Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following that which the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has characterised, it's my opportunity to put on record the coalition's position on this. As has already been pointed out, having had the opportunity in the last sitting fortnight to examine such matters instead of others, we now have this being considered an urgent piece of legislation. That is passing strange, given what this legislation actually does. I think it's important to reiterate points made in the other place by the Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Ted O'Brien, which is that this legislation is bad legislation and reflects bad policy. How this legislation is characterised by those opposite and those who supported it is misleading to those in the community calling for action on climate. Indeed, the actual impact this legislation will have on the matter around climate change, on carbon emissions and the amount of which there is in the atmosphere, is also misleading.

As we consider the legislation that the Labor government has brought in, it's also important to consider that with the promise of legislating an emissions reduction target of 43 per cent—which we oppose legislating—there was another promise made, and that was around cutting the cost of electricity for Australian households and Australian businesses. It was a promise that, as soon as we arrived here to start conducting business on the first day of this 47th Parliament, was abandoned. It was $275 a year by the year 2025, something pledged 97 times in the lead-up to the election and not mentioned once since. There were two promises. One was a target of emissions reduction being legislated—and the government is delivering on that promise by legislating it. It is something we said we would not do and, therefore, oppose enshrining in legislation for reasons I will outline shortly. Another promise was made concurrently, and has been abandoned—completely wiped off the books, as if no-one will notice.

Today of all days, when the Reserve Bank of Australia will no doubt hand down a decision that will spell out further pain for Australian households when it comes to their monthly budgets—mortgage rates going up, power prices going up, fuel and all of those prices going up—we are instead focusing on legislating a target to reduce emissions which, frankly speaking, won't do what those opposite say it will. So it does really demonstrate the priorities of this government and how close they are to the dining table conversations and the living room conversations that are taking place out there in Australia. I'm pretty sure that households, universally, are talking about the impact that power prices and fuel prices are having on their weekly budget, and they want a government to act on those things. But, instead, here we are, in this first proper sitting week where we can deal with business, talking about this issue. As I say, that broken promise around not dealing with power prices but instead dealing only with a reduction in emissions being enshrined in legislation is going to be extremely evident to all as time marches on. Every time people look at this legislation and the debate that's taking place, they will be reminded of it. It is very telling that Labor have abandoned that promise, and, in doing so, have abandoned most of Australia—the people who are going to struggle with those bills. We know that, as of June this year, power prices were $208 higher than they were in the same month last year. And, of course, it's going to get much worse.

It's also important to point out a couple of the points that were made by my colleague in the other place Ted O'Brien, the member for Fairfax and shadow minister for energy, who said that this bill isn't needed at all. And it's a point that was actually made by the relevant minister, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Bowen, who said, 'We do not need it,' referring to this legislation, and, 'We've also been clear that this legislation is not required'—points made by the government themselves in relation to the necessity or otherwise of introducing this bill. It's symbolic; it's tokenistic. In an interview yesterday the point was made by the Greens environment spokesperson that this is purely symbolic; it doesn't actually do anything, at least insofar as the primary bill is concerned.

So, that being the case—not needing to enshrine it—why are we doing this? There are a lot of things that this bill doesn't do. Sadly, one of the things it doesn't do is end green lawfare. Only yesterday in the Australian Financial Review, we saw that the Australian Greens said that the 43 per cent target being enshrined in legislation won't end climate wars. Again, I refer to the comments of the Greens environment spokesperson, Senator Hanson-Young, who said:

The climate wars will not end this week with the passage of Labor's climate bill—

which is something we were promised would happen; we were going to end the climate wars—

so long as they keep approving new coal and gas.

So there's another thing this bill doesn't do. It doesn't reduce emissions, it doesn't end the climate wars, and it doesn't bring down power prices—in fact, quite the opposite, I expect.

Having looked at those things this bill doesn't do, despite promises made before the election and promises made during this debate, let's look at some of the things it does do. A great place to start in looking at some of these issues is the dissenting report handed down by coalition senators on the Senate inquiry into this bill. I think it's pretty important to note that this bill and the consequential amendments bill will be pretty damaging when it comes to the economy and particularly regional Australia. It's going to have a massively adverse impact on jobs, on infrastructure, on major projects, on national security, on the wellbeing of rural and regional communities, and even on the day-to-day existence of many Australians—on household budgets, like we were talking about before.

It's important to point out also that the government, in drafting this legislation, have patently ignored the experience of other jurisdictions that have gone on to legislate emissions reduction targets. You only have to look at Europe to see what has happened there—and there are a range of examples, again, outlined in the coalition senators' dissenting report to the committee inquiry. In the United Kingdom, we've seen a range of critical infrastructure projects either delayed or completely blocked because of green lawfare. It's something we knew would happen. We predicted this, and we are warning Australians that, when this bill passes, it is going to be a green light for this sort of activity. In the UK, crucial projects like their HS2, their high-speed rail network, have been delayed because of legislated emissions reductions targets. Major road projects have been delayed. The third runway at Heathrow Airport has been delayed for years because of enshrined legislated targets for emissions reduction.

In France, of course, their sovereign government is being told by one of their courts that they will be subject to penalties if they don't take necessary measures on climate change by the end of 2022. So we have the judiciary telling the legislature and the executive what to do. And it's no different in Germany. In April last year, German courts ordered the government to increase its emissions reductions targets. So you've got courts—who are not elected, as far as I am aware, by the people—telling those elected by the people what to do. This is the by-product of legislating these targets, and this is why the coalition has sounded the alarm bell and opposes these moves.

Another telling factor in this debate is the fact that no modelling was actually undertaken by government departments in preparation for the introduction of this legislation, one of the signature promises by the Labor government, alongside that $275 power price reduction that was promised but abandoned—no modelling. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and also the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water each testified, and, astonishingly, neither of those departments were asked to do any modelling on the impacts on rural and regional Australia or the economy. What a revelation! That's unbelievable. Indeed, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was not even formally consulted on the consequential amendments bill prior to its introduction—that was evidence tendered at the committee hearing.

Infrastructure Australia has also admitted to the committee that it could not yet even explain the consequences of the two bills and how they should make decisions when trying to balance environmental and economic impacts. That is something I think Australians expect us to do—to maintain balance between the economy and the environment, because, of course, we need a functioning economy, as well as a healthy environment, to live. And, of course, there is the entity Export Finance Australia, who is certain to struggle now when it comes to its vital work in supporting projects in countries right across the Pacific, something we as a nation have a responsibility to do. And the same could be said of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility too.

So, with that little amount of work done, there has been no consultation, no regard for unintended consequences and no concern for the people of rural and regional Australia—who will likely bear the brunt of these enshrined targets and the increased cost of living and the impact on jobs and the economy—and, perhaps, people who will be forced into energy poverty as power prices continue to skyrocket. Again, I remind senators and those listening of the broken promise to reduce power prices by $275 annually by 2025, a promise broken so early in the term.

Of course, there are other considerations related to the government's response to managing the environment, such as the 30 per cent of land locked up by 2030. How are they going to do it? What are they going to do to assist in reaching these enshrined targets? What impact will that have on farmers and other land users? How are they going to manage these commitments they have made and the impacts that they will then have on Australians seeking to make an honest dollar to pay their bills—the bills that are going up? These things have not been considered at all. In relation to this land lock-up proposal, the National Farmers Federation president, Fiona Simson, said:

Locking up land is not the answer. It has the potential to have the reverse effect on biodiversity, with a lack of land management allowing feral animals and plants to flourish, as well as heightening the risks from fire, drought and flood.

We know fires are a major contributor to carbon emissions, so we need to consider these things, which I just don't think the government have done.

As was stated in the other place by the member for Fremantle, the government have made it very clear: this is the beginning and not the end. And that, I think, is an important note for us to hover on. I have outlined my concerns and the opposition's concerns around this legislation. The government say: 'It's just targets. It's just targets in legislation. Don't worry; it will be okay.' We've heard about other jurisdictions where targets are enshrined in legislation, and we know what impact that has. They're not made-up examples. They happened. There are courts ordering governments to do things which were not part of a mandate, which have not been tested by the people of those countries. They are things being forced on governments. They have an impact on the cost of living—something we should all be concerned about. There has not been much debate in here about this. The government hasn't brought forward legislation to deal with those issues. Singularly, we are dealing with this: enshrining in legislation targets to reduce emissions.

So, as the member for Fremantle said, this is the beginning, not the end. What's next? Where do we go from here? When do we start striking a balance with concern for people's ability to pay their power bills, which are going up in my home state of Tasmania—a 12 per cent increase in one hit? And we're a renewable energy generator in Tasmania. Hydro, wind, solar: that's what we rely on down there, but we've got a 12 per cent increase. Where does it end? Where do the targets end?

You only have to look at other policy and legislative proposals being considered around, say, the safeguards mechanism. I'd love to hear the government provide a guarantee that not one job will be lost in some of those emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries, some of those emitters across the country, particularly in rural and regional communities. In northern Tasmania we have five or six of them that cumulatively employ 2,000 people. I'd love a commitment that not one job will be lost, but I don't think we will get that. I think there will be a focus on bringing down emissions with no regard for the economy, with no regard for those jobs and, indeed, as I've outlined here, with no regard for what impact this will have on Australian households—on their ability to pay their bills, to keep the lights on, to keep warm in winter in places like Tasmania, to keep food on the table. This bill, sadly, is worse than it seems—both these bills—and I warn senators to consider carefully before they cast their vote. We will oppose this bill.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

WATERS (—) (): I rise to speak to the Climate Change Bill. And I note the presence of schoolkids up in the gallery, because this is relevant to them, as it is to all of us and the species we share this world with. From the day that this Climate Change Bill was released, the Greens have been warning: what happens if the 43 per cent passes on one day and new coal and gas fields are opened up the next day? In the month between this bill passing the House of Representatives and now, this first day of it being debated in the Senate, the Minister for Resources, Madeleine King, has released 10 new oil and gas leases, covering 47,000 square kilometres of our oceans. And then, straight out of the climate change deniers' book, she described carbon dioxide this way:

It's the bubbles in your soda water or out of your SodaStream … So, you know, we've got to keep it in balance, how we think about carbon dioxide.

Secondly, the Minister for the Environment and Water refused to block a gas-fired fertiliser plant in WA's sacred site of the Burrup Peninsula. Those chemicals would erode the 40,000-year-old rock art made by Murujuga ancestors and preserved until the present day. Of course, the Greens remain committed to the fact that we cannot have climate justice without First Nations justice.

Thirdly, just last night, the Prime Minister told the Minerals Council dinner here in Parliament House that the government will deliver a predictable transition, while giving a nodding reassurance to the fact that Australia will keep selling coal and gas to the world. Well, it's predictable alright, but it maintains the lie to workers that nothing is changing. And, of course, the Prime Minister went to that dinner instead of the Clean Energy Council function which was on at the same time.

Fourthly, since this bill was introduced into the House of Representatives, the Queensland Labor government has approved the expansion of the New Acland thermal coal mine, north-west of Toowoomba, on some of Queensland's richest agricultural soil and farmland. Now, that approval would increase the mine's operation by more than 60 per cent and would extend its life span to 2034—a thermal coalmine. This is a destructive project that will trash some of our best cropping land, threaten farmers' groundwater supply and all the while contribute to dangerous climate change.

The project has been fought by farmers like Sid and Merilyn Plant, who I've personally visited several times. They've fought this proposal for over a decade. They and farmers like them have seen their communities gutted. They've ridden the emotional and economic roller-coaster of seeing, first, their land racked with drought and, then, their crops flooded. It's those farmers that should be supported by government. Instead, the Queensland Labor government continues to bend over backwards to appease the fossil fuel lobby. So how any of this squares with Labor's so-called commitment to net zero is an absolute mystery. The fact that the Queensland resources minister announced the decision late on a Friday with a two-line release shows that they know how shameful it is. Of course, you then remember that both the opposition and the government received over $10 million in political donations from the fossil fuel industry over the past decade. And you'll recall how many former ministers and senior advisers go to work in grossly overpaid lobbying roles for fossil fuel companies. Maybe Labor approving more coal and gas mines and neutering their own climate ambition isn't such a mystery after all. Ban political donations from fossil fuel companies and we might get science based decisions.

The International Energy Agency said that Labor's net zero target by 2050 can't be met if just one new coal or gas infrastructure or mine is built—not one. There are now 114 new coal and gas projects in the development pipeline. So the message is simple: no new coal and gas. Everyone from Twiggy Forrest to the Pope is saying it. You can't stop the climate crisis by opening up new coal and gas mines.

The Labor Party's target of 43 per cent was set in consultation with political scientists, instead of climate scientists, and it's at risk of failing because of new coal and gas. The committee into this bill heard evidence of how setting a 2030 target below what the science requires jeopardises that subsequent net zero target. And, because this 43 per cent target aligns more with two degrees of global heating and is not consistent with the Paris Agreement, that pushes more work into later years. If we are wasting more of our very limited carbon budget now with a weak 43 per cent target, we will have to have faster, deeper emissions cuts later.

Even for the risky two-degree scenario, Australia would need to reach net zero a few years before 2045, according to ANU climate scientist Professor Nerilie Abram, who gave testimony to the committee. Because 43 per cent is not science based, the knock-on effect is that net zero by 2050 is also not science based. For that reason, I will be moving Committee of the Whole amendments to the bill that will align Australia's targets with the science of what is needed to limit warming to 1½ degrees. This will eliminate the chance of runaway chain reactions on our climate system that we can no longer rein in. If we aim for two degrees we're rolling the dice, and there is a very real risk that, by releasing that much more heat-trapping energy into our oceans and atmosphere, we could spark chain reactions beyond human control to rein in once they're unleashed. The bill that we're debating is set above that dangerous two-degree limit, so the Australian Greens amendments that we'll move in the committee stage will change the national target to 75 per cent reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2035. That's what the science says we need to do; that's what this parliament should do.

We will pass this bill, but we want to see targets increased within this term of parliament. We want to see Australia sign up to the global methane pledge, which will see this potent, but short lived, greenhouse gas reduced by 30 per cent by 2030. That would be an important first step to prevent the early onset of dangerous planetary heating.

The Greens worked with the government to ensure that this bill, introduced into the parliament, included a no backsliding provision. We wanted to ensure that this legislation was Dutton-proof, just as we worked with the Gillard government to make ARENA and the CEFC Abbott-proof. And that's stood the test of time. We also secured agreement with the government that the Climate Change Authority's work had to be guided by the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement—not just a mere consideration, which could be trumped by politics, like the 43 per cent. Importantly, we ensured that funding agencies, like Export Finance Australia, Infrastructure Australia and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, will have to have regard to these targets when they consider granting money to projects. This makes it harder for public money to be used to further subsidise coal and gas. Next stop will be tackling the $11.8 billion in public subsidies to fossil fuels that we've had in the budget for at least a decade now. We will be looking at the October budget with a fine toothcomb to identify all of those fossil fuel subsidies. When the government has said the country is too poor to afford free child care or to raise JobSeeker above the poverty line, it is criminal to be giving away more than $11 billion in free money to polluting companies every year, particularly when those fossil fuel companies often don't even pay their fair share of tax.

We've also worked with the government to include in the committee report our shared commitment to working together on ending the use of burning native forests being counted as renewable energy. I'm sure my colleague Senator Rice will have more to say about that.

Crucially, in the report of the committee—which was chaired by my colleague Senator Hanson-Young—we exacted support to establish a legislated energy transition authority to make sure that we can look after coal and gas workers. As part of our negotiations on this bill, the government agreed to consider Greens proposals to support coal and gas workers and communities, including by creating publicly funded transition authorities to empower local communities to develop and finance plans to create new jobs and diversify their local industries. Coal workers haven't caused the climate crisis, and they should be looked after so that their communities and their kids can be assured of a prosperous future, and they should have a say in what comes next. Coal workers know that coal won't stay in the system for decades. They know that they're going to get screwed over by coal corporations. They just want a clear pathway that will ensure their financial security and keep their communities in place. We took to the election a job-for-job guarantee for coal workers so that, as we transition off fossil fuels, coal workers would get good jobs at the same pay by enabling their new employers to receive a wage subsidy of up to half the worker's former wage for up to 10 years. It's a very expensive policy, but the Greens are committed to ensuring that no worker is left behind as we transition to a clean energy economy.

So, through our negotiations, we've improved a weak climate bill. It's still weak, and it's still nowhere near enough, but it is a small step in the right direction, and the Greens will vote for it. But I will say that we are in solidarity with First Nations communities, with climate scientists, with the global community and with our neighbours in the Pacific in saying that this is the critical decade, and we are resolute that there must be no new coal and gas and a transition off fossil fuels. This could be the climate parliament. We have the numbers to go much further and faster. The only thing standing in the way of more action is this government and its cosy relationship with the fossil fuel sector, who make generous donations to its re-election campaigns, along with those of the Liberal Party.

Using our numbers in the parliament, we will now look to putting further limits on coal and gas pollution. We'll be pushing for the government's reform of the safeguard mechanism to include new coal and gas, and we will fight for a climate trigger in our national environmental laws that stops new coal and gas projects from going ahead. And, as always, around the country we will join First Nations people, farmers and community activists fighting giant new coal, oil and gas projects on their lands and water. We could be creating tens of thousands of jobs right across the country as we establish the industries of the future and become a clean energy export powerhouse. We went to the election with a fully costed sector-by-sector plan of how we would create those jobs, transform our old industries and create new ones.

Australia is the sunniest continent on the planet, with amazing wind resources and smart, adaptive and innovative minds. These resources and these huge opportunities are being wasted as each year passes. Imagine what could be achieved if Australia's energy is effectively free. Manufacturing could return to our shores again, and we could make green products here instead of exporting the raw materials overseas. Transporting ourselves, our food and our goods with clean electricity instead of imported oil would reduce the cost of everything and enhance our security. This future can happen if we rapidly transition to a clean economy powered by renewable energy and export it to the rest of the world. How? Shift electricity generation to renewables and storage; increase electricity production to allow the electrification of all households, businesses, transport and industry; soak up the remaining emissions and move to negative emissions by protecting our forests and landscapes; and reform our agriculture to draw down carbon from the atmosphere so we can start to return to a safe climate.

Critical to our plan is the phasing out of coal and gas, not only from our domestic economy but also for export. This is why our goal of reaching 700 per cent renewables is critical—because it will allow us to become a renewable energy superpower developing new export industries and new manufacturing industries, such as green hydrogen, direct transmission of renewable energy and the production of green metals. That plan would also mean the creation of 805,000 new jobs, with 162,000 of those being direct jobs and the remainder being indirect jobs created across the country, particularly in the areas most affected by the transformation—a transformation that we need in order to reach net zero in the next 13 years. So our plan would not only create more than 800,000 jobs but improve the budget bottom line by—the PBO says this—$51.9 billion over the decade as we remove those handouts for the coal, oil and gas industries and make them pay for the damage that they're causing.

As society makes this big switch, the Greens' plan supports workers to shift out of coal and into new industries by guaranteeing them employment at the same pay whilst also lifting income support for those unable to find a new job. The Greens will work to empower local communities to manage the change by developing and financing plans to diversify away from coal and create new jobs and industries as we act on global warming.

This is, and could be, the climate parliament. We are ready to do what the science says is necessary to protect our biosphere and our communities. The question is how powerful the fossil fuel donors are in this building, and that remains to be seen. This fight is not over. We will keep pushing to make sure that not a single coal or gas project is opened, because the science says we just cannot afford to do that.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I rise to speak on the Climate Change Bill 2022 and the Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022, it is important to note that recently released government data shows that Australia's greenhouse gas emissions increased in 2021. As the current minister, the Hon. Chris Bowen MP, said, this caps off the coalition's record of 'denial and delay' on climate change. The Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments' legacy on climate change is a lost decade at a time when Australians were crying out for real and significant action. That policy vacuum has a long legacy, and Australia is paying the price.

But it's not too late. It's not too late to do the work that should have started a decade ago to make real, significant and meaningful action on emissions reductions. In 2022, Australians from all walks of life and from all parts the country made it clear that they wanted a government that is determined to act on climate change. They voted for action on climate change, and that is what the Albanese Labor government is delivering with this legislation. Labor knows that good climate and energy policy is also good economic policy. This country has all the resources, the ingenuity, the innovation and the inspiration it needs to become a green energy superpower. The Albanese Labor government is determined to grasp the opportunities that the transition to a net zero economy offers us—a future built on decent, secure and skilled jobs; a future where we lead the world on solutions to the climate challenge, rather than being part of the problem.

And there is no time to waste. Australians are impatient for action on these issues. In recent times, the incidence of floods, bushfires and droughts has increased in intensity and regularity. These results have been catastrophic for tens of thousands of people and their communities. Australians are worried, and they're tired of inaction. Labor went to the last election with a detailed plan on climate change, and the Australian people embraced it. We were determined that it should be very clear that a vote for Labor was a vote for real action on climate change. Australians voted for an emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030 and for 82 per cent of the energy going into the grid to be renewable energy by 2030.

These bills today reflect Labor's Powering Australia plan and Paris Agreement commitments—commitments that the Australian people voted for; commitments that the Australian people expect us to keep. These bills are about providing the certainty so desperately needed by business, industry, investors and the wider community after a decade of denial, delay and deception on climate change action. With a 2030 target of 43 per cent, this legislation puts Australia on track to reach net zero by 2050. This provides the certainty that is vital to ensuring Australia reaps the economic benefits of the energy transformation that is underway. Powering Australia will deliver 604,000 jobs across the country and will see our energy needs met by 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. We are legislating the 2030 and 2050 targets because it's best practice to do so and because we are determined to meet those targets.

The community is crying out for an energy policy that will end the do-nothing strategy of the previous minister, Angus Taylor—a strategy that has left Australian families dealing with skyrocketing energy prices that are putting a terrible strain on household budgets. Legislating Australia's emissions reduction targets provides certainty to industry, states and territories and, just as importantly, it keeps the promise that we made to the Australian people. It brings Australia into line with countries such as France, Denmark and Spain that have also legislated net zero targets for 2050. Countries such as Canada have legislated their 2030 target. The target we've set is ambitious, and our Powering Australia plan makes it achievable. It is important to note that it sets a floor, not a ceiling, on Australia's emissions reduction ambition.

The Australian people want their government to step up and deliver on their promises, and they want to be able to be kept informed, not fobbed off. That's why they will be updated every year on the progress that we're making. The minister will be required to report annually to parliament on Australia's progress towards meeting our targets that are set out in the bill. For almost a decade, we have seen the standards of accountability in government eroded. We've had a decade of duck and dodge, fibs and fudging from the previous government. We are asking Australians to join us in a huge transition as we head to net zero, and they rightly deserve to hear from their government on how it's working towards its goal. That is how accountability actually works.

In our first month in office, the Albanese Labor government updated our nationally determined contribution under the Paris Agreement to reflect the target that we were elected to deliver: 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, and to set Australia on the path to net zero by 2050. This action sent a message to our friends, to business, to our trading partners and to our neighbours in the Pacific, and for the first time in a decade Australia has a government that takes climate change seriously—a government that understands the opportunity which is there and which is determined to deliver on it. The bills are straightforward, positive and powerful. They reflect Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement, and so I urge the members of this chamber to pass this legislation and to send a clear and positive message to the people of Australia, and to the world, that we are taking real action on climate change. That decade of inaction, infighting and denial is now over. How we manage that transformation will determine the future prosperity of this country, and we are determined to ensure that Australia emerges as a stronger, more dynamic and self-reliant nation as we reach net zero.

We learnt during the toughest periods of the pandemic that, as a country, we need to be more self-sufficient. One of the things that cleaner, cheaper energy will do is to drive advanced manufacturing in this country. This transition offers us an opportunity for Australia to reignite the manufacturing sector and for Australians to make things once again right here in Australia. This is also about our national security, as we commit to making our sovereign manufacturing capacity a priority.

I'm a great believer in science, and the science is in. We are determined to meet the challenge. Labor embraces the change that is required because we see it also as an opportunity—an opportunity to plan with certainty and create new jobs and industries, and a chance to embrace new technologies and build a new, bold, smart manufacturing industry. The Climate Change Bill 2022 and Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 are a statement of intent by the Albanese Labor government. We believe in Australia's ability to meet the challenge of climate change, and we know that everyday Australians are up for it. This legislation will ensure that we can take that journey confidently together and be very confident in a better future.

Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 1956 South Australia experienced the great flood, an event described as the greatest catastrophe in the state's history. It was the highest flooding in the region since European settlement, but nobody asserted it was caused by humans, because it was a natural disaster. There hasn't been a worse flood in Adelaide since. If this event had occurred in 2022, we'd be bombarded by propaganda telling us that it was caused by carbon emissions from human endeavours. Headlines about the dangers of climate change and the urgent need for harsh emissions reductions would abound.

The corporate and political classes have bought into this narrative that, to avoid the imminent climate apocalypse which the so-called experts have for the last 50 years been predicting will occur in the next 10 years, we must hastily transition to renewable energy, whatever the cost. Those apocalyptic claims come to us from the United Nations, and with the Climate Change Bill 2022 and Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 Labor is pushing to reduce carbon emissions by 43 per cent by 2030, which marries up perfectly with the United Nations' 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This is, by the way, the same agenda that led the Dutch government to declare soil, of all things, a threat to the environment and push farmers off their land and out of their profession. As well as ruining thousands of lives, this means that global agricultural experts and food suppliers suffer. This is the same agenda which also led to the uprising in Sri Lanka as the cost of living for Sri Lankans became unbearable. Clearly, these restrictions now place an impossible burden on citizens, and Labor seeks to take us down that path. At some point Australians need to realise that the net zero agenda is not about saving the planet; it's about preventing us from being energy independent by bringing our fossil fuel and nuclear capabilities to a halt.

For those who are cynical, refer to what's happening in Europe at the moment. At what point do we start assuming that international bodies like the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, which also pushes the net zero agenda, have our best interests at heart? At what point do we start judging their ideas by what happens when they're implemented? We live in a time when political ideas are judged by what sounds good rather than what actually works. It is a post-truth era, perhaps better described as the era of rainbows and unicorns, which is so overtly pushed by our friends across the chamber.

We can see that these ideas, from declaring soil a threat to the environment to rapidly shutting down coal power stations, lead to the disenfranchisement of ordinary citizens and to more wealth in the hands of the anointed elites. So let's see politicians, corporate elites and celebrities who moan about the so-called climate crisis lead by example and c their own international travel aboard fuel-guzzling private jets. Let's see them give up eating meat in favour of crickets. Let's see them giving up their champagne in the Chairman's Lounge, where I see them very often on a Thursday night heading home. None of them want to do that very quickly. Those pushing this agenda lecture you about your so-called carbon footprint while making no adjustment to their own lives. While you worry about the rising cost of food, fuel and bills, they simply march on unabated.

The hasty push for renewables doesn't make any sense other than in the light of an agenda to rob ordinary people of autonomy in energy and in food production. Coal and gas currently account for 79 per cent of Australia's electricity generation, and we are now apparently required to build solar and wind plants to cover that gap. It's impossible to quickly reduce this figure without jeopardising our capacity to generate electricity and increasing its costs, which will be the net effect.

What we know as so-called renewables, wind and solar, are inefficient, expensive and dreadful for the natural environment. For wind and solar power to generate electricity, the wind must be blowing and the sun must be shining, meaning you have stable power generation less than 40 per cent of the year. Given they're so inefficient, renewables have such short life spans that they rely on fossil fuels as backup sources. Wind turbines have a life span of about 20 years before they're buried in the earth. So we're not dealing with achievable outcomes here. This is nothing but a utopian fantasy.

The transition to renewables would need Australia to increase its mining operations to build the required solar panels and wind turbines. The Greens members who are calling for Australia to ban the development of new mining projects are literally calling for the prevention of the means of building the renewables they argue for. You simply can't make this stuff up.

Renewables require much more land than fossil fuels and their nuclear counterparts, meaning vast stretches of beautiful Australian landscape are going to become wind and solar farms. The natural environment will be turned into an ugly landscape of metal and plastic. So much for environmentalism! True environmentalism actually means being good stewards of our natural environment while keeping the lights on, and conserving our natural resources while using them appropriately. If we are serious about reducing emissions, then, as we've said many times in this chamber before, nuclear energy is the answer. If there were really a climate crisis, Australia's prohibition on nuclear power generation would be considered irrational and inexcusable. Over 70 per cent of France's energy is generated through nuclear, and their natural environment is no worse for it, as exhibited by our friends' guzzling of French champagne. Their carbon emissions are low and they have some of the lowest electricity bills in Europe—or they used to. If we were truly facing a climate emergency, we would pursue nuclear energy, as it would address the emissions concerns and improve the cost of living for everyday Australians. It's such an obvious solution, but of course we know that it would interfere with the net zero agenda, so it is falsely presented as unsafe.

Let's not forget that Australia contributes roughly 1.08 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, compared with China's 29.34 per cent, the US's 13.77 per cent and even Russia's 4.76 per cent. If carbon emissions do cause climate change, then our emissions are negligible compared to those of other nations. China is now building 43 new coal-fired power plants, despite being a signatory to the Paris Agreement, while Australia, which is the largest exporter of coal in the world, is gearing up to dismantle its largest export industry.

Labor's bill continues the trend of deferring to experts with conflicts of interest, with the role of the Climate Change Authority in advising climate policy. The Climate Change Authority has got to provide advice to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy on reaching emissions targets, and any deviation from this advice has got to be accounted for by the minister in a written statement.

If we look back, it's pertinent to realise that none of the climate alarmists' predictions—from a new ice age all the way through to the melting of the ice caps—have come to pass. But, rather than admit these obvious errors, the climate propagandists simply change the nature of the emergency and push the catastrophe back a few decades, because their predictions have been wrong for so many decades. That begs the question: why are people still listening to them? We need to consider this, especially seeing as the net zero agenda places us in a more vulnerable position regarding China, which is the greatest manufacturer of renewables technology, meaning our transition to renewables will ensure that we become reliant on the Chinese Communist Party's exports for our electricity. Since the invasion of Ukraine, Europe is learning the hard way that relying on a hostile foreign power for energy resources is a disastrous idea. Far from making us a renewables superpower, as Labor claims we will be, net zero will simply mean greater economic dependence on the Chinese Communist Party, of all organisations, for our energy, placing them in a considerable position of leverage over us and ensuring that we go down the path of becoming a tributary state. We don't need to become a renewable energy slave to China. We already have the resources here to become an energy superpower, and we should be leading the world in energy production, including nuclear. And we would be, if it were not for the unscientific and ideologically driven net zero agenda.

Those who have introduced and supported this bill need to understand that they're dooming Australia to a high-energy-cost future, a future in which Australians must choose between heating and eating. One only needs to look at the bleak winter fast approaching in the Northern Hemisphere to see our future right there before us. Power bills will become 500 to 600 times the cost, with energy shortages and businesses going under. It's all on the watch of those who support this bill, and we won't let you forget. We've been blessed with a natural environment with bountiful resources that can allow us to reduce the cost of living and become less dependent on foreign powers. I hope that, as a nation, we can become alert to the urgency not of climate change but of pushing a rational energy policy. It's time for those in this place to reject this bill. It's time for those in this place to put Australia first.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution on the Climate Change Bill 2022. It is absolutely no secret that climate change is upon us. We see the impacts of this every day, in the most extreme bushfires and flooding and droughts that are becoming more frequent and more severe. But we're also seeing it in much more subtle ways. The delicate balance that our ecosystems have operated in for thousands of years is changing, and they cannot adjust with the speed that is needed. If we do not act on these impacts, they will only get worse and affect every single area of our lives, including for those opposite. This will also affect the future that we are building for our children and their children. It actually starts right here, with us in the nation's parliament. The science is absolutely clear: we need to reduce our emissions by 75 per cent, not 43 per cent, and reach net zero by 2030, not 2050. I'm proud to be part of the only party that respects this science and that I am the Greens spokesperson for the science and technology portfolio. We don't have time to play politics with this. We cannot let the government place our future at risk to appease their corporate donors. Let's be real: the only reason this target is so low is so that the Labor Party can keep raking in the money from their fossil fuel company mates. If they tell you any different, that's a lie. I saw that firsthand at the Minerals Council dinner last night.

The latest IPCC report paints a very dire picture of what we're in store for if we do not take radical action. If we had listened and taken action when the scientists first questioned this, then maybe our emissions might not have had some of the unintended consequences down the line, and we would be in a very different place right now. But, of course, we didn't. We ignored the scientists. We ignored them for so long that we are at the point now where we need radical action to avoid further disaster. It sounds terrifying, and that's because it absolutely is. It sounds serious because it is. Forty-three per cent is not enough, and I refuse to sugar-coat that.

Just as scientists saw the problem, they have also given us the answers. We need to transition away from fossil fuels as soon as possible, address overconsumption by humans, protect our natural environment and work to restore what we have destroyed. First Nations science plays a key role in this, because my ancestors have taken care of land and sea country for thousands of years, aiding the delicate balance of nature and taking only what they needed. We don't subscribe to the Western idea that nature is something that needs to be conquered. We are part of nature. We are not better than it. We are equal. We know the land and how it operates, what it needs to survive and to thrive. Governments, mining companies and private landholders need to welcome this knowledge and allow us, support us, to work to protect and heal this country. That would be to the betterment of all of us.

Australia is known for its amazing produce—wine, grain, cheese, beef. You name it, we make it, and we do a damned good job of it. As seasons shift and weather patterns become more unpredictable and unruly, the ability of our farmers to continue to produce these products is, and will continue to be, impacted. Regional and remote communities across Australia rely on primary production to survive. The yields will decrease, in both quality and quantity, making it harder for these communities to exist. We need to support our farmers in adopting more sustainable farming practices and to mitigate the impacts on their businesses to ensure our rural and regional communities are not left behind.

As well as our amazing produce, Australia is known for its amazing and diverse ecosystems, which people travel from all over the world to come and see—from our deserts to our rainforests, our native forests, our mountain ranges, our coastlines, our reefs, our arid lands and our river systems, all with unique plants and even more unique animals. We have a lot to offer. A lot of our tourism relies on these natural wonders. Again, many of these are in our rural and regional communities. The impacts of climate change will place these businesses at risk due to the destruction of these places. We've already seen that with the wonderful and amazing Great Barrier Reef. If we lose these precious places, we lose our history, our culture and what makes Australia unique.

Let's be frank. Fossil fuel companies are the reason we are in this mess and the reason action has not been taken sooner. Both the major parties are captured by these companies due to the millions of dollars that they have taken in donations from them. Due to this, the major parties are too scared to take any serious action to wind up fossil fuel production at the speed that we need it because they might lose some money in their political donations. There's clearly no concern about the primary producers or the small businesses who will lose their money as a direct result of climate change. These companies are getting a pretty good return on their investment, too, since none of them pay any corporate tax and they receive billions of dollars in our public money as subsidies.

Instead of holding up a dying industry or relying on carbon capture and storage—which, in fact, is unproven—to procrastinate in reducing emissions, the government should be focusing on investing in renewable energy projects. Let's use that money to build rail to transport green hydrogen, just like Germany has done recently. Use that money to rehabilitate the land. Use that money to invest in solar panels, hydro, wind—literally anything other than paving the way for these greedy companies to destroy our planet.

I want to be absolutely clear that the climate wars are not over. They have, in fact, reached a new frontier. The Greens are begrudgingly supporting this bill, but we know that 43 per cent is nowhere near enough. The fight continues for meaningful climate action, which also means preventing one more fossil-fuel project opening, expanding or continuing. My call to action for the folks out there watching is to join us—come forward and fight for our children's future and for our climate.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise very proudly to endorse these bills. The climate change bills going through this chamber are critical but quite simple. These bills represent a clear commitment from the Albanese Labor government. They represent an ambitious but achievable plan, they represent accountability to the parliament and they represent accountability to the people.

Make no mistake here: the scientific facts are clear. Climate change is a real thing, and people in this chamber are going to have to get on board with that. We are warming. There is more rainfall. Our patterns of weather are seriously disrupted. These things need to be addressed. We need to take action. The global temperature will almost certainly continue to rise, but the rate and magnitude of that increase will be determined by what we do next and by our ability to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

We know that there is a well-established causal connection between climate change and extreme weather events. The CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology, numerous scientists, numerous think tanks and the vast majority of the globe are on board. But for far too long we've been having, as Senator Cox pointed out, climate wars with the most minute points and the most ridiculous arguments. We are effectively standing by while Rome burns. We need to stop. People are torn between the 43 per cent that's laid out in these bills being too much or too little. But 43 is bang on, 43 is the right number, 43 is the achievable number—and we will achieve it.

As a nation, we have been failing. Our climate bill sets a best-practice and science-based target to achieve that reduction. This is a floor, not a ceiling. This is a start. Let us not go back to the place where we do nothing because we are so driven by the perfect. This is an excellent first step. This is a floor, not a ceiling. This is the certainty and the mature policy that we need. The bill is a solid foundation, setting clearly and firmly in Australian law our emissions reduction ambition. It holds the government of the day properly accountable to the Australian people, and to the Australian parliament in how it measures up to those ambitions and how it is addressing this fundamental issue. It is a certainty and the mature policy that we need.

Many issues were raised in the committee hearings considering these bills, and some of those were issues of merit and issues that should be considered but are outside the scope and intent of these bills. Some issues will be captured in a range of other associated but concurrent actions that are being progressed, and I will just give you a list of what they are: consulting on options to reform the safeguard mechanism, which deals with a number of the issues that were raised in the committee hearings; developing a national electric vehicle strategy, which will be done in collaboration with the states and the territories; working with the state and territory governments to increase the share of renewables in the National Electricity Market by 2030; investing $20 billion for urgent upgrades of the electricity grid; appointing an independent panel to review the integrity of Australian carbon credit units, led by former Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb; responding to Professor Samuel's review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act; and the impending release for a proposal for an independent federal environment protection authority. Each of these things deals with the vast majority of the issues raised in the committee hearings.

As I said, the vast majority of people supported the passage of these bills. As Minister Bowen outlined in his second reading speech in the other place, this bill is important for the message that it sends to the future generations of this country, for our economy, for business and investment, for our nation and for our environment. I'm proud to be Chair of the Senate Environment and Communications Committee, and we spent two days and waded through hundreds of submissions of people's perspectives on these bills. I speak now as an individual, not as Chair of that committee, but the committee recommended that the Senate pass these two bills. There was widespread and near unanimous support for these bills from organisations and interest groups representing all facets of the Australian economy and society. In fact more than 110 organisations and specialists declared their support for the bills. Specialists across business and industry, agriculture and forestry, unions, conservation groups, energy and resources, academics and the legal sector all support these bills. Overwhelmingly, submitters and witnesses expressed support for the objectives and the provisions of these bills. They support them because they know there are significant opportunities in decarbonisation. There are significant opportunities for Australia by taking action. The industries of the future are enabled by the investment that takes place when we have clear and sensible policy, which is exactly what these bills provide.

This is what a Labor government is all about: finding the solution. I'd like to express my thanks to the members of the Greens party and to other senators, including Senator David Pocock, for engaging robustly and productively on these bills. But that's what a Labor government is all about. We care about workers, we care about business and we care about the environment. We consult, we listen and we take action. We care about investment in the future and the opportunities that are available to us through decarbonisation. We have a clear plan to ensure that we drive our economy forwards as we decarbonise. I know there are those in this chamber who will just flatly oppose these bills, without thinking about the future, without thinking about what that will do. I urge everyone in this chamber to support these bills. They are a simple, strong framework to start taking action. We cannot ignore or deny climate change. This is happening, and if we do not act on climate change our wildlife, our planet, our industry and our citizens will all suffer. I urge everyone to support these bills.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the opportunity to make a statement about these climate change bills today. These are important issues—very important issues—and there is a lot to be said about this whole policy space. This is a bill that is not a particularly large bill; it's only 10 or 12 pages long. That doesn't mean it's not important. Certainly, it is a pretty threadbare bill in what it does. The minister himself, Mr Bowen, has described this bill as being 'not necessary'. That is an interesting approach to a piece of legislation that you want to get through the parliament. But perhaps the reason it is unnecessary is that the NDC the Nationally Determined Contribution from Australia, has been set in international law now.

I've never been convinced that international law is particularly strong. I'm not sure how enforceable it is, but the reality is that the way that the system works under the climate accords means that the NDC is set via international law. That's been done by the government, and they've decided to go with 43. Personally, I'm relaxed about it going higher. I'd be relaxed about that happening if there was the work done to show how it can be done and how much it will cost, but the point is that Minister Bowen is the minister for this area, and he's described his own bill as being 'not necessary'. That's an important starting point, but I don't want my contribution to be a hyperpartisan rant, because these are important issues. But this particular bill, by any assessment, is actually quite a threadbare bill.

The cost of this transition to get to net zero is eye-watering and you can see, through the Senate inquiry, that no-one knows how much it is actually going to cost the country. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to get the answer. I said at the start of this process, when this bill was introduced, that I thought that the inquiry, which was conducted by the environment and comms committee, which is a very good committee, had one question to answer.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The best committee!

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed! That question was: how will Australia generate or obtain the capital to fund the journey to net zero? I said that there could be a range of ways this could be achieved and that this should all be explored. I committed myself to participating in the inquiry. I'm not a member of the committee, at the current time, but—

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We miss you!

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure you do! We participated in the inquiry, and there were a couple of days of hearings. I persistently tried to get answers on this key question of the cost. I think it was the Business Council which referred to the work of Alan Finkel, who estimated that it's going to cost about $1 trillion to transform the electricity sector. But we don't have any good analysis in the government or the private economy of the overall cost estimates over the long-term. As an importer of capital, as Australia has been over the last 250 years, I would have thought that we should try to get those answers. I think it is something that we should pursue.

I was surprised that more work had not been done by the Treasury and by the line department on this matter of the cost. I think it means that the bill is genuinely unsupported by a broad evidence base, and I have concluded that, in the absence of being able to ascertain the cost, the things that really matter here will be the signals that we send to the market—recognising that, whatever the cost may be, I think we can all agree that this country does not have enough capital to fund the transition ourselves. Those who have bandied around the idea of using other pools of capital for this purpose—like the superannuation scheme, for example—are, I think, very wrongheaded. The day that that scheme starts to pursue non-financial objectives is the day that it will be on the road to ruin. So, setting aside the major domestic pools of capital, we are going to have to seek funding from offshore to fund these major capital investments in this transition to net zero.

There are two things about this issue that I think are really important in the debate on this bill: What are the policies of the parties of government? And what are the policies that those parties of government will take to market? I think we have had some significant developments in recent months. And I very much welcome, as a member of one of the parties of government, that the leader of my party, Mr Dutton, said on 11 August, in relation to the 2030 targets—which is a large part of this debate—that our target 'is likely to come in well north of 35 per cent, maybe 40 per cent-plus' and that we'll 'have a very credible policy, I can promise you, by the time of the next election'. Now, that is a significant statement, and it is a statement that, from the coalition's point of view, puts an end to the 2015 targets, at 26 to 28 per cent reductions in carbon emissions, that we have had for too long, in my view. Those targets should have been updated to reflect what is now possible. Even our own modelling in the last parliament showed that it was possible to exceed 26 to 28.

In relation to this, the Business Council of Australia said that they think bipartisanship is very important and that they are very supportive of both major parties coming to the net zero position. The BCA said to the committee that they would be strongly supportive of a more ambitious coalition target. I look forward to playing my role—because you've got to focus on what you can control—of helping the party of government, with the coalition, to have the best possible plan that we can have for 2030 and 2035. That is something that is within our preserve, and I think a significant change has been achieved in the past few months: that we have put an end to the Abbott-era 2030 targets. So, I look forward to that process over the next couple of years.

The second issue is about the policies. Again, I like to say that it's important to focus on the outcomes, not on the embroidery. There are many policies that can be deployed in this space to get emissions down. You can look at the fuel standards. You can look at your tax policies, You can look at your corporate law. You can look at how you might require companies to disclose their emissions. You can look at how emerging technologies like cryptocurrencies can tokenise the carbon credit system and how that can be used. There are so many opportunities in this space that draw on Australia's core equities of being a sophisticated, high-wage economy.

One of the things we have done in the past few weeks is that we have been able to examine another bill, which has looked at the tax arrangements on electric vehicles, and there is no doubt that how that bill has been drafted is a very muddled approach. That has been cherrypicked out of a National Electric Vehicle Strategy, which prior speakers in this debate have referred to. It is important that we think carefully about these policies, that we cost them and work out, 'Okay, if we're going to have this particular measure, this is how much carbon abatement we're going to achieve.' I think that is very important.

In relation to corporate law—and, again, I think that as a safe and strong jurisdiction, as an open democracy with the rule of law and as a member of the G20 group of nations—we should be looking to be a leader on carbon disclosure. We shouldn't be looking to do it through self-regulation. We shouldn't be asking the Corporate Governance Council to put out a note. We should be looking to pass laws in the life of this parliament to ensure that Australia is going to have an aggressive but measured approach on carbon disclosure. I believe that the countries that have the most transparency on these issues are more likely to be able to attract marginal capital. If you are an investor, if you are an international investor—whether you're BlackRock or you're a smaller investor—if you can look into an organisation and make a judgement about their risk profile by looking at their scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, then I think you're more likely to invest into that nation than into another nation. And as a nation that has often exported corporate law, we should be looking to do that again.

I note that some in this place like to junk all fossil fuels in together, but that ignores the statements of the scientists. Whether it's Finkel or whether it's our own institutions or whether it's Larry Fink at BlackRock, which is the world's biggest investor—I want to make the point that everyone who is credible and serious identifies gas as a necessary transition fuel, so we should not be conceding on gas. I'm pleased that the coalition is pushing this government on gas and building on our record in government where we had some important initiatives in this space.

Of course, the same goes for nuclear. There's no reason that we would have an ideological position that would preclude the country from using this particular form of technology, particularly when you consider the large deposits of uranium we have in this country. We will be well served to remove the obstacles for using nuclear. I mean, it seems to be a bizarre position that if the market wanted to use this particular formula of energy production, it would be prohibited because of an ideological position that was put in place decades ago. So I do think this body of work that has been done by the environment and communications committee has made a very persuasive case for the removal of the nuclear prohibition, and I look forward to the work that is going to be done for the Leader of the Opposition on this matter.

In summary—look, it is not true that the majority position of the G20 countries is to legislate a target. The Parliamentary Library itself has said that 12 of the 20 countries have not legislated a target. Having said that, I don't think it's necessarily the end of the world if you do it. The point I've made in these remarks is that the key legislative component here, even though it is international law, is done through the NDC, so whatever you do here is simply superfluous. If I was the minister for energy and climate change, or if I was a minister for any portfolio, I would not be describing my own legislation as 'not necessary'. Why would we, as a parliament, enact a bill that the minister has said is unnecessary. I don't think that's our job.

Finally, it is very important that we reflect on what we can control in these roles that we have been given, and I am very pleased that the coalition, as a party of government, is committing itself to having a more ambitious agenda for 2030. It is true that it was our government that committed the country to net zero emissions at 2050, which was one of the signature achievements of the last government. All that is left for us to do now, as a party of government, is to ensure that we have a credible position, one that is more aggressive than the 2015 targets, for 2030 and 2035 and all the other interceding years. That is something I look forward to working with my coalition colleagues on.

If we achieve that, we are sending a signal to the market that both of the parties of government are committed to emissions reduction and are committed to getting Australia where we need to get in the medium and long term, and we should do that in a way which is technology agnostic. I don't believe we should be throwing gas in with coal. I think they have fundamentally different characteristics, as referenced by the scientists and the major investors, and I also think that we should be very much open to this debate on nuclear energy for domestic purposes. It makes no sense that we would be the greatest exporter of uranium but have no view about using it for our own domestic purposes. They are important issues. I thank the Senate committee for their work on the bill, it was an important inquiry, and I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak to this bill this afternoon.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in favour of these pieces of legislation, and I want to put squarely on the record right from the beginning that it is because the Greens have worked constructively that we have been able to improve and strengthen these pieces of legislation so they are acceptable. Forty-three per cent is nowhere near where we need to go if we are to reduce and cut pollution to save this fragile planet. It is nowhere near where we need to go if we are to give our children a future which they can rely on, a safe climate, clean water, healthy air and clean, safe food. But it is, now we have strengthened this bill, a step forward in the right direction.

What we now need is to put in action the things that will drive pollution down, that will cut pollution. We often talk about carbon pollution during this debate. That is true. But there is also a huge amount of urgent work to do to cut methane in this country and across the world, and it is why Australia must sign the methane pledge. The big gas companies are getting away with secretly polluting the atmosphere even more than is being recorded, and it needs to stop. The big gas companies and gas industry need to be held to account for their toxic contribution to the climate catastrophe because of leaking methane. The International Energy Agency, the UN and even the Pope have called on governments right around the world to stop funding the expansion of new fossil fuels. They have called on governments to stop subsidising fossil fuels and allowing their expansion. I want to acknowledge that even earlier this week one of Australia's leading businessmen, Twiggy Forrest, called for a halt and a stop to the expansion of fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies.

The rest of the world get it, and they've been waiting for Australia to catch up. The climate has changed. Climate change is here: the bushfires, the floods and the droughts not just in our own country but right around the world. All we need to look at is the 33 million people displaced and impacted by the terrible, deadly floods in Pakistan over recent weeks. Europe has been in the grips of a heatwave this summer, and we are already hearing state governments in our own country being briefed about the fire risk of the coming summer here. Our wildlife and our environment are suffering, and for years the community has been waking up and demanding action from our government to take seriously the threats of this climate catastrophe and to do what is needed. The business community have been far ahead of the parliament in recent years, much further ahead in wanting to tackle the climate challenge than previous governments. Well, now we have an opportunity to pass through this place this week a commitment not only that we acknowledge that climate change is happening but that we have to do something about it, and that something means cutting pollution.

What this bill doesn't include is the mechanisms by which we get there. We need a climate trigger in our environment laws to stop the expansion of big new projects that are going to continue to make climate change worse. We have a huge task in front of us to cut the amount of pollution that is currently being created, a huge task, but one we must tackle, in fact our survival as a community and a species requires us to tackle. But how on earth will we cut the amount of pollution currently being created while opening up avenues for more pollution to be created? You don't put out the fire by pouring petrol on it. A climate trigger in our environment laws is needed in this country to stop the expansion of those polluting projects that are going to make it harder and harder and harder for us to deal with climate change.

Debate interrupted.