Lee Rhiannon (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Again the arrogance of the Abbott government is on display for all to witness—and what an ugly sight. Winding back action on climate change at a time when we should be stepping up our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is highly irresponsible—possibly one of the most irresponsible acts that any government could be involved in. And what a reminder we have had that we need much more action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: this summer, so many people have experienced sweltering heat, fires and record temperatures. This has been the case across the country and in many extreme weather events across the globe. We have seen fires last year in the Blue Mountains, in New South Wales. Tragically, so many homes were lost. The good news was that lives were not lost, but the hardship and the trauma were considerable. There have been fires and extreme weather events in so many places across this country.

Yet, despite this year's record-breaking heat and unprecedented scientific certainty about the impacts of global warming, the Abbott government is trying to tear down the price on pollution—our best defence against future extreme storms, droughts and fires. We have acknowledged that more work needs to be done on this, but to dismantle what has been achieved is highly irresponsible. It beggars belief that, while Australians across the country are feeling the effects of climate change, the Prime Minister is so obsessed with sticking to an ideological position that flies in the face of the hard, clear facts. At every turn, we see this government adopting a neoliberal approach—blocking policies that would bring relief to people experiencing hardship, blocking policies that would drive greater action on climate change, and blocking policies to assist with the transition that our society is going through and must go through.

The world is starting to turn its back on the coal industry. Coal prices go up and down, but more countries are moving to clean, renewable energy and Australia is being left behind. Our clean energy laws are already reducing greenhouse gas pollution in this country and creating real jobs that will last well into the future. For all the talk from the coal industry—and from those in this place who back it—if you look at the figures, you can see that the industry is not generating jobs growth. Even when coal production goes up, as it does periodically, the high levels of automation in the industry mean that that does not necessarily translate into more jobs. The coal industry is not the job creator that so many make it out to be. More and more, it is in fact becoming a job killer in many regions.

I look at the impacts of global warming on our community very closely in New South Wales. We see these impacts very clearly in many areas of Sydney, and a number of local councils have studied this closely. Their reports provide a real reminder why these bills should not go through and why we in fact need more action on climate change. It has been identified that Sydney will experience more variable rainfall and stronger winds and that the result will be droughts and more extreme weather events. Between 43,900 and 65,300 residential buildings in New South Wales are at risk of inundation from a sea level rise of 1.1 metres. Interestingly, it is homes in Rockdale, a Sydney local government area, which face the highest risk in Australia of such inundation. Each year, there are 176 heat related deaths in Sydney. It is estimated that this could rise to 417 a year by 2020 and to 1,312 by 2050. Further, it has been identified that Sydney's water supply is at risk. We have already had the experience in recent times of our water supplies falling to very low levels, but now it is forecast that climate change is likely to cause a decrease in annual rainfall and run-off into inland catchments by 2030.

Against the backdrop of the Abbott government's irresponsible failure to take meaningful action on climate change, it is interesting to see how they interact with the mining industry. We now know that they have been taking increasing amounts of money in political donations from some of the big coal industry companies and from some of the big resource industry companies. Each year, the Australian Electoral Commission releases data for the preceding financial year on political donations to the various parties. The data for the 2012-13 financial year came out at the beginning of February. It shows that donations from the mining and resource companies to the federal coalition increased by 60 per cent in the lead-up to the last election.

It is worth noting that we do not have the data for the current financial year, 2013-14. Given that the election was in September, the data for July, August and the first week of September—that part of the election period which did not fall into the 2012-13 financial year—will not be available until the AEC publishes it at the beginning of 2015. That is an area where we need reform. People have the right to know who is donating to political parties in the lead-up to an election; but, as things stand, they will not know that for another 12 months.

However, from what is available, that overall 60 per cent increase in mining industry donations to the coalition is not the only interesting piece of information. There were also some very interesting individual donations. Gina Rinehart's two companies, Hancock Coal and Hancock Prospecting, donated $163,130 to the coalition and Labor in 2012-13. Hancock Coal and Hancock Prospecting are set to make massive profits out of the decisions of various governments—they now have the contract for the new coal terminals at Abbot Point. Then there is GVK, another resource company set to benefit from that same Abbot Point coal project. They donated $55,000 to federal Labor in 2012-13.

This is not a healthy situation. The mining industry has benefited for well over a decade from very favourable decisions made by successive state and federal governments. We saw this in New South Wales with the former Labor government weakening planning laws and weakening laws protecting landholder rights—making it easier for mining companies to get going. We have seen some of that play out in front of the ICAC. But there is so much more. We saw not only outright corruption but also the corrupting influence of donations—acting through the weakening of the planning laws, making it so much easier for mining companies to get approvals. The likes of the disgraced minister, Mr Ian Macdonald, and representatives of the various mining companies would often say: 'It's only exploration. That's all we're doing. It's just exploration to see what's there.' But it is hard to find any examples of proposals for new mine sites in New South Wales that did not go ahead. Time and time again—this is how the law worked—exploration was the first stage of full-scale mining, mining that has been deeply destructive. The mining industry in Australia is one of the most extreme examples of corporate welfare one could ever find—$12 billion a year in government money goes to assisting this industry. Part of the reason this industry can make record profits is that so much of its infrastructure is underwritten.

The problems here are playing out in many ways, and I want to return to the point I made about some of the damage we are seeing in New South Wales because of climate change. I give these examples because they are such a clear reminder why the bills before us are so deeply wrong, why we must be doing more and not less with action on climate change. This is quite personal for me because I spent much of my life at Bondi Beach—world-famous but it obviously means a great deal to locals. It is estimated in Waverley local council studies and the latest IPCC work that came out in September last year that sea level rises will be much greater than had been previously estimated. The IPCC study has estimated that the rise will be 80 centimetres greater by the end of the century than previously estimated, and Waverley council's own research shows that the beach would recede by 20 metres by 2050 and 45 metres by 2100.

It is worth sharing this with the Senate because these are factual reports. My Greens colleague in the New South Wales state parliament, David Shoebridge, who has responsibility for planning issues, announced this research while on Bondi Beach and advocated the need for more action on climate change. Lo and behold the council, which is Liberal controlled these days—the mayor is Sally Betts—demanded that he have a permit if he was going to be on Bondi Beach talking about these issues. He was just with a few colleagues at the start of this campaign. The fact that the Liberal council in Bondi, clearly with a responsibility to look at a beach that is not just famous locally or nationally but globally, is trying to intimidate people who are out there speaking about local council reports and the need to do the right thing. So what we saw with the mayor, Sally Betts, is in keeping with what we are seeing from this Liberal government—ugly tactics.