Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Melbourne moving the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes the world is on track for a catastrophic 2.5 to 3 degree warming of the planet based on current policies;

(2) acknowledges that coal and gas are fueling the climate crisis;

(3) condemns the Future Gas Strategy which intends to expand gas production to 2050 and beyond; and

(4) calls on the Environment Minister and Resources Minister to stop approving new coal and gas mines.

We are in a climate crisis. With scientists on the weekend saying that they are despairing at the possibility of delivering something close to a safe climate to our kids and grandkids, with people in the Northern Rivers of New South Wales still unable to get back into their homes after the devastating floods, with people in Queensland and Brisbane unable to afford to insure their houses because the risk of coal and gas fuelled floods is now so severe, and with the Great Barrier Reef bleaching yet again on the very same day that the Prime Minister and the resources minister turn up to celebrate the thousandth gas shipment going out of ports there, it is vital that today we debate now and call on the government to stop approving new coal and gas mines.

What is crystal clear now, after the announcements we've seen over the last few days, is that Labor want coal and gas past 2050, at a time when they told us they were going to get to zero pollution. They now want it past 2050. The environment minister has approved coalmines to run past 2050. The government now, in a cabinet endorsed gas strategy, says they want gas to 2050 and beyond. 2050 would have been too late to reach zero, but now we're not even going to reach it then, because Labor's policy, crystal clear, is to keep opening new coal and gas mines and have it running past 2050, even though every scientist is telling us that that is a recipe for catastrophic heatwaves and floods and fires for people who are going to primary school today. It means that during the lifetime of kids at primary school today they will see Australia lose its capacity to feed itself as the Murray-Darling Basin evaporates and becomes 92 per cent less productive than it is at the moment. It will mean they go to every school holidays and Christmas holidays worried about how many people are going to die in the heatwaves and bushfires that will hit that year, because this parliament and this government failed to get the climate crisis under control.

Five new coal projects and eight new gas projects—that's what the Labor government have approved since they came to power. And now they have embraced Scott Morrison. The Prime Minister is now worse than Scott Morrison, pushing for new gas projects and having them go past 2050, at a time when we should be at absolutely zero pollution, if not much sooner.

You know what, Mr Speaker? At 5.15 the day after parliament rose last time, after we had been sitting here for weeks debating gas, we found out that the environment minister had secretly approved the pipeline for the Beetaloo gas project. She didn't tell parliament about it. It just happened to become public the day after scrutiny could have been put on them in question time while parliament was sitting here.

I want to make a special mention of those lions in their electorates who are mice in the parliament, the members for Macnamara, Wills, Richmond, Cooper and Moreton, all of whom sat here and cheered on every one of those new coal and gas mines when they were approved. Now, apparently, they're saying that there's a problem with the government's gas strategy. Well, this is a chance to come and vote on it. There's one thing that you get here that everyday people don't get: when you come to parliament, you get your vote. People want to know whether you're going to vote for more coal and gas mines or vote against them. This is a chance now to put your money where your mouth is and be on the right side of history. Stop approving new coal and gas mines. Come and vote with those of us in the Greens and on the crossbench who know the science and want to stop seeing this climate crisis get worse. If you don't—if your party doesn't let you—then quit your party. It is crystal clear now that Labor's policy is for more coal and gas past 2050, unless we stop them with this motion today and a commitment from the government that they will stop opening new coal and gas projects.

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

Is the motion seconded?

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion. It is clear that gas corporations run the Australian Labor Party. It is so abundantly clear. There are three reasons why.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rubbish!

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We hear objections immediately; it feels like we maybe touched a nerve again. Firstly, they let gas corporations get away with paying next to no tax. On income tax, Santos pays less income tax than anyone watching this at home. We also know that Santos last year wrote to the Labor resource minister asking for changes to environmental approvals to allow them to accelerate the approval of the Barossa gas project, and then Labor did just that, overriding the wishes of First Nations people and serious environmental concerns. Any other constituent in Australia would love the idea that they could write to the minister and then immediately get what they want. What about all the people on JobSeeker writing to the minister, asking to have their payments raised above the poverty line, or the people stuck on waiting lists or the renters out there? They get ignored. But, if you're the CEO of Santos, you get exactly what you want.

We also know that this new gas strategy is something of which every Labor member in this place should be deeply, deeply ashamed. I frankly do not know how anyone on that side of the House can sleep at night. Expanding gas production out past 2050 basically locks in catastrophic climate change. One of the lies that are perpetrated in this place, or these mistruths, is that Australia only has a small part to play when tackling climate change. Australia is one of the biggest exporters of fossil fuels in the world. In fact, the two countries that beat us are Saudi Arabia and Russia, which are hardly wonderful company to have.

So let's get this straight. The Labor Party is now going to spend public money expanding gas production out past 2050—gas production, by the way, that produces methane that is 80 times more potent in warming the planet than CO2. They let gas corporations get away with paying next to no tax. They're going to give them public money to do it. They roll over when the Labor resource minister gets written to by the CEO of Santos. It's incredible.

On taxes, by the way, we're about to have a federal budget, so let's talk about taxes for a second. Over a seven-year period, Santos made $28.9 billion in income. They paid an effective tax rate on that of 0.02 per cent. Eighty-two per cent of all the gas produced in Australia is exported overseas. So, really, what's remarkable about this—what is so destructive—is that they are pursuing a gas strategy that allows large multinational corporations, like Santos, Chevron and Woodside, to export enormous amounts of gas overseas, pay no tax on it, destroy the planet and hurt everyone other than the CEOs of Santos and Woodside. That's who the Labor Party is picking.

Let's think about Norway for a second. Some members of this place will say, 'It's very hard to tax gas corporations.' Norway manages it. In 2023, there was $209 billion earned in the Norwegian gas industry. They paid an effective tax rate of 63 per cent. In Australia, in the same year, gas corporations made $164 billion of revenue but only paid tax on that, plus royalties, at a rate of nine per cent. If those gas corporations in Australia paid the same tax rate as they did in Norway, in a single year the Australian government would have earned an extra $88.8 billion in revenue. That would fund putting dental into Medicare and completely solve the housing crisis by funding a mass construction of public housing. We could coordinate a freeze on rent increases. We could make university education free. We could wipe student debt. We could raise the poverty payments that the government forces people to live on, like JobSeeker, above the poverty line. We could do all of that. We could fundamentally improve people's lives and we could fund a transition plan out of coal and gas in the medium term.

Instead, this government is raising more money from student debt than they are from gas taxes, expanding gas production out past 2050 and approving coalmines that will be mining coal out to 2070—and expecting Australians to put up with it. Functionally what the Labor Party is doing in this place is acting as the political representative of Woodside, Santos and the entire gas industry. They're attempting to pull the wool over ordinary people's eyes by suggesting that somehow they care about other Australians out there.

But let's look at the evidence. There are record low taxes for gas corporations, which see Santos pay a lower percentage tax rate than a cleaner, a teacher or a nurse; they all pay a higher percentage tax rate than Santos does. There's public money to help Santos and Woodside do what they want to do—expand gas production and destroy the planet. At the end of all of this, what do we get? The world's scientists have said that warming is going to expand past 1½ degrees, and God only knows what's going to happen as warming surges past 2½ degrees and three degrees. And many members of this place won't have to be here to suffer the consequences. (Time expired)

Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me be absolutely clear: this government is fully committed to climate action and net zero by 2050. This government is fully committed to 82 per cent renewables by 2030. Since we came to office, there's been a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the national energy market, and this has driven both total emissions and emissions intensity to all-time record lows. We've doubled the rate of approvals for energy projects and provided over $1 billion for homes and businesses to upgrade their energy efficiency.

But the Greens don't want to talk about that. The Greens don't want to talk about the enormous progress that has been made on climate change, during this Labor government, after 10 years of inactivity. Instead, they want to stand up and make a range of outrageous slurs against Labor and against Labor MPs. They want to stand there and make a series of outlandish claims. The reason for that is the Greens are fearful of one thing above all, and that is a sensible and practical path to address climate change. If we have a sensible and practical path to address climate change, we won't have the politics of outrage and we won't have the ability for them to make the perfect the enemy of the good. They are happy when the Liberals are in government, doing nothing on climate change, because it gives them the ability to rev up the outrage politics of climate change. That's why they're so annoyed about sensible, practical, middle-of-the-road climate change policies.

I saw this firsthand. In 2009 and 2010, I worked on the then Labor government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which was a plan to put an emissions trading scheme into Australia for the first time, a plan that would have been world leading and would have made a massive difference to Australia over the last 15 years. Who opposed it? The Greens. And why did they oppose it? Because sensible, methodical progress on climate change is anathema to the politics that they want to run on this issue. Time and time again, the Greens are opposed to sensible and practical change. Time and time again, the Greens make the perfect the enemy of the good.

The reason for that is there is nothing worse for their political strategy than having positive progress, the kind of positive progress that this government has implemented over the last two years: making a real difference on renewables; making a real difference on transmission; signing up to ambitious targets; bringing the business sector and the rest of the community, including the unions, together around a national target that it can actually deliver; signing back up to our international commitments; and being a leader on the world stage in climate change. All of this is exactly what the Greens do not want—practical, sensible change. That's why they're trying to whip up outrage on this issue. That's why, first thing in after the break: bang, they're into the suspension of standing orders; bang, full of outrage; bang, lots of slurs against individual Labor MPs; bang, lots of outrage in the speech. All of it is because the thing they fear most is practical, real change that makes the politics of outrage irrelevant.

Well, we are going to continue on this path. We are going to continue to methodically and practically work through the challenges to address the climate crisis in this nation and around the world. We have seen more progress in two years than was able to be achieved in the last 10 years, more progress in two years than was able to be achieved in the entire period of Liberal government and, I'm sorry to say, more progress in two years than was achieved in the last Labor government, when we made the mistake of thinking the Greens were fair dinkum on climate change. We made that mistake, and look what happened. They wouldn't support an emissions-trading scheme in this country. How the world would have been different, how Australia would have been different, if they hadn't made the perfect the enemy of the good. They voted against the CPRS then, and that is exactly the tactic they have right now. That was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address climate change in this country, to put us on a sensible path towards a clean energy future. The Greens took that off the table.

The member for Griffith stood up a moment ago and said, 'It's a mistake to think that Australia only has a small role to play in addressing global climate change.' We agree. We think Australia has a big role. That's why it's such a shame that back in 2010 the Greens stopped Australia from playing that role, from putting in a world-leading emissions-trading scheme. And that's why it's such a shame that they're trying to scupper the sensible, practical progress that has been made in Australia in the last two years. They don't want Australia playing that role on the world stage. They preferred it back when Australia was making no progress, under the Morrison government. In fact, the Leader of the Greens just a moment ago said, 'This government is worse than Scott Morrison.' Well, it's worse than Scott Morrison for him, friends, because, by doing sensible, practical things to address climate change, we're taking away the politics of outrage. He loved Scott Morrison. He loved the coal in the parliament. That enabled him to really rev up the outrage, to dial it up to 10.

That's why we're not seeing them come into this parliament and make any attacks on the Liberals' positions and we're not seeing them come in and support Labor's sensible positions. What we see instead is them pursuing the politics of outrage, because they don't want progress on climate change. Sensible, practical policies are their enemy, and they have always been their enemy. That's why they don't come in here and talk about the change that has occurred in Australia over the last 10 years and they don't attack Peter Dutton for his ridiculous, scandalous neglect on climate change. Australia is making progress, and they want to attack the government for that progress. What they would love is a world in which no progress was made, and they could go back to revving up the politics of outrage.

That is the difference. Labor is going to make practical, methodical change. We've made an enormous amount of progress in the last two years, and that is incredibly important to Australians. In my electorate, we face enormous consequences from climate change. In Parramatta, people are already paying the price with the impacts of climate change. Every summer, Parramatta gets almost 10 degrees hotter than the rest of Sydney. In 2019, one out of every eight days were above 35 degrees. And Parramatta is prone to catastrophic flooding—natural disasters that are getting worse and worse. In some of the published scenarios, up to 25 per cent of Parramatta could become a flood zone. That's why the people of Parramatta have been working to deliver a climate adaptation plan, a plan that addresses the local impacts of climate change and supports our progress in dealing with those impacts of climate change while at the same time the government gets on with mitigation.

Last week we delivered our Parramatta climate action plan, a plan supported by members of the community and community groups from across the electorate, distilling 137 community led recommendations into a plan that we can action over the next several years. That's sensible, methodical progress on climate change—real, practical action. At a local level, I'm so proud of the people of Parramatta for coming together on that plan. That practical, methodical plan is exactly the opposite of the politics of outrage that we see from the Greens as they come into this parliament.

For the first time in a decade we have a government taking climate change seriously. For the first time in a decade we have Australia back at the international table. For the first time in a decade we've got renewables going up. For the first time in a decade we have consensus from business groups, union groups and community groups on the need to address climate change. The people who cannot bear that consensus, the people who are completely opposed to that, who recognise it as the biggest threat to their political strategy are the Australian Greens political party. No wonder they've come into this House and expressed such outrage.

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

I stand to support this motion condemning the Future Gas Strategy and calling on the environment minister and the resources minister to stop approving new coal and gas projects. I'm not into the politics of outrage, but I am fond of common sense. Gas does have a role in the transition. It is better than coal and it is a good firming fuel while we are working out the technology that we need to be truly net zero. We do need some gas during transition. It needs to be a fraction of the gas we're using today. We need to use as little gas as possible for as short a time as possible. This Future Gas Strategy is not a transition strategy; it is an expansion strategy.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Order! The member for Moreton, the Leader of the Australian Greens and the member for Griffith, I'd like to hear the member for Curtin.

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

This is not a transition strategy; it is an expansion strategy. We cannot expand gas all the way to net zero. It just does not make sense. In Western Australia at the moment we are experiencing a forest collapse event. There are dead trees all over my electorate that have not lasted through the summer, despite having lasted for 100 years before that.

We know that we need to reduce the use of gas. Gas is only part of the transition if it's replacing coal, not if it's replacing renewables. The danger is if we invest in gas projects now, hoping that the world will prefer our gas to our competitors' gas, we end up with too much gas and then gas becomes cheaper and it starts replacing renewables instead. We cannot use short-term issues to justify making bad long-term decisions.

This strategy is not presented in the context that it's as little as possible for as short a time as possible. It's not clear how this strategy fits with our international climate obligations, with driving reduction in demand for gas and with prioritising domestic needs over export. We export 90 per cent of our Western Australian gas offshore. We get little tax for that; the profits go overseas and it contributes to an unlivable planet. We are not sending a clear message to the investment community that we are serious about decarbonisation. It's a very mixed message, saying: 'We're expanding gas. We're open for business to 2050 and beyond. Oh, but we are also trying to incentivise renewables.' We need clear signals here.

Alan Kohler points out that this raises the question: what is the point of all the other work we're doing to reduce emissions when it is all undone by these huge gas projects? That is why this future gas strategy is not consistent with a livable planet; it is not consistent with Australia being committed to decarbonisation. I condemn it and I call on the environment minister and the resource minister to stop approving new coal and gas mines.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

April 2024 was the hottest April ever, globally; March 2024 was the hottest March ever, globally; and February 2024 was the same. The last 11 months have been the hottest ever. The Albanese government came to government promising that the climate wars were over, but what it's delivered to Australia with the Future Gas Strategy is a reopening of a wound which is a shame to this country. I don't know how members of the government can look at the children in their electorates, knowing what they are condemning them to, with the impact of fossil fuel emissions being apparent now. We're not kicking the can down the road; this is something with which our communities are already dealing.

The member for Parramatta has just spoken to us about the issues in Western Sydney and the heat islands in that part of the country, but so many parts of this country are dealing with the egregious effects of climate change now. The member for Curtin has already spoken to the same. There is no way that any member of the government who has looked at the science—who has seen members of the IPCC say on the weekend that 80 per cent of them believe that we will not avoid global warming to three degrees and beyond—can ignore that science. The Australian Academy of Science has said that global warming to three degrees and beyond is disastrous.

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

The time for debate has expired. The question is that the motion be agreed to. There being more than one voice calling for a division, in accordance with standing order 133 the division is deferred until after the discussion of the matter of public importance.

Debate adjourned.