Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to support the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022. In 1985, Jonathan Shanklin was a junior researcher at the British Antarctic Survey when he discovered a hole in the invisible shield that protects us from solar radiation. It's 37 years since scientists first found that hole in the ozone layer. That invisible shield absorbs harmful UV rays from the sun. Without it, complex life on earth would not exist. The findings spurred a whole environmental movement in the 1980s and led to the total ban of chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs—the chemicals responsible for destroying ozone. We saw the science and we believed it. We saw that, since the late seventies, there'd been a systematic decline in the amount of spring ozone. By 1984 the ozone layer over the Halley research station was only about two-thirds as thick as it had been in earlier decades.

Shanklin's findings were published in a seminal Nature paper in May 1985, and that research led directly to the 1987 Montreal Protocol—an agreement to freeze production and consumption of ozone-depleting substances at then current rates. To use Jonathan Shanklin's own words:

I think it was the fact that it was absolutely clear cut—you could show politicians a picture of the Antarctic ozone hole, and so they were very quickly enabled to take action.

There were also alternatives to CFCs that were readily available and, because increased UV light was linked to the increased incidence of skin cancer, the word 'cancer' made it a public health issue, so I witnessed political effort being harnessed incredibly rapidly. The Montreal Protocol provided an exemplar of how things should operate. If we could have adopted the same approach with climate change and proceeded just as rapidly, then we wouldn't be in the challenging position that we are now. We would have taken action decades ago. I was a very young journalist when all this was happening in the Canberra Press Gallery and witnessing the Hawke government coming to terms with this news. It was my first big environmental story. We all learned to say 'chlorofluorocarbons' without stumbling on it. I think that's why it has been so interesting to see the difference in the acceptance of the science then compared to now, as it relates to climate change.

We can be very proud that Australia has been at the forefront of action to protect the ozone layer since the start. Due to our increased vulnerability to changes in the ozone layer, it was recognised very early by Prime Minister Bob Hawke. We were one of the first countries to sign the Montreal protocol, and we shared our expertise with other nations. The federal government worked with the states and territories and with industry to pass legislation to phase out the importation, production and supply of ozone-depleting substances. Australia also contributed to the international fund that assisted developing nations to respond to this issue. Since 1987, every single prime minister has continued to support the Montreal protocol, and Australia has met or exceeded all its targets under the agreement. In 2012 the Montreal protocol became the first international environmental treaty to achieve full ratification, being signed by every country who's a member of the United Nations.

So how do these bills fit in with that progress? Through these bills we will contribute to the phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, in our atmosphere. This is absolutely critical to meeting the targets that we've set. HFCs are dangerous greenhouse gases that are 4,000 times as harmful to our environment as carbon dioxide. These bills improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Program and will keep it strong. We know that protecting the ozone layer is paramount to the wellbeing of Australians and the Australian environment. We'll make these changes through regulating the manufacture, import, export, use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases. Under our Labor government, Australia will re-establish our international leadership role on the environment.

I've already noted that the Montreal protocol is one of the most successful environmental treaties that we've ever seen and has demonstrated success in protecting the ozone layer and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thanks to the efforts of all countries, the ozone layer is projected to recover by the middle of this century. The global phase-down of HFC production under the Montreal protocol is estimated to prevent the equivalent of 420 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere by 2100—which feels like a long way away but isn't, actually. Australia's on track to reach 85 per cent reduction in our consumption by 2036. The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Program is a terrific example of what Australia can do to protect our climate and meet our ambitious emissions reduction targets.

Our government is very proud to work alongside Australian industry—industry that continues to move to alternative technologies and manage environmentally harmful chemicals to minimise emissions. In the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector, for instance, Australia has a world-leading approach to managing these substances, from import through the supply chain, and how they're actually used within the local economy and then at the end of life. Australia has established a product stewardship scheme to collect used refrigerant. The scheme turns these potent greenhouse gases into harmless salty water. Australian industry is crucial to the way we engage with our Pacific neighbours as well. Our companies have been partnering with the Pacific to assist their phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals. By working constructively with our neighbours, we can move away from refrigerants that are damaging the region. Changes in this bill lay the foundation for future additional initiatives to reduce synthetic greenhouse gas emissions and assist Australia to meet our 2030 target.

It isn't hard to draw the parallels on what can be achieved now. After so many years of natural disasters being aggravated by climate change, according to the data that we see, it's no wonder that we want to replicate the success that we've had with ozone when we look to the broader issue of climate change and emissions reduction. The Albanese government made a commitment to reduce our emissions by 43 per cent by 2030, and we're delivering on that. We've legislated that. That includes an 82 per cent target for renewable energy. It's a hard thing to achieve, but we're committed to doing that. Our climate change bill has passed through the parliament and, in the same way that we continue to act on ozone and take the next steps, that climate bill is not the end of the story—it's the start.

Among the things we're doing to parallel the work that was done so effectively by the Hawke government in the 1980s, and by subsequent governments in their approach to tackling the hole in the ozone layer, we have a suite of measures around climate change. We've got $20 billion of investment in Australia's electricity grid, to accelerate the decarbonisation of the grid. We've got an additional $300 million to deliver community batteries and solar banks across Australia, and I'm very proud to have two of those in the electorate of Macquarie. Up to $3 billion is being invested in the new National Reconstruction Fund to support renewables manufacturing and low-emissions technology, again, working with industry. Our Powering the Regions Fund will support the development of new clean energy industries and decarbonisation priorities of existing industry. There's a further $100 million to train 10,000 new energy apprentices in the jobs of the future, there's $10 million for new energy skills programs to provide alternative training pathways, and there's the introduction of declining emissions baselines for Australia's major emitters under the existing safeguard mechanism. I think that's a really good example, mirroring what we've done on ozone, of taking existing work and improving on it over time.

We're doubling the existing investment in electric vehicle charging and we're establishing hydrogen refuelling industries. Up to $500 million is committed for that. We've got the application of new standardised and internationally aligned reporting requirements for climate risks, we're restoring the role of the Climate Change Authority while keeping decision-making and accountability with government. We'll be introducing new annual parliamentary reporting by the minister—the first of which will come very shortly. We've also bid to host a future Conference of the Parties in Australia, with an offer to the Pacific partner countries to co-host it—again, a demonstration of working with our neighbours. We know these things work; it's the way to bring about change. We've also confirmed that we will not use overachievement, otherwise known as 'carryover', from 2020 and the Kyoto protocol targets in order to meet our Paris climate targets. This is how we're going to demonstrate to the world that the commitment this country has always shown to taking a leadership role and working to solve environmental issues is being replicated in the work that we're doing to tackle climate change.

I'm very pleased to support this legislation which continues the work started by the Hawke government and continued over many decades.

Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese government is delivering on its commitment to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 is an important part of delivering on this commitment.

More than 40 years ago global communities spoke with great concern about the hole in the ozone layer and the catastrophic damage it would do to our health, to our economy and to our environment if we did not act. Consequently, global communities recognised the science that the ozone layer protects life on earth by absorbing ultraviolet radiation from the sun. We also recognised the concerning fact that ozone-depleting hydrofluorocarbons like refrigerants were destroying the ozone layer. In response, global communities determined to control and phase-out ozone gases with the creation of the Montreal Protocol, ratified by Australia in 1989.

This has led to the phasing-out of harmful substances and the renewed health of the ozone layer. Products like aerosols were banned and industries and communities changed their behaviours because they believed in the science and the consequence of not acting. Now, after almost a decade of inaction under successive coalition governments on climate change, the Albanese government is once again listening to the science, and I'm proud to say that earlier this year parliament passed the government's Climate Change Bill.

The Albanese government has committed to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 43 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 and to net zero by 2050. This is backed by business associations, unions and environmental groups, who've come together to support the government's emissions targets. Our commitment has brought Australia into line with other nations, including France, Denmark and Spain, that have also legislated net zero by 2050. Now, through this bill before us today, we continue our commitment to the phasing down of hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, in our atmosphere, which will continue to strengthen the health of the ozone layer. This is also critical in meeting our greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. HFCs are dangerous greenhouse gases that are 4,000 times more harmful to our environment than carbon dioxide.

These bills provide for the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Program. The bills also implement the remaining recommendations from the 2016 review of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Program. They'll improve compliance and enforcement by refining existing criminal offences. They will also introduce new offences and civic penalties to cover noncompliance relating to the import, export or manufacture of ozone-depleting substances. And these measures will reduce the administrative burden on industry by streamlining and improving the import and manufacturing licensing scheme as well as making the legislation easier to understand.

Australia's ozone legislation controls the import and use of ozone-depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases. Commonly used in refrigeration and air conditioning, fire protection, aerosols and insulating foam, HFCs make up about two per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, but their use is growing because of increasing demand for air conditioning. We know that protecting the ozone layer is crucial to the wellbeing of Australians and the Australian environment. Ozone-depleting substances damage the ozone layer, allowing more ultraviolet radiation from the sun to pass through and cause harm to our health. UV radiation causes many problems, from skin cancer and cataracts in people through to damage to farm crops and the environment. To prevent damage to the ozone layer, we must tightly control and manage ozone-depleting substances. So we're working together across national boundaries. We can move away from refrigerants and the damage to our environment.

The Montreal Protocol provides concrete proof that global cooperation can heal the planet. It is the world's most successful international environmental treaty. As part of the phase-down, Australia is committed to assisting our neighbours in the Pacific, offering technical training and providing information about managing the transition to newer gases and equipment to reduce emissions. This continues Labor's history as a government that takes action on global climate issues. Australia, under the Hawke government, was instrumental in gaining agreement by all parties to the Montreal Protocol—to the worldwide phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons. We are doing this through regulating the manufacture, import, export, use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances and synthetic greenhouse gases. Under the Albanese government, Australia will re-establish our international leadership role on the environment.

The Montreal Protocol is one of the most successful climate change treaties, protecting the ozone layer and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thanks to the efforts of all countries, the ozone layer is projected to recover by the middle of this century. The global phase-down of HFC production under the Montreal Protocol is estimated to prevent the equivalent of 420 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere by 2100, and Australia is on track to reach 85 per cent reduction in our consumption by 2036. The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Program is a strong example of what Australia can do to protect our climate and meet our ambitious emissions reduction targets.

Our government is working alongside Australian industry that continues to move to alternative technologies and manage environmentally harmful chemicals to minimise emissions. In the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector, Australia has a world-leading approach to managing these substances. The all-embracing strategy applies from import through the supply chain and in use within the economy and then at the end of life. Australia has an established product stewardship scheme to collect used refrigerant that turns these potent greenhouse gases into harmless salty water.

Australian industry is crucial to the way we engage with our Pacific neighbours as well. Our companies have been partnering with the Pacific to help them phase out ozone-depleting chemicals. By working constructively with our neighbours we can move away from refrigerants that damage our region and planet. Our government will share information with neighbouring countries about our legislation, licensing and quota systems. We will offer technical training and training material, and provide information about managing the transition to newer gases and equipment to reduce emissions. These projects and initiatives will be funded from a multilateral fund for the implementation of the Montreal protocol, which Australia contributes to through our official development assistance. This builds upon Australia's existing work with 12 Pacific Island countries under the Montreal protocol to phase out ozone-depleting substances, particularly HCFCs. In that respect, we are already working with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Tonga, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Nauru, Samoa, and the Cook Islands.

Reforms within this bill lay the foundation for the future. They create additional initiatives to reduce synthetic greenhouse gas emissions and help Australia to meet its 2030 targets. It is also just another way that we can work effectively with our Pacific neighbours and give them support. These measures are sensible, practical and have wide support. Importantly, this bill reinforces Australia's place as a global partner which believes in the science, one that is prepared to play its role in protecting the health of our planet and our people. I commend the bill to the House.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Vienna protocol was the first back in 1985 and it led to the Montreal protocol of 1987. Between those two events the world managed to attract together enough people, about 43 countries, in the Montreal protocol for a seismic change in what was happening. It was self-evident that, especially in the Antarctic, we were seeing a depletion of ozone. There are natural ways that ozone is depleted but there was an acceleration of it, especially through things such as bromide and chlorine, which, if they get into the stratosphere, have a fundamental effect. One chlorine atom will destroy around 100,000 ozones. Ozone (03) is a triatomic molecule and it breaks it down to a diatomic, which is oxygen.

The only thing that can stop UVB getting through the atmosphere, which is an absolute kicker for skin cancer—and I have had melanoma twice—is ozone; that is the only way you will stop it. There were millions more cases of skin cancers. I think it was around about 800,000 further cancer deaths they attribute to the depletion of ozone. It was having an effect that actually progressed right to Tasmania. This was causing massive effects and we had to do something about it. I'm happy to say that we did and it is being reversed, overwhelmingly because the things that were depleting it were man-made. The classic ones would have been methyl bromide, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, chlorofluorocarbons and halons. These were used in propellants, refrigerants, and there were alternatives.

People talk about the science, and I'm completely versed in what this is. One of the things about this is that there was a methodical process that didn't destroy economies. There was also participation by every country. If major countries had been left out, it wouldn't have had any effect. It was able to be calibrated quite clearly. The modelling was very precise, and the correlation between the modelling and the actual outcomes was very good. It is, in essence, one of the great environmental wins. I would have to say it is one of the biggest environmental wins that the globe has achieved, because it managed to combine together.

Where the logic went into it was that there wasn't a depletion or a diminution of technology that the world was using. It was just smarter technology that got us there. I've seen the parallel that's been drawn by the Labor Party between this and renewables. I knew that would happen. It's completely different. Renewables do not have the capacity that baseload power generation has. I also note today the report that the Labor Party is hiding, into the economic effect, especially in the upper Hunter. I've got a copy of it here if they want to table it. I'd like them to table the rest of the report.

What we have to understand is that, in the sort of parallel mechanism of carbon reduction, if we're going to go to zero emissions—going away from chemistry and into physics—an electricity grid will not work. You only have to go marginally, fractionally, away from 50 hertz on the grid, and it just won't work. Having the grid work is like, as I said, balancing the electric pencil on your fingertip. Baseload manages to keep it balanced, but what renewables do, as a power source, is basically that they jump up and down on the pencil, and the pencil has times when it goes away from 50 hertz. If it gets too much, blackout. If it gets too little, blackout. We haven't worked out how to do it.

They always talk about batteries. The costing of batteries across the nation to maintain the grid is about $5 trillion. We don't have $5 trillion, and the batteries they refer to will do it for a few hours for a very small portion of power. Very efficient power is called low-entropy power. When it's inefficient, in physics, it's called a high-entropy release. The best way to think of it is as a balloon. Low-entropy release is letting the air out through the bottom, and high entropy is popping the balloon. It's very hard to store the energy from popping the balloon, but that is basically where renewables are, because they're intermittent. You have to have the capacity to combine them in such a way that they maintain the grid at 50 hertz. That's the same whether you believe in climate change or not. That's just pure physics, 100 per cent physics.

We saw in June that we got very close to the grid dropping out. As the call goes onto it, it's going to get very close again. This brings me to another thing. I hear that they're going to blow up Liddell—not figuratively but literally. They're going to put explosives in there and blow it up. That's one of the things that keeps the pencil on the tip of the finger. Once you lose that baseload power, you're going to create massive problems. It will happen. It's just like denying gravity or denying that chlorine turns oxygen from a triatomic to a diatomic. It just does. It's accepted. We haven't got to that point yet where we can take away baseload power. If we get to that point, we're just going to run straight into fact—and physics will beat narratives every day of the week.

Going back: there was a great technological advance. The Germans, the French and the English weren't really keen on going out of the propellants and refrigerants, and they created arguments as to why they should not. But what they did manage to do in a small period of time was get the efficacy of alternative products that did the same job without reducing the economy.

I want to go to what happens when you get it wrong. I have here a report commissioned by the Labor Party's Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Jenny McAllister. For a sudden and concurrent closure of all power stations in the Hunter Valley, which they requested be modelled, so they obviously must have belief in doing it, it talks about a 6.7 per cent additional unemployment rate. Hundreds of people would lose their jobs. Tens of millions of dollars would go. And this is a very small section—the Upper Hunter. They've had this report, but they've never told the Australian people about it, and they've never told the people of the Upper Hunter. They commissioned it, but they never told anybody, and that is sneaky. That is not transparency.

Just a moment ago they called for a censure motion. They talked about transparency and openness, but we have a report here today, and we want to see the report for everywhere. They've got one for the Upper Hunter. I'll bet you they've got one for the Lower Hunter as well—I'll bet you they have. I'll bet you there's a whole range of areas, because it's quite clear this wasn't done just for one area. What about Calare, Cunningham, Dawson, Flynn, Capricornia, Maranoa, Parkes and Gippsland? Were there reports for those? Where are their reports? I'll bet you they've got them. Mr Bowen should table them today, otherwise the whole theatre of what happened in the other chamber is merely that: theatre. And it only enlarges on one thing: hypocrisy, total hypocrisy. That is because people don't believe that, only at certain times, when it suits them, do they want transparency.

It is there. We've got it. We didn't make it up; we've got it. It is there; therefore, the people whom it affects are the people who are about to be kicked to the kerb, because the process of reducing propellants—be they chlorine, benzene or methyl bromide—was efficacious, diligent and appropriate, and it worked. And this was the great thing: it went from the Vienna convention, when they all came together and said: 'We think this should happen,' to the Montreal convention in 1987, when 43 countries were part of it. They then dragged Germany and England in to be part of the show. That was efficacious and it worked, but what we are going to be doing here in Australia, according to the Labor Party's own report, is something entirely different.

The rhetoric is that renewables are cheaper. They obviously are not. They are not cheaper—not until you put in massive pumped hydros. The cost of Snowy Hydro 2.0 is up to about $10 billion. When you're doing the relative marginal costing process and you put in your base-load capacity so you're comparing 24/7 power with 24/7 power, renewables are massively dearer because there's not that base load. What happens is that power is sold in five-minute blocks, and what they're comparing is the sale of one five-minute block of power with the sale of a five-minute block from a coal-fired power station, and they're not comparable. It's like saying that you can keep the lights on here for five minutes, or that the Tomago smelter needs to work for only five minutes a day or for certain five-minute slots during the day. The flux will congeal and they won't build another one; that'll be the end of it. It'll be gone.

We haven't got to the point in this nation of doing that. All we're doing is walking closer and closer to a massive problem. What will the problem look like? It'll look like Labor's report, which we've got. That's what it'll look like—just like that. So how do we do it? We want to participate in this. There's only one way we can do it, and every advanced economy is getting there. We've now got places like Thailand and Indonesia that have nuclear. That's the zero-emissions technology that does it. When people shake their heads, do they honestly think that Hitachi, Skoda, Rolls-Royce, General Electric, Westinghouse, a myriad of Chinese companies, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians, the French, the English, the Canadians, who are very advanced with it, the Argentinians and the Saudi Arabians—all these people—are dumb and we're the only clever ones? They're all stupid; we're clever. That's more than a paradox; it is just insane.

The world is moving on and we are going to be left behind. The manufacturing jobs we could have in this nation! They're looking at about a quarter-trillion-dollar-a-year economy that's going to come from this. We're just going to be left behind. We're going to sell them the rocks, but we're not going to build the power stations. That's just incongruous. Ultimately, we have to take the movement.

I'd like to commend the Australian Workers Union, who support this. And—I'll never do this again!—I'd like to commend the CFMMEU, who support this. They support going into these jobs. They say we should be part of it. The group of people who don't want to be part of it is getting smaller and smaller and smaller.

I'll tell you what the biggest argument is: 'Do you want a nuclear reactor in your area?'—a small modular reactor, the one that Rolls-Royce are building, that other stupid company that built things such as the Merlin engine for the Spitfire? Every time you fly, most of the engines there are Rolls-Royce engines. It's an incredibly smart country, just like Hitachi and just like Mitsubishi—all these other smart countries! A small modular reactor is going to do for the city of Leeds—503,000 people. The component part, the reactor part, 16 metres high and 4.7 metres wide, will be online by 2029. If I had the comparison between that—

An honourable member: 2030.

2029 is the latest report. If I have the choice between that and what its equivalent would be—which would be not hundreds but thousands of wind towers—I know which one I'm going to take.

We're fighting this war now around the town of Walcha with 550 wind towers. They pathologically hate them. I'm about to get 20 within sight of me, as high as Centrepoint tower in Sydney—40. There's not going to be one built at Manly Beach. There's not going to be one built at Cottesloe. And for that we get the transmission lines. If you ask the people of New England—and I did the survey—do they want a small modular reactor or more wind towers, guess what? It's unsurprising. Guess which one they want: the small modular reactor.

An honourable member: They don't exist; that's the—

Well, that also is wrong. How do you think nuclear submarines work? They're small modular reactors. This is just like when we go through the facts with diatomic and triatomic molecules and what creates them and how UVB works. If you talk about the science, well, get with the science or get left behind by history. Ultimately you're going to see small modular reactors in islands, because they're so efficient. You're going to see them in Pacific islands and around the world. And we are going to get there. It will happen in Australia, inevitably, and when it does we'll just be saying, 'Yet another opportunity we blew.'

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022, which makes some further changes to the way that we here in Australia operate our ozone protection and synthetic greenhouse gas management arrangements. All of those spring from the Montreal Protocol, which was agreed internationally in 1987, as other speakers have noted. The Montreal Protocol responded to an environmental and atmospheric crisis, when we discovered that a certain class of gases were contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer, which is critically important to the health of our environment and climate.

Any time we talk about the Montreal Protocol and the successful global cooperative effort, it's impossible not to think about the relationship between that effort and the effort that we're all engaged in presently with respect to climate change and the Paris Agreement. The Montreal Protocol was a case of the world, in the 1980s, realising that there was a crisis—that we had a certain kind of industrial activity and certain kinds of manufacturing and consumer goods being produced that were putting gases into the atmosphere and having deleterious effects on the atmosphere that we would all suffer from—and something had to be done. The Montreal Protocol was agreed to relatively quickly. Australia, under the Hawke government, played a very constructive role in seeing that determined, and it has been relatively successful. It's a great indicator of how the global community can respond to those kinds of circumstances and lead us to a healthier and more sustainable and more environmentally protective approach that doesn't diminish our capacity to operate economies and manufacture goods and all of those other things.

It's worth noting, as this new government, in its first six months, brings in this bill which implements some further changes to improve our ozone protection and synthetic greenhouse gas management arrangements, that it flows on from a process that began under the former government. There was a review back in 2014. It was completed in 2015, and the former government responded in May 2016. Unfortunately, the final review report was never released. For members—particularly, new members—it is worth noting that in the previous parliament there was some legislation brought by the previous government that we welcomed and supported. It introduced some belated amendments to the OPGGS Act, but at the time—and I made a contribution to that debate—the assistant minister in the former government said that it introduced most of the remaining measures announced following the review of the program but not all of them. At that point, we did not know what the others might be because the final review report was never released. I'm guessing that, with the new government having had a look at the final review report, those changes are now flowing through lickety-split into the bill that we consider here to make those further changes, and they are important.

It's also worth noting—back on the analogy with our response to the HFC issue and the ozone layer issue—that, as with climate change, from Australia's point of view it wasn't just the case that we shared the view of many countries that the depletion of the ozone layer was unacceptable and something needed to be done about it. We did take that view, but one of the things that became plain for Australians in the 1980s was that there was actually a hole in the ozone layer over the Antarctic. The ozone layer in our part of the world had suffered more significantly than elsewhere around the planet, and that was more than likely going to have a particular effect on us. I can remember as a teenager that people were taking hold of the likelihood that skin cancer rates and things like that would more than likely increase and be even greater than they already were—and they continue to be high here in Australia.

We had every reason to be a leading player in the formation of the Montreal protocol, just as we have every reason to be a leading player in response to climate change, and that somehow seems to get lost. As with the hole in the ozone layer, climate change will deliver harm and cost across the board. With respect to the previous speaker, what seems to go missing all the time is the understanding that if you don't take action to deal with these matters—the depletion of the ozone layer or the building up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that leads to global warming, climate change and more frequent environmental natural disasters—you are going to reap extraordinary costs, and they're going to be costs of every kind. They're going to be economic costs, but they are also going to be social, environmental and human health costs. Extreme heat is one of the most consistent killers that we experience environmentally, and not just in the form of bushfires or those kind of events but just in the ordinary way that extreme heat puts stress on the human body and leads to elevated death rates.

Those are the kinds of things that we are seeking to avoid by being a constructive partner with countries around the world in dealing with climate change. Part of what this bill does is align the OPGGS Act—the ozone-depletion-specific arrangements—with our commitments under the Paris Agreement, because HFCs by themselves are significantly more potent in accelerating global warming and climate change in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide alone, some 3,000 or 4,000 times more potent. What we are doing—we are on track to have reduced our use of HFCs by 85 per cent in 2036; that's part of our commitment, and we're on the trajectory—is making a contribution to that effort.

It's worth noting that the Montreal protocol was enormously successful, and it's right that we say, 'Look at what the world is capable of doing and look at the leadership role that Australia is capable of playing.' But the effort is not over. The newspaper articles have stopped, and the discussion of the hole in the ozone layer is not part of our conversation, but the effort will continue under the auspices of the Montreal protocol into the 2060s, or to about 2060. And there have been fluctuations. I was having a look at some scientific literature in preparation for contributing to this debate, and from time to time the available measure of the health of the ozone layer ticks up or ticks down. So it's not as if that effort has completely taken care of the issue; it's not as if we don't need to monitor it.

Back in 2015, before I was elected to this place, when I was the deputy mayor of Fremantle, the United Nations Environmental Effects Assessment Panel—a panel underneath the UNEP that has some specific scientific responsibility for looking at the Montreal protocol and the management of ozone depletion—held an annual conference in Fremantle. I didn't have much warning about that. It's one of those things when you're involved in local government—you get told out of the blue: 'Guess what; there's this significant international scientific group, and they happen to be coming to your part of the world. Would you be happy to meet them and host them in the town hall and say a few words of introduction?' But it was a great privilege to meet those people, who had come from all over the world, to talk about the work that they had done.

So it is really significant that we continue to be very forward leaning in what we're doing, because we have the capacity to do it and because Australian leadership on these things matters. It matters as a demonstration of our values and principles. It matters in the region, where countries that are less developed than Australia but even more prone to the impacts of environmental and atmospheric degradation look to us to do our bit, to show leadership and to take a proportional part of the task.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s we had both the Montreal protocol and the Madrid protocol. The Madrid protocol in 1991 was specifically about the environmental protection of Antarctica, and it was another instance of Australia taking a leading role. Even late in that process there was a suggestion that a compromise might need to be struck that would allow certain kinds of activity—economic activity, mining and things like that—in Antarctica in order to ensure that the agreement excluded the occupation and use of Antarctica for defence and security purposes. Prime Minister Hawke and that Labor government, fairly late in the piece, took a bold interpretation of what might be possible and really turned the tide of those negotiations, to the extent that not just defence and security but also economic activity and mining were excluded from Antarctica.

Here we are, 35 years on from the Montreal protocol and 31 years on from the Madrid protocol. We should look back at those agreements and take heart. We should look back and say that the Australian government, the Australian community and the global community were able to rise to the challenge of very, very serious environmental crises in a positive and constructive way that effectively put the world on a more sustainable footing and avoided what would have been, frankly, quite catastrophic harm. We could do that 35 years ago with the resources and technology we had then, so I don't know on what basis we would say that we are incapable of responding to the challenges that we have now. Certainly that's the view that this government takes. That's the view taken by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the Minister for Environment and Water and every other member of the executive. We are absolutely capable of doing the things that are in this bill and the things that we committed to at COP27. Through our increased emissions reduction target and energy transition arrangements we're putting in place, we are 100 per cent capable not only of doing our part in the necessary energy and greenhouse gas emission task but of showing leadership.

The fact that we got ourselves into an unhelpful political trough on those kinds of issues in the last 10 years is a denial of Australia's essential character. Australia's central character is to have confidence in our capacity to be innovators, to have confidence in industry and science, and to have confidence in our political institutions. We look at these challenges that are specific to us—because we will be more affected by climate change than many other countries, but, at the same time, it's something that the entire planet needs to wrestle with—and find ways to be part of it rather than find ways to excuse ourselves from it. Earlier this week in this chamber, another member was essentially suggesting that energy transition and climate change action was akin to a cult that involved the sacrifice of virgins and various other quite bizarre things. That is not consonant with the Australian community's down-to-earth, can-do, common-sense, get-on-with-it approach to tackling big and serious problems.

This government, while it does the big things—like the commitment it made in updating our nationally determined contribution to the Paris Agreement and the things that we were part of in COP27 the week before—is also going to pick up some of the smaller things, some of the incremental things, as this bill does. As I said, the review that led to these changes was eight years ago. The previous government never released that report and took quite a lot of time to introduce some of the measures relatively late in the last term. We supported those. But here we are in the first six months of this government, and we're picking up the rest of that task. I hope that it's something that everyone in the parliament can support.

Henry Pike (Bowman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition welcomes the government's introduction of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 and the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022. There are two reasons why we are so enthused about these bills. The first is that the protection of the ozone layer continues to remain an important national and international goal. The second is that the content of these three bills is almost exactly the same as the content of three bills introduced to the parliament by the coalition in December of last year. Unfortunately, the previous coalition bills' lapsed when the parliament rose ahead of the May election, and we are pleased that the Labor Party is now following our lead by bringing them back to the parliament.

I want to pay tribute to the former Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management, Trevor Evans, a fellow South-East Queensland Liberal, on the work he did in this place to advance these three bills. On 2 December 2021, almost a year ago to the day, Mr Evans said:

The reforms and various amendments in this bill are each minor on their own. As a whole, the package of reforms represents an important step in ensuring the continued success of this program for ozone protection and synthetic greenhouse gas management.

The United States National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently reported that earlier this year:

… the overall concentration of ozone-depleting substances in the mid-latitude stratosphere had fallen just over 50 percent …

This is back to the levels observed in 1980 before ozone depletion was significant. This has been described as slow and steady progress by experts across the world, and, over the last three decades, this has certainly been the cause of great success across the world. It's largely been attributed to international compliance and cooperation on controls on the production and trade of ozone-depleting substances following the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. It's great to see this progress; however it is important to recognise that we are still a long way from being able to claim that the issue of ozone depletion is resolved. The passage of these bills will encourage compliance and reduce the regulatory burden on businesses whilst ensuring that the standard environmental protection provided by the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act remains high.

On the subject of ozone layer protection, there has been consistent bipartisan agreement. There's been a lot of fine work done by governments of all colours in Australia. This work started with the Hawke and Keating governments in the 1980s and 90s. This includes their efforts to devise the three original acts that underpin the Hawke government's decision in 1987 to make Australia one of the original signatories to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

The year 1987 was a great year. I won't make reference to anything else that was conceived and brought into this world in 1987, but I'll leave it there!

That work has been complemented by the actions of each of Australia's federal governments since that time. The Abbott government—I make note that they are unveiling former prime minister Tony Abbott's portrait downstairs shortly—decided in 2014 that it would be valuable to formally review the operations of these three acts and the accompanying Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Program, or the OPSGG. That review process, as well as some further suggestions more recently from industry and consumers, has led to much of the content that we see in the bills before us today.

We on this side find it quite humorous that the minister in her second reading speech and media release decided not to acknowledge any of the work undertaken on this review and this legislation by people on this side of the political aisle. Sadly, there has been no acknowledgement of any of the work undertaken by the former coalition government in the development of these important bills. Instead, the minister has tried to pass off these bills as her own achievement, born of the Labor Party's superior virtue—bills that have been magically brought forward out of the Labor government's wellspring of moral goodness.

Given that the level of ozone-depleting substances in the mid-latitude stratosphere has fallen back to 1980s levels, I encourage the minister to, perhaps, return to that 1980s spirit of bipartisanship and cooperation that enabled so many important reforms, including our participation in the Montreal Protocol. The bill contains sensible changes based on the conclusions of that review, which was started back in 2014, as well as on comprehensive consultation with stakeholders by the former government. There've been many varied stakeholders who've had an input into this process. I'll name just a few of them: the Air Conditioning and Mechanical Contractors Association of Australia; the Airconditioning and Refrigerant Equipment Manufacturers Association of Australia; Ausgrid; the Australian Aluminium Council; the Australian Institute of Refrigeration, Air Conditioning and Heating; and the Australian Refrigeration Association. I could go on; that's just the A's. It's quite a long list. It includes all the major stakeholders and consumer groups. It's important to note the breadth of the previous government's consultation. Consulting widely, taking on good ideas and developing them into good policy is what makes strong legislation in this place. I think that contrasts strongly with the government's current IR bill, which is being debated in the Senate as we speak. Rushed legislation leads to poor outcomes, and good consultation leads to good results. This parliament should thank all these stakeholders for their constructive contribution to these changes.

It is also important to note the number of recommendations from the review process that were already legislated way back in 2017, which seems a lifetime ago now. These bills now address many of the remaining recommendations and they also reflect various further changes subsequently suggested by businesses and consumers following those legislated changes back in 2017. In the main, they give expression to a series of sensible administrative changes. The bills will ensure the even more efficient operation in the future of the three relevant ozone protection acts as well as the enhanced regulation, through the OPSGG program, of the regulation of the manufacture, import, export, use and disposal of ozone-depleting substances in Australia.

And I go back to the bill's objectives here. The closing the hole in the ozone layer bill is principally aimed at modernising the compliance and enforcement arrangements associated with the OPSGG program; it's inserting into law various OPSGG program obligations that are currently imposed only by license conditions; and it also provides greater clarity around licensing exemption requirements as well as increasing the time permitted for businesses to submit reports and pay levies. I know that was one of the key outcomes of the consultation on the key recommendations made by those stakeholders.

The bills also provide for the removal of caps on the levy rates for the OPSGG program, and the creation of a capacity for the manufacture levy rate to be more flexibly set and adjusted by legislation rather than just through legislation. And we've seen how long it takes to get legislation through this place. I believe this bill has been on and off the Notice Paper many, many times. My speech here is all dogeared given how many times I've pulled it in and out of my folder. The delegation of power to senior departmental officials of the minister to grant exemptions to levy payments and the abolition of the levy applied to the importation of ODS equipment is in recognition of the fact that it is now only possible to bring such equipment into Australia in circumstances where no alternative equipment is available. These are all highly commendable actions, and I commend the bills to the House.

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 and important cognate bills. These bills are important components of things that will help Australia reduce our hydrofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. And, importantly, they will help us meet our recently introduced emissions reductions targets.

There are many in this place who can remember when the world first started speaking about the hole in the ozone layer many, many decades ago. I think we can all recall it. For many Australians that would have been the first time that environmental threats had actually become real. It would have resonated with people that there was a real threat, as the ozone hole seemed to affect us more than other geographic locations around the world. In fact, there were things saying the hole was right above Australia. We were hearing that and so, for all of us, the term hydrofluorocarbons entered into our common vocabulary and became part of our language at that particular point.

Hydrofluorocarbons are a greenhouse gas as well as an ozone-depleting gas. These bills implement our obligations under the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, so this treaty is one of the most successful treaties we have seen. Every country has become a signatory, which is why it has been so successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It also shows that, with global collaboration, with countries working together internationally, we can achieve so much.

We, on this side of the House, understand this. You would have seen the climate change minister attending COP last week or the week before and having international discussions. That is part of it, talking to everyone around the world on an international scale so that we can reduce emissions. We're taking real action to protect the environment and to tackle climate change. And after the recent years of natural disasters, aggravated by climate change, Australians are asking for real action. That's what I'm hearing in my electorate. That's what I heard during the election campaign, and that's what I've been hearing for a number of years.

Our government has made a commitment to reduce our emissions, by 43 per cent by 2030, and we are delivering. We saw our bill go through the House recently. We've already passed our Climate Change Bill through the parliament and, through these bills that appear before us today, we'll continue to phase down emissions and hydrofluorocarbons in our atmosphere. This is part of meeting that target. It's critical, in fact, to meeting that target. We know that HFCs are dangerous greenhouse gases that are 4,000 times as harmful to our environment as carbon dioxide. So this will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Program and will continue to keep it strong. We know that protecting the ozone layer is absolutely paramount to the wellbeing of Australians and the Australian environment. So this is an important program for Australia as it implements our international obligations under the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

The Montreal protocol, as I said, was one of the most successful climate change treaties internationally, and it has demonstrated success in protecting the ozone layer and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I remember that back then, when we first started talking about the hole in the ozone layer and this particular issue, people were saying it could never happen or it might not be able to happen. But we proved that it can happen. We proved that, working together on a united front around the world, we've seen the effects. Thanks to the efforts of all of those countries, the ozone layer is projected to recover by the middle of this century. That goes to show that, by taking action years ago, we've actually turned it around, and now it's going the opposite way, which is a positive for the environment.

This continues the history of Labor governments that take action on global climate issues. Australia, as we heard earlier from the member for Fremantle, under the Hawke government in the late 1980s was instrumental in gaining agreement, by all parties to the Montreal protocol, to the worldwide phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons. Under our Albanese Labor government, Australia will re-establish our international leadership role on the environment. It is estimated that the global phase-down of HFC production under the Montreal protocol will prevent the equivalent of 420 gigatonnes worth of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere by 2100, and Australia is on track to reach 85 per cent reduction in our consumption by 2036.

We're proud to work alongside Australian industry as it moves to alternative technology and manages environmentally harmful chemicals to minimise emissions. In the refrigeration and air-conditioning sector, we saw industry work together, and Australia has a world-leading approach to managing these substances from import through the supply chain to use in the economy and then at the end of life. Australia has also established a product stewardship scheme to collect used refrigerant; the scheme turns these potent greenhouse gases into harmless salty water. Australian industry is crucial to the way that we engage with our Pacific neighbours as well. Our companies have been partnering with the Pacific to assist their phase-out of ozone-depleting chemicals. By working constructively with our neighbours, we can move away from refrigerants that damage the region.

Changes in this bill lay the foundation for future additional initiatives to reduce synthetic greenhouse gas emissions and also to assist Australia to meet its 2030 target. We have wasted no time, since coming into office, in our efforts to tackle the environmental and climate challenges that the previous government ignored. I'm so committed to protecting our environment for our children and our grandchildren and for the sake of this planet. We're investing $1.8 billion for the environment, and we're reforming the national environment laws and protecting 30 per cent of our land and 30 per cent of our oceans by 2030. We will finally and properly respond to the Samuel report on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

The government is also developing a full response to the independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. In the interim, $117.1 million will ensure assessment and compliance activities continue while broader planning is undertaken to improve the system. We will deliver on our election commitments by making the environment a real priority again. We can no longer deny that Australia is in the midst of an extinction crisis when you see some of the reports that have come out. This is why I welcome the threatened species action plan towards zero extinctions launched by our environment minister. The State of the Environment Report identified that we are the mammal extinction capital of the world. The government is responding with strong actions and targeted spending through the Saving Native Species program and we are also taking concrete steps to address climate change and our energy transformation.

The government is delivering a long overdue investment to make energy cleaner, cheaper and more secure and to create jobs in new industries and the regions and, on top of that, cut emission by doing so. The international fossil fuel crisis that has been triggered by Russia's illegal war has shown Australia the consequences of a decade of underinvestment in the cheapest form of new energy—that is, renewables. The proof of that is that when there is a crisis, if we had invested in renewables, if we had clear energy policies for the last 10 years, we may not be in this position now. That is why we are investing $20 billion in low-cost finance for the urgent upgrade and expansion of Australia's electricity grid at lowest cost. This will unlock new renewables, increase the security of the grid and drive down power prices. And under the National Energy Transformation Partnership we will have the first national plan between the states, territories and the Commonwealth to keep the lights on through Australia's massive energy transformation. The government is committed to working with First Nations people to address the challenges ahead. We will be delivering cleaner and more affordable energy to households and businesses and we will become a renewable energy superpower, ensuring that we take advantage of the job and investment opportunities that have been missed for so long.

These are not lofty goals. These are absolute necessary steps that governments must take and we, as I said, have wasted too much time already. We know that previously, over the last 10 years, we were stuck in a conundrum where there were so many different energy policies. We saw the then government not being able to agree on them, so would change them every so often. If you were investing in renewables, why would you when there is no certainty? We want to make sure that there is certainty so that we have investment in these renewables so that we secure Australia's energy needs and, at the same time, lower emissions. I, for one, will not waste the opportunity I have as a member of parliament and I will take every opportunity to support real reform and real action. That is why I am so pleased to support these bills, as my colleagues are. They will implement the remaining recommendations from the 2016 review of the ozone protection and synthetic greenhouse gas program.

These bills will also update the act to include Australia's climate change obligations under the Paris Agreement and this will help us further regulate harmful chemicals being released into the atmosphere. They will improve compliance and enforcement by refining existing criminal offences. They also introduce new offences and civil penalties to cover non-compliance relating to the import, export or manufacture of ozone-depleting substances.

I commend the bills to the House. Let's ensure that future generations do not look back and accuse us of doing nothing to save this planet.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the cognate debate on the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 and related bills, which, of course, update and modernise the legislative framework that we have in place to ensure that we are meeting our objectives under the Montreal protocols. I will just start by reflecting on how significant that agreement was in 1987. I agree with other speakers: to my knowledge, it's probably the first really significant international agreement on the protection of the atmosphere. There are other agreements and treaties that were as significant prior to that, on things like the protection of Antarctica et cetera, but I think that this agreement was the first time that nations were coming together and agreeing that there was an environmental problem that needed action taken and that the nations signing up to that agreement would have to do significant and meaningful things to meet their obligations as signatories to that treaty.

So this was a real milestone moment, and I certainly acknowledge the role of the Hawke government, which was obviously in power in Australia the time. I also acknowledge the administrations of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher, in particular, doesn't get as much credit as she should for her achievements environmentally, and the Thatcher government's strong support and leadership on this was significant. Another legacy of the Thatcher government, around coal in the United Kingdom, which the Labour Party bitterly opposed in the 1980s, is probably seen as spectacularly prescient now, in the 2020s, but I won't digress into that debate.

It was a really significant milestone moment for global, mature leadership on an environmental issue: the discovery of the depletion of the ozone and holes in the ozone layer that had direct impact on Australia and, of course, an equally significant global impact, particularly around the Antarctic hole and with the risk at the Arctic as well. So it was a very significant thing for the government to sign up to, which, of course, the then opposition supported. I think what we've had in the 35 years since the signing of that protocol is one of the best examples of bipartisan policy in an important environmental area that, 35 years later, is shown to have been remarkably successful—not that the job is finished, but we are very happy with the progress that we've made. We're on track to achieve our objective by 2050, scientists indicate, at the current rates of the protocol's implementation. I think that in 2016 they observed some of the first positive signs of the closing of the hole seasonally. So that should take us back to a pre-1980s status for the ozone layer in 2050, and then I think we're on track by 2065 to have completely addressed the issues of ozone depletion that have come from hydrofluorocarbons through man-made industrial activities.

I think it's also important that those of us in the coalition, when we have the opportunity to speak on these environmental bills, reassert the very important point that it is an inherent conservative attribute to care about conservation and the environment. It is inherent within those of us who hold conservative views that the protection of the natural environment, in all its forms, is something that we should have as a very significant priority in policies that we develop and in debates that we have in this place and other places. It is very important for the Liberal and National parties, who are the conservative force in this nation, to also assert—and to meet those assertions with concrete examples and concrete actions—that we are committed to conservation, to the protection of the environment and to the protection of the future of all those who inhabit this planet of ours. It is an inherent conservative attribute to recognise that we have a custodianship over the planet and that the impact that humankind has, where it's a negative one, needs to be properly and adequately addressed. These challenges are global ones, and one of the most important things we can do is engage and participate in global efforts—the Montreal protocol was one of the first great examples of this—that see us as a planet meet some of these challenges.

The issues with ozone depletion were a very important precursor to the challenges that we have with climate change as well. That needs a global response, and other speakers have outlined some of the framework that is already in place and that needs to be in place for the future on that challenge. We strongly endorse these bills. They, of course, emanate from the previous government, and I commend Greg Hunt and the work that he did as the then minister in this area. I know that that's something that is not disputed within the chamber. We know that they will continue to make sure that the legislative framework in meeting these significant challenges is in place, and on that basis I commend the bills to the House.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 and related bills. This bill is another chapter in the successful environmental policy story. It's a story that starts with scientists realising the impact that ozone-depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons, have on our ozone layer. Scientists around the world were finding these substances were depleting the ozone layer. These scientists also knew that these substances in the Earth's upper atmosphere absorbed ultraviolet B radiation. Too much UVB is linked to skin cancer, genetic damage, immune system suppression and reduced plant productivity. Ozone depletion was presenting as an existential threat to our planet.

When we look back on the story of the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances, you could be forgiven in thinking that it was just accepted by the governments and the community after the establishment of scientific consensus on the subject, but I think we should remember that between the University of California scientists discovering that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer in the 1970s and the establishment of the Montreal Protocol in 1987 there was opposition. DuPont, who I'd like to acknowledge has changed its tune on CFCs since the 1980s, ran a hard campaign against the science on the harm of CFCs. It was a campaign of denial and delay. DuPont took out an advertisement in the New York Times in 1975 saying:

Should reputable evidence show that some fluorocarbons cause a health hazard through depletion of the ozone layer, we are prepared to stop production of the offending compounds.

The reason for this comment? They didn't believe that CFCs were depleting the ozone layer. The chair of DuPont thought that it was science fiction.

As the evidence mounted, the response came to delay action. DuPont created the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy in 1980 to make it appear as though self-regulation was the key, to keep the conversation away from the need for government action. They took cues from the Reagan administration, and environmentalism wasn't a priority, so chemical companies dropped their research into alternatives to CFCs. When the government deprioritised the environment, it sent a signal to markets that they also shouldn't prioritise the environment, whether that be on CFCs or climate change.

But we all know that President Reagan changed his mind, so what happened? The public weren't willing to accept inaction when the potential risks were the end of life on our planet as we knew it. The evidence was clear, after all. In 1985, British scientists discovered a hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica. The link between CFCs and ozone depletion and the harm it caused became irrefutable. The President reassessed his position, spoke to experts and led a bipartisan push for international cooperation to phase out CFCs globally.

What came out of this was the first universally accepted treaty on the environment. The Montreal Protocol was signed 17 years after the link between CFCs and ozone depletion was made. Somehow, at the height of the Cold War, prime ministers Margaret Thatcher, Bob Hawke, Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan and even Kim Il-sung of North Korea could all agree that we needed to act upon the science. Since 1987, every Prime Minister has continued to support the Montreal Protocol, and Australia has met or exceeded all of its targets under this agreement, because, if we acted early, we could reverse the damage, but we would have to make changes. Industry needed to change. They knew that there would be cost, and this is why some campaigned for inaction.

Consumers also need to change their behaviour. In 1988 Prime Minister Hawke wrote to premiers and chief ministers about the hard task ahead to phase out CFCs, stating that it was important that all practical steps be taken to reduce the emission of ozone-depleting substances. He did this because it was important that we had an effective national strategy on this important environmental issue. The Montreal Protocol sets out targets to reduce the usage of and eventually phase out ozone-depleting substances, with an implementation date of 1 January 1989. Because of the harm of the substances, they had more stringent time lines for the phasing out—for example, HCFCs were seen as a transitional halogenated hydrocarbon and given a longer phase-out time.

There was also an acknowledgement that the phase-out would be easier for some countries than others. I am reminded of Minister Bowen's experience at COP27, where the Egyptian president, Sameh Shoukry, approached Minister Bowen to talk about an agreement on what financing of developing countries would be needed, where funding might come from and what mechanisms such as the World Bank would deliver it. A multilateral fund was established to support developing countries that are party to the Montreal Protocol. This funded things like converting existing manufacturing processes, education, training, access to intellectual properties and new technologies.

Communities must be led and supported by governments that make major policy matters. Whether it's inaction on climate change on the phasing out of ozone-depleting substances, there must always be a transition that supports workers and communities. Transitioning away from ozone-depleting substances is not a matter of set and forget; it must be a process of continual improvement. This bill today is a great example. I note that schedule 1 of the amendment will insert a reference to Australia's obligations under the Paris Agreement. There cannot be a conversation about HCFCs without acknowledging that they are also greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide has a global warming potential of one, but reportable HCFCs under the act are as low as 140 times and as high as 12,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Meeting our climate targets will have a dual benefit while we are also phasing out HCFCs. This needs to be acknowledged, and I commend the amendment to the bill for doing so.

I also recognise that this bill overhauls the governance processes that continue to meet our targets. Ensuring financial stability of the ozone protection synthetic gas program means supporting industry in understanding their legislative obligations and better oversight over legislative enforcement. This bill achieves this in simplistic terms by removing caps on the levies of ozone-depleting substances, removing the existing levy on existing equipment that can't be phased out at the moment and also making other, minor amendments to the machinery of the act.

Our original ozone protection legislation is about 33 years old, but successive governments have improved upon it and have brought it to the form which we have discussed today. This has been done in a bipartisan manner, and I would like to acknowledge the member for Fairfax for celebrating this. I would like to make it clear that the bill before us today originates from the previous government. I commend them for this work and I commend the minister for the Environment, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, for making the legislation a priority in the 47th Parliament.

This public policy success story inspires me. It gives me hope that we, as we have our fight against climate change, will come together and cross party lines at all levels of government in all nations to act in humanity's best interest. The catastrophic impact of ozone depletion was discussed in years, not decades. It caused higher rates of skin cancer in those living under the hole. That's something that was particularly felt here in Australia, but it acted as an impetus for change. It meant a delay of 17 years between the science and action, but we've known about the effects of greenhouse gases in our climate since the 1960s. Average global temperatures have continued to rise since the Industrial Revolution, and we're starting to see the impacts of this. As the effects of climate change are felt at home and abroad, we should remember the success story of the fight against ozone-depleting substances. We should continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is informed by science and done with the support of communities for a just transition and ideally in a bipartisan manner.

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

The Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022 and related bills are important legislation. They're important because they update legislation and regulations that have been in place for nearly four decades and that reduce the hydrofluorocarbons that are released into the atmosphere. These bills are important because they not only streamline the process for businesses and makes compliance a lot easier for them but also add some additional enforcement measures that are needed as a result of changes over the last four decades.

As other speakers have quite rightly pointed out, hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, are dangerous greenhouse gases that are around 4,000 times as harmful to the environment as carbon dioxide. As a driver and signatory of the Montreal protocol, Australia has a responsibility not only to enforce the agreed protocol standards, which have had a positive effect in closing the damaging hole in the ozone layer, but also to ensure that we are on track to meeting the objectives of those standards. However, the reality is that, whilst we have done pretty well over the last four decades with respect to applying the standards and closing the hole in the ozone layer, we can't be complacent. That's particularly so when there is ongoing considerable use of HFCs and therefore increasing threats of changing climate and more frequent natural disasters associated with extreme weather events. As we see the climate change and the risks increase, it's more reason why we should make sure that whatever measures we have in place are as effective as they can be and as effective as they were four decades ago.

Understanding and accepting that climate change is real, the Albanese Labor government has set an emissions reduction target of 43 per cent and also increased investment in renewable energy whilst at the same time—as we saw recently—taking a very active role on the world stage in global discussions with respect to climate change and in the initiatives that arise from those discussions. In fact, the Conference of the Parties that was held in Egypt only a couple of weeks ago highlighted that Australia is again back at the table raising these issues and taking a leadership role with respect to them. International unity is undoubtedly required if we're ever going to do what we should be doing with respect to the response on climate change, and global efforts have to be embraced by everybody. It's only through global efforts that we will get the outcomes that I think all of us would like to see. My view is that there are also extensive opportunities for countries that embrace the changes that need to take place.

Labor also understands that many of our near neighbours are particularly at risk of the effects of climate change and that Australia, along with the other countries, has to show some leadership with respect to this issue, particularly when one considers that Australia, according to a very recent report that I saw, has the world's highest per capita rate of emissions. Therefore, as a country with a higher per capita rate of emissions, we should be the ones setting an example of what needs to be done—albeit I accept that, in the scheme of things, there are others who will argue that our total emissions only amount to just over one per cent of emissions throughout the world. That might be so, but the fact that we have a higher per capita rate still puts an incredible onus on Australia to do the right thing.

COP27 concluded, and a long list of recommendations arose. Many of those recommendations have never been talked about, but I went through them. It is a long list and I commend all of the participants at the conference for coming up with those recommendations. It's my view that there is overwhelming global consensus that climate change is real and that those countries that want to live in the past and let others do the heavy lifting will be left behind. My view is that fossil fuel technology is yesterday's technology and, whilst fossil fuels will continue to be used during the transition years ahead, the countries that do not transition will quickly find themselves isolated and sidelined. Most countries, I believe, understand that and, overwhelmingly, corporate business, investors and the finance sector understand that.

We know that HFCs are predominantly used in refrigeration, and refrigeration is essential in the world today. Economic growth, food production, transport and storage of food, and household and workplace demand will cause a growth in the use of refrigerants unless new technology is developed. If new technology is developed, then we might see a decline. So a global phasing down of 80 per cent of HFCs by 2047 in accordance with the Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol will be a real challenge. There's no question about that. It is a big ask because, in addition to the 80 per cent reduction, there is a projected 25 per cent increase in the world 's population by 2047. That's an extra two billion people. That additional two billion people will add to consumption throughout the world, and a growth in consumption per person also adds to the additional release of hydrofluorocarbons and greenhouse gases more broadly into the atmosphere, and that is compounded by a growing middle class. I think it puts into perspective the real challenge we all have ahead of us with respect to managing the volume of greenhouse gases that gets into the atmosphere. Yet, at the COP and looking at the recommendations, I saw very little said about rising consumption and population growth.

Sustainable Population Australia put out a discussion paper that was prepared by Ian Lowe, Jane O'Sullivan and Peter Cooke. It was launched only last week. I commend it to members of this House as something worth reading because it does, in my view, beautifully summarise the impact that additional consumption and population growth will have on climate change. Of course, we can be a lot smarter in the way we live and the way we produce food, in terms of the processes that we use, how we preserve food and so on. I have to say that, in this respect, Australian farmers have shown great leadership and I commend them for that. I believe that they are, in many cases, ahead of the rest of the world in those matters. But a reduction in emissions whilst global population and consumption are growing is extremely challenging, and meeting those targets will require lifestyle changes, innovation and commitment from all parties concerned. The State of the climate2022 report was launched just last week by the minister, who is in the chamber with us now. Again, I think it beautifully summarises the state of our climate right now. It was prepared by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO. It highlights the climatic changes we are confronted with, the devastating effect of those changes and the risks to humanity and the environment if we fail to respond. I will quickly summarise some of the key points of that report.

Firstly, concentrations of greenhouse gases are at the highest levels seen on earth in at least two million years. Australia's climate has warmed by an average of 1.47 degrees since 1910—in the last century, effectively. Sea surface temperatures have increased by an average of 1.05 degrees since 1900. Snow depth, snow cover and the number of snow days have decreased in alpine regions since the late 1950s. Global mean sea level has risen by about 25 centimetres since 1880. Half of this rise was in the last 50 years alone, since 1970. Ocean acidification around Australia continues to rise. Again, we've heard the comments and reports about the Great Barrier Reef in particular in recent days. In south-east Australia, there has been a decrease of about 10 per cent in April to October rainfall. All of this changes the way we need to live on this planet.

In closing, my view is this: the facts are now clear, the risks are clear and indifference to the reality of climate change will create greater devastation in the years ahead. A multipronged response is required, and this legislation, in my view, is a critical part of that response. For that reason I commend the bill to the House.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's my pleasure to sum up the government's position on the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Reform (Closing the Hole in the Ozone Layer) Bill 2022, the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2022 and the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2022. I want to thank all of the speakers who have made a contribution on these important pieces of legislation. This legislation will ensure the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Program can continue to achieve important environmental outcomes and emission reduction outcomes. This legislation will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the program and reduce the burden on business. The continuing success of the program is vital both to protect the ozone layer—which protects Australians, our environment and agriculture from excessive ultraviolet radiation—and, in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to protect the climate.

The Montreal Protocol showed that global environmental cooperation was possible. When we look back on the Montreal Protocol, it really is a shining example of what nations working together can do. It showed that we could overcome national self-interest and the tragedy of the commons, and it showed that through sensitive diplomacy we could find rational answers to our most difficult collective problems. Today every nation in the world—198 nations—is party to this agreement.

Because of the Montreal Protocol and the actions our government is taking, the hole in the ozone layer is closing. This is so very important for our environment, but it's also very important for human health. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, the Montreal Protocol will prevent 443 million cases of skin cancer. It will save 2.3 million lives from this terrible disease, and it will prevent 63 million people from developing eye cataracts. They're just the figures for the United States. Imagine extrapolating that globally, and think about the huge relevance of those figures for Australia, given the impact of the hole on the ozone layer in Australia and given our propensity here for things like skin cancer and sun related cataracts. It shows how important this is for human health in Australia as well. I want to thank the House for the support we've seen for this legislation, and I commend the bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.