Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Families and Communities) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you. The consequences of that decision are stark—half a decade of government with a party described by their own Minister for Women as a party of homophobes, sexists and climate denialists, and we've had absolute policy stasis on climate change. We heard just now from Senator Williams, in his contribution, a total failure to accept our obligations to reduce our own emissions and a total failure to understand the realities of what it will take to transition our economy and, indeed, the global economy to a low-carbon economy. As Tony Wood from the Grattan Institute noted:

… it remains a fact that we don't have a climate change policy in this country.

Australian's inaction on climate is unacceptable in the face of mounting visible evidence of the impact climate change is having on Australia and the world. The science is clear and compelling. Recent studies show the 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years and the top four have been in the past four years. Climate action must be increased fivefold to limit warning to the 1.5 degree Celsius increase that scientists tell us according to the UN.

This evidence is not accepted by many in the coalition. The member for Hughes, whose preselection has just been rescued by the Prime Minister, has previously said:

It's CO2 we are talking about: it's what turns water into soda water; it's what makes chardonnay into champagne.

Well, unlike many in the coalition—and, indeed, I suspect most who are in the chamber today—Labor believe in the science of climate change, and we believe in action on it. Labor's climate plan includes delivering 50 per cent of power from renewables by 2030, zero net pollution by 2050, a plan for batteries in households and an additional $10 billion in capital for the Clean Energy Corporation to effect a transition.

Like the UN meeting about climate change in halls heated by coal-fired power plants, our own efforts in Australia run up against our industrial and mining legacy. And the answer to that legacy lies in the international rules for carbon accounting and reduction that are being discussed in Poland right now. That system accounts for emissions at the point of use, rather than at the point they are mined. As a consequence of those rules, the greatest threats to the viability of coalmining are international carbon reduction efforts and investments in renewables that are rendering the mining and use of thermal coal uneconomical and undesirable. The International Energy Agency's next annual report on the global coal market is due next month. The 2017 report, however, was clear: demand for coal will be stagnant over the next half a decade. And this is optimistic compared to some other assessments. A report, for instance, by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis this year forecast profound drops in the demand for coal if you take into account the falling price of renewable energy and global action on climate change.

There are decarbonisation efforts in effect in some of Australia's biggest thermal coal importers—countries such as China, South Korea and Japan—and the effects are already biting. We can see the effects of a decreasing global appetite for coal in the Australian projects. The Adani project has been forced to self-fund because it was unable to raise capital from financiers either in Australia or aboard. The reason for that isn't a sudden attack of conscience by the banks; it is because coal increasingly represents a serious risk to investors. Even self-funding, Adani has been forced to proceed with something that is just one-sixth of the size they initially hoped for.

We should applaud the reduction in carbon emissions that comes from global efforts to reduce the demand for coal, but we shouldn't celebrate the effect that it has on jobs and industry—not for one moment should we celebrate it. We cannot wish away our industrial and mining legacy, and we cannot ignore the communities and jobs that have grown up around it over the past decades. These are communities filled with decent, hardworking people doing decent jobs that are well paid—union jobs where people are properly represented. And these people should not be asked to bear the costs of decarbonisation alone and without support.

We benefit collectively from action on climate change. We have a collective obligation to help those on whom the consequences fall. A climate change policy is incomplete if it does not account for the working people whose jobs and communities are affected. Unfortunately, time after time, the Greens political party fail this test. A just transition has to be something more than an empty phrase tacked onto the end of a speech. It has to be a meaningful response to the very real upheaval that the closure of power plants and mines has on very real people's lives, because the costs of economic adjustment are not fairly distributed. We've seen under this government a complete failure to support those affected by the closure of the car industry. There has been no action. I don't see the Greens out there fighting for those workers, either. There has been no action whatsoever to support those people. But that will not be Labor's approach, not for this industry or any other industry. That's why we have committed to establishing an independent just transition authority to help plan for and coordinate the response to the eventual closure of coal-fired power stations in the future. We will also make it mandatory for power stations and coalmines to participate in pooled redundancy schemes to help ensure that every worker impacted by a closure is provided an offer of employment at a nearby power station or coalmine, subject to enough positions being created.

This isn't happening tomorrow; this is happening in the long term. But people are crying out for long-term planning and a long-term transition—a way of dealing with the very large change that is washing through our economy and through the global economy. The UNSW Business School recently put out a report on the pathways for transition in Australia. It's entitled The Ruhr or Appalachia? It reflects on the very different post-industrial experiences of the German and American working classes. The German example reflects real investment and engagement with the needs of working-class people. The American example does not. The Greens are fond of using this chamber to talk about the rise of right-wing populism. They would do well to reflect, and consider whose example they would rather we follow in Australia: the Ruhr or Appalachia.