climate ministers of the Pacific. Yes, it is a national security threat to them. It's also a national security threat in South-East Asia, where, in the world's largest archipelago, Indonesia, there are hundreds of millions of people living in low-lying areas. This is known.

What is also known is this government is acting. I have to disagree with the honourable member for Warringah, who said it's business as usual. It could not be further from business as usual. This government has engaged in a wholesale reform process in the last 16 months which has elevated climate policy as a signature measure of this government. After 10 years of denial and delay—which is something that the honourable members on the crossbench and this government would, I'm sure, agree on—we have increased our nationally determined target by 50 per cent and enshrined it in law, with the support of the crossbench, which we have always acknowledged and appreciated. We have engaged in a process of lifting renewable energy from 33 per cent to 82 per cent, which commentators have pointed out is the most ambitious transformation to renewable energy in the world. It is ambitious. It's also achievable. It's fashionable at the moment to say it can't be achieved. It can and will be achieved, but it is highly ambitious, as it should be. It should be both ambitious and achievable. This is the biggest economic transformation our country has undertaken since 1788. Of course there are challenges to be overcome. This government is dealing with those challenges.

My friend the New Zealand Climate Change Minister recently said publicly that the Albanese government has done as much on climate change in its first year as the Ardern government did in its first five years. That's what the New Zealand minister said, who happens also to be the leader of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand. He pointed out that the Albanese government has done as much on climate change in its first year as the Ardern government did in its first five years. We have done a lot, but there's an enormous amount left to do. I'm pleased with what we've done in our first year, but I'm not yet satisfied, because the task is so big and the stakes are so high.

In dealing with this, yes, this government will always indicate that we acknowledge and respect the precedent that national assessments by the Office of National Intelligence have never been released and will not be released. But I will say this when it comes to transparency. As honourable members know, we passed the Climate Change Act, which had many things in it. One of the things it had in it was an obligation on me, or the minister of the day, to report annually to parliament and to release the advice from the Climate Change Authority as to progress, obstacles and the impact of government policies. I've done that once, and I'll do it again before the end of the year.

There's a national security section. I can indicate to the House that the national security section, which is unclassified, will be material and significant in this upcoming annual statement. I will provide that unclassified information to the House and the public. That's as it should be. That's a much more appropriate way of dealing with this matter. A much more appropriate way is for the government of the day to report in an open and transparent manner to parliament on progress on obstacles, including national security implications, and to do so in a way which doesn't endanger the precedent, the very clear precedent, that assessments by the Office of National Intelligence are not and will not be released—to respect that precedent but to nevertheless engage with the parliament in an open and respectful way for the annual statement to parliament, which I can indicate to the House it is certainly my intention to do.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the motion moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.