Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

According to the most credible science available, and that includes our own CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology here in Australia, the earth's climate is changing. The changes are in addition to the normal cycle of climatic changes that have occurred over the decades and the centuries and which are noted in public records. The most notable climate changes are a result of global warming, which in turn causes or leads to more frequent and more severe weather events, destruction of environmental assets, the loss of flora and fauna, threats to human health and changes in weather and rainfall patterns. These consequences are already with us, adding to our daily cost of living and risking a sustainable and stable lifestyle.

I acknowledge that not all people accept all of the facts, conclusions and forecasts associated with climate change. I also acknowledge that some people accept that climate change is real but do not accept the causes, the proposed solutions or Australia's ability to make a meaningful difference to climate change throughout the world. I am also acutely aware that vested interests, including the fossil fuel companies and the renewable energy investors, have entered the climate change debate, and in doing so have added to public confusion and politically disunity—disunity which has resulted in a decade of inaction on what many would agree is a pressing issue facing humanity and the global response has become a race against time.

Changing the way societies function, particularly in advanced countries, which are generally the higher per capita emitters of greenhouse gases, will require lifestyle changes and time to adjust. However, the longer that the changes are delayed the more severe and more disruptive the impact on society will be when the necessary action is taken, and even more profound will be the impact on society if no action is taken. Climate scientists know that, industry leaders know that and most international political leaders know that, and in response they have all committed to substantial policy changes and investments in mitigation strategies. That is what the Australian people want the Australian government to do. They expect a measured but meaningful response from this government. Public polling shows that. The May election confirmed that.

Neither households nor businesses can continue to function in a climate of uncertainty. Personal and business investments will only be made when there is long-term stability and predictability. That is what this legislation seeks to do. It will begin a responsible transition to a lower emissions economy that will generate investments in new technology, in new jobs. It will be less destructive to our natural environment and contribute to global efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The reality is that under the Morrison government not only was Australia being left behind on climate change responses when compared with other advanced countries, but even within Australia the Morrison government was being left behind by the state and territory governments. I have heard other members, particularly opposition members, come into this place and talk about how Australia was achieving the 26 to 28 per cent targets that the Morrison government had set. I say to those members that most of those targets were achieved because of the actions of state governments, not because of the actions of the federal government that was led by Prime Minister Morrison.

For some people a 43 per cent reduction target by 2030 on 2005 levels is too low—and we've heard other speakers talking about that. For others it has, in fact, been claimed that it will be too high and it will cause too much disruption to society; therefore it should be opposed. The fact that we have people on both sides of that argument—one group saying it's too high and the other saying it's too low—tells me that we have probably got it about right.

When I look at the comparison with other countries in terms of what they are doing, and I am referring specifically to other advanced economies, there is a strong similarity between the target that this government is now setting and those being set elsewhere. And whilst there might be some differences, I don't believe the differences are sufficient to warrant any concern about that. And particularly so when we have said very clearly that the 43 per cent is a floor not a ceiling, and, indeed, if a higher reduction can be achieved, and achieved responsibly, I suspect it will be. It is my view that, if this legislation is passed, it will send a very clear signal to the economy and that the transition to a lower-carbon economy will in fact pick up pace when everybody has a very clear direction in which to follow.

In addition to all of that, the government has made it clear that there will be, each year, a report to parliament in respect to the emission reductions that have been achieved. That report to parliament will serve as an accountability mechanism, for the Australian public to judge whether the government is in fact committed to and achieving the targets it has set. It is a requirement of this legislation for that report to come to the parliament.

The legislation also strengthens and articulates the roles of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Climate Change Authority and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, all of which were white-anted by the last coalition government, because they were not committed to climate change action and needed to silence their critics. The Morrison government did all they could to disempower the very structures that Labor had established over a decade ago to provide advice and guide us through the climate change transition.

It has always been Labor that has initiated and ultimately delivered major national reforms. It has been Labor that has always led Australia's climate change response and pursued a carbon pollution reduction policy, sometimes in the face of opposition from both the coalition and even the Greens. Labor will deliver on this legislation, and the 43 per cent target, because the target is what will drive investment, drive changes in community attitudes and drive investment in new technology. All of that opens the way for additional businesses and jobs, as we've heard time and time again with respect to the policy that we are now introducing.

No country acting alone will reverse or contain the climate change trajectory. That requires a global effort, in which all countries must make a contribution—some greater, some lesser—and each country will do what it can given the capacity it has. Australia has the capacity both to contribute towards a lower-emissions society and to contribute to new low-emissions technologies. As a responsible global nation, we should do both. If we don't, we cannot expect other nations to carry us. If the world does not act, the devastation and extreme weather events—including the loss of lives, the financial costs of those events, the health costs from living in a polluted environment and the environmental destruction—will vastly outweigh the costs and disruption of climate change action, which many opposite seem to oppose.

This legislation must be passed by both this House and the Senate if Australia is to look to the future with confidence that a clear climate change direction has been set. The coalition have stated their opposition to this legislation. I believe that, in doing so, they have failed to respect the views of the majority of Australians and, perhaps, have even lost the respect of many within the international community.

In closing, I say this. I came into this place—and the member for Blair sits in front of me—in 2007, with acting on climate change being one of the priorities of the Rudd government at the time. We were obstructed from doing so by the opposition and the Greens. Fifteen years later, it is an Albanese Labor government that puts this matter on the agenda once again and makes it a priority for government, because that is what the Australian people expect us to do.

See this speech in context