Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

The contributions that we've had on this MPI today show that the coalition is still, frankly, in chaos and denial when it comes to the reality of climate change and the ineffectiveness of their policies and their lack of commitment. There is no plan for jobs, no plan for wages growth and no plan from them to address climate change. The reality is, if you unpick the previous contribution by Senator O'Sullivan, this government has pocketed in their climate change emissions reductions the policy initiatives of the Rudd-Gillard governments and the action that they put in place.

In addition, when you talk about emissions falling in our nation, why have they fallen? In part, emissions have fallen in the agricultural sector because of the drought—that is, because of the effects of climate change. I don't think our carbon accounting, frankly, has yet caught up with the emissions catastrophe that took place in the context of Australia's summer with the bushfires that have been experienced and the amount of carbon that has been emitted in that process.

We know that one of the triggers we need to look to in the acceleration of climate change globally—with increasing weather, with increasing drought, with increasing temperatures, with decreasing rainfall—is a likelihood of more fires. What is the irony of that? With more fires comes more carbon emissions. So the government needs to be very careful when it talks about very easily being able to claim that it's going to get to its 2030 target without putting in a real structural policy effort to work out where our nation is headed.

In the Labor Party we're recommitted to real action on climate change: net zero emissions by 2050.We are not alone in this aspiration. This principle is supported by business and industry: Qantas, Santos, Telstra, BP, Shell, Chevron, Woodside, BHP, the Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers Federation, the ACTU, the Minerals Council of Australia and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association. They've all committed to net zero emissions by 2050. We have some pretty large fossil fuel companies in there, making that commitment to that target. If these companies can come out in favour of net zero by 2050, surely this government can. Around the world, many places have a target of achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Seventy-three countries, 14 states or regions and 398 cities have made that commitment.

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is continuing to try to drive Liberal policy in lieu of any government leadership in this space. Good on him for doing so. Someone's got to take moral responsibility for this issue within the Liberal Party. He said: 'Now we can see a feasible, affordable route to net zero. The alternative is catastrophic.' What does this government try to portray as 'catastrophic'? It tries to portray the very notion of having this target as catastrophic, in complete denial of the need for a global commitment to address emissions and bring them down. Australia can and must play its role in driving down emissions, in order that we achieve a climate change target that does not see our nation in catastrophic climate change danger. If there's a more damning assessment of this government than what Malcolm Turnbull has said, I'd like to see it. As I said, and I quote from him: 'The alternative is catastrophic.'

Niall Blair, former Deputy Leader of the Nationals in New South Wales, has also had this to say:

The recent announcement by federal Labor to target net zero emissions by 2050 provides a great opportunity for the agricultural sector in Australia to diversify and thrive. I’ve watched with interest as some suggest this policy will wipe out Australian agriculture, just as they hypothesised the same for the fossil fuel industry.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I see there is a huge opportunity for both farmers and brand Australia. However, we need to compare apples with apples – not apples to coal, as some are trying to do.

Yesterday, in this place, I spoke about the red meat industry, and they have an even more ambitious target. Theirs is, as this place should well know by now, is net zero by 2030.

I find it quite ironic that this government has, in fact, used our target of net zero by 2050. They have used the livestock industry as an example of why they don't like Labor's target. So here you have the agricultural industry showing more leadership than those who purport to represent agriculture in this place. It is appalling. There is a business in Victoria and they've already got to net zero carbon from their red meat business. So it's infinitely doable. I note that Infrastructure Australia has released their top infrastructure priorities today. It is no surprise, frankly, that the list is topped by projects that mitigate the challenges that our nation faces from the results of a changing climate.

We have a government here that exists in a policy vacuum on climate change. It has no plan and no leadership in this space. We know that we should be looking for infrastructure changes that can see our electricity networks strengthen so that we can diversify the grid and bring in more renewable energy. But instead we see this government missing in action from those kinds of commitments. We have a Prime Minister and a divided government of climate deniers. They have never taken action on climate change seriously, but it is amazing how quickly the Prime Minister started to change his rhetoric just as a political crisis starts to engulf him and force him to do so. There can be little real belief or policy drive behind the Prime Minister when you can see quite transparently his language change in response, not to listening to the science, not to listening to the evidence, but in response to an environmental emergency crisis that very nearly resulted in him experiencing a political crisis.

Instead of getting behind the business community, behind industry and committing to action on climate change, we have a government that runs out a scare campaign—a scare campaign that has directly contradicted the very industries who said they want to meet this target and who are committed to doing so. Maybe the minister should try talking up business instead of running these scare tactics. What is the real concern for business? The real concern for business is the impact of doing nothing, the impact of catastrophic climate change and the impact of being left with policy settings from a government that doesn't allow them to adapt and change for the inevitable future that they will face.

Net zero emissions by 2050 is all about cleaner and cheaper energy. This will mean stronger growth for our nation, more jobs and higher wages. But in the Prime Minister's inaction on climate change we have a recipe for high power prices, fewer jobs, lower wages and slower economic growth.