Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Government's National Climate Risk Assessment highlights that climate change is costing the Australian economy more than $40 billion per year and this cost is predicted to rise to at least $73 billion, or 4 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2060; and

(b) current policies to protect our communities from climate change remain inadequate with spending on climate resilience and adaptation remaining too low; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) lift climate adaptation spending to 0.25 per cent of GDP;

(b) establish a National Climate Adaptation Authority to oversee the implementation of the National Adaptation Plan;

(c) facilitate better funding for local governments to strengthen resilience against climate change within their communities;

(d) build strong private-public partnerships with the insurance industry that reduces underlying risk through enforceable, publicly funded resilience measures and transparent hazard data;

(e) ensure that climate resilience projects and measures are undertaken in collaboration with First Nations;

(f) broaden the safeguard mechanism to include all sectors across the economy are mitigating climate risks;

(g) further ensure that polluting companies pay the social and environmental cost of the carbon they emit; and

(h) reform the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax to ensure Australians get their fair share from their resources.

Climate change is already costing Australia more than $40 billion a year and, on our current path, that burden could climb to at least $73 billion, or some four per cent of GDP, by 2060. Mitigation must accelerate through rapid reduction of emissions. Ignoring the mounting risks for our communities is recklessly negligent. The status quo is leaving communities defenceless in the face of mounting risks and, too often, without the safety net of insurance. We must lift adaptation investment, make 'polluter pays' a reality and equip local communities with the tools to stay safe, insurable and prosperous.

Last Friday, I held a climate resilience emergency forum here in Parliament House. The forum gathered representatives from industry, academia, unions, government, think tanks, local councils and health to discuss the impact of the changing climate across our economy and, most importantly, how we can adapt and how we can pay for it. The cost of doing nothing far outweighs the cost of preparing for the future. In fact, delaying action will cost lives.

The current approach from the government is piecemeal, reactive and underfunded. Alongside other things, the motion calls on the government to invest a quarter of a per cent of GDP, or $4 billion, a year in climate adaptation. This investment will enable a triple dividend of climate adaptation to our economy and to Australia by avoiding losses from climate disasters, driving economic benefits, affordable insurance, new and better jobs and improved infrastructure and it will bring massive social and environmental gains.

The government's national climate risk assessment confirms that some climate risks are already baked in. The bill for inaction is mounting. The government currently invests only $250 million per year in adaptation, which is woefully inadequate. Traditional economic models understate the risks and the social and economic cost. The modelling from UNSW's Timothy Neal, who presented at the forum, warned us that outdated economic forecasting models have lulled policymakers and governments into complacency. Traditional economic forecasts only predict minor global GDP losses, but Professor Neal's work suggests the real damage could be as high as 40 per cent of global GDP by the end of the century on the current emissions reduction trajectory. Our national cost-benefit test must be updated.

Meanwhile, the insurance protection gap is widening, construction costs are higher and we continue to rebuild in high-risk areas without resilience and adaptation backed into rebuilding codes. Local governments, which are on the front line, are financially stretched, competing for short-term grants when what works is place based, long-term adaptation. We have the plans on paper. What's missing is the scale, certainty and accountability to deliver them.

The outcomes from Friday's forum are measured and economy-wide. They are calling for, firstly, predictable and adequate investment in adaptation by committing to $4 billion, or a quarter of a per cent of GDP, to offset the two per cent of GDP it's already costing us. This should be locked in over forward estimates. Secondly, they are calling for adaptive leadership that embeds climate resilience across our economy through a national climate adaptation authority to implement the forthcoming National Adaptation Plan, coordinate across jurisdictions and monitor implementation. Thirdly, they call for helping local governments with the cost of adaptation by lifting financial assistance grants from ½ a per cent to at least one per cent of Commonwealth taxation revenue, which is around $400 million per year, to ensure place based adaptation and implementation.

Fourthly, we need to invest in nature, as it is our greatest ally in adaptation and resilience, by updating nature based solutions. The fifth is on funding Indigenous land and sea management, which we know would deliver climate and social dividends. Sixthly, we also need to update our National Construction Code to embed resilience, expand cyclone and flood standards by risk, not postcode, and ensure transparent hazard data. It is incredibly concerning that the Albanese government has committed to a freeze of the building code.

Seventhly, we need to build public-private partnerships with insurers to reduce underlying risk and lower premiums. Finally, we need for those that are causing the damage to pay for the adaptation by ensuring a 'polluters pay' social and environmental model. We know that through CBAM, reform of the PRRT and so many other measures we can ensure polluters pay for adaptation.

See this speech in context