Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Today, Wednesday 3 August, the Albanese Labor government has introduced its climate legislation. I can understand why a number of Australians are excited and optimistic that we are seeing some climate legislation in this building after nine years of not just inaction but also a government that has undermined climate action. We're going to hear a lot more about this climate bill in this place in the weeks to come. It has been commented on by a number of experts—and those comments are being widely reported on—who say that it is a largely symbolic bill that lacks ambition, substance, and a pathway or mechanism to effective climate action. But, at least unlike the CPRS, which was introduced by the Labor Party back in 2009, it doesn't take this country backwards.

It's fair to say that it's not the main game. For those who voted for climate action from this parliament—and millions of them voted for the Greens to come into this building and do what was necessary to take effective climate action—the main game of this parliament is going to be stopping new fossil fuel projects, stopping oil and gas projects going ahead in offshore basins, stopping new coal projects going ahead. This is what we know to be effective and real climate action.

But there are other things we need to do too. We need to throw the kitchen sink at this problem, and today I want to briefly outline a couple of policies that the Australian Greens took to the federal election. We know our native forests—in fact, all our forests, all our trees—are our first line of defence against climate change, because trees sequester carbon and breathe out oxygen, and we couldn't survive without them. Unfortunately, Tasmania's native forests are still under relentless assault from the loggers, and this is backed in by both the state Labor Party and the state Liberal Party—and, sadly, unless sentiment is changed, by the federal Liberal and Labor parties too.

Here is an original idea from the Australian Greens in the last federal election—and my colleague Senator Janet Rice came down to Tasmania to announce this with me. Given we know the carbon value of these forests is so significant—and they have been studied, studied in detail—why not have the Commonwealth pay the state government, the Tasmanian state government, or potentially the Victorian state government, the emissions reduction value of those carbon sequestration forests. In Tasmania, we took a policy of the federal government paying for a billion dollars worth of carbon offsets to permanently protect Tasmania's forests.

Under the Emissions Reduction Fund—and it may, of course, be subject to change in this parliament—native forests are exempt from payments. Why? There's no valid reason. If we're paying for carbon offsets to farmers or to other organisations or corporations, why not pay to permanently protect Tasmania's native forests? The money would be spent anyway, and we know these forests are significant stores of carbon and are so valuable in a time of our climate emergency. Tasmania would be a winner. We would receive the carbon value of those forests. In fact, a billion dollars is only a small percentage of what the carbon value of those forests truly is. But we know that, from recent studies, it's a fair price to pay to permanently protect those forests. That money would then be used by the state government, and we proposed a task force be set up to spend that money on a number of exciting projects that would help create employment for those in the forestry industry, who would be looking for new employment. However, saying that, of course most of the loggers in Tasmania are private contractors. There have been a number of payouts to contractors in the past, but there'd be very exciting opportunities for new employment, especially in ecosystem restoration.

It's a win-win. We get to take action on climate change, real action on climate change. To give you an idea, a recent report released by Dr Jen Sanger and other scientists shows that native forest logging is the highest emitting sector in Tasmania, emitting 4.65 million tonnes of carbon a year. That's equivalent to the emissions of 1.1 million cars, and is 2.5 times the entire Tasmanian transport sector.

So here we go. We have a state that's essentially 100 per cent renewable energy; however, it's not, on a net basis, because we are still logging our precious old-growth forests. Dr Sanger's report reveals that if all Tasmania's public forests were protected an additional 75 million tonnes of carbon could be drawn down from the atmosphere by 2050. This is equivalent to $2.6 billion in carbon sequestration services. A $1 billion transfer from the Commonwealth to the state government is a very fair price to permanently protect these forests, to take effective action on climate change, to protect biodiversity in an extinction crisis and to give Tasmania—the Tasmanian state government, Tasmanian communities, Tasmanian forestry workers and a whole bunch of other people—funds that can be reinvested in the industries of the future.

There is no future in native forest logging. The Western Australian government has committed to phasing out native forest logging. The Victorian government has committed to phasing out native forest logging. New South Wales has a way to go, and so does my home state. In this day and age of climate emergency, it's actually insanity to be cutting down these beautiful old forests. They are not only important for their biodiversity, for their cultural values to First Nations people and for their carbon sequestration; they are also effective in helping us with fire management in Tasmania. That has also been proven through scientific studies.

Some other forests that I would like to see protected and see the federal government fund are, of course, the most carbon-rich forests on the planet, which are our giant kelp forests. Sadly, 95 per cent of our kelp forests have vanished in recent decades, thanks to warming oceans and a nutrient-poor East Australian Current. We've seen invasive urchins come down and create barrens on our reefs, eating entire habitats. That has impacted commercial fisheries, it's impacted local communities and it's impacted Indigenous communities.

Why not reinvest in ecosystem restoration for our giant kelp forests? There's some amazing work going on within the scientific community in Tasmania. This, by the way, has been backed in by the commercial fishing sector in Tasmania and the recreational fishing groups. Both of those groups, who represent tens of thousands of Tasmanians, asked the Liberal Party and the Labor Party at the last election—as they did with the Greens—to back in federal funding and to have a full recovery plan funded for Tasmania's forgotten giant kelp forests, which are critically endangered and listed, under EPBC law. We need to work hard to bring these forests back from the brink—to protect and regrow our ecosystems that are so important to commercial fishing industries.

That's going to require a coordinated response to remove the invasive Centrostephanus, the long spined sea urchin, which is an unwelcome, invasive pest that has come down from New South Wales. It's laid bare our reefs in southern New South Wales and Victoria, as it has in Tasmania. It is one of the biggest issues the fishing industry, as well as local communities, faces in the Great Southern Reef. Unfortunately there's been no federal leadership shown on this issue in the past decade. It's been left to the states to try and raise revenue to tackle the spread of these urchins—to try and remove them or to try and turn them into fishery—but that has been largely unsuccessful in stopping the spread of these invasive pests. If we don't do it now, we will lose our roots. The Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies have released a very detailed research paper on this. Our reefs are at threat if we don't act.

This is the cost of climate inaction, but it's not too late to do something about it. Today, while the media is going to be focused on all the issues around the release of the government's bill and action on climate change, there's so much more that this parliament can do. Here are two good ideas that we could all get behind. You'll be hearing a lot more from me on these issues, as you'd expect. I'm very proud to represent a party that has these policies. (Time expired)