Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

SPEAKER (): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Ryan proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The urgent need for the Government to show global leadership and take profound action on the escalating climate crisis, including committing to no more coal and gas and an immediate end to native forest logging.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than t he number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Climate crisis: what is it about those two words that just does not compute for this government? On Monday I met with a delegation of Tiwi Islands traditional owners and lawyers from the Environmental Defenders Office. I was so impressed and moved by these remarkable people heroically trying to protect Tiwi traditional heritage and the future for all our children and grandchildren. The Tiwi Islands TOs and the EDO are fighting a David and Goliath battle to stop what can only be described as a climate bomb: the Santos Barossa gas project. Make no mistake, the Goliath in this battle is Santos and the Australian government.

The Barossa project is arguably the most dire of all the murderous LNG projects in Australia, supported and indeed encouraged by this government. I describe the Barossa project as the most dire and here's why: the LNG in the Barossa gas field contains far more CO2 than is actually usable. That means millions of tons of CO2 will need to be pumped directly into the atmosphere without even being burned for energy. The Barossa gas field has been aptly described as a CO2 emissions factory with an LNG by-product. It gets worse. This destructive climate bomb project doesn't even stack up economically. The gas from Barossa will be so incredibly dirty that it will be hard to sell to other countries. For this the government is selling out our children's health and future. If that is not a definition of insanity and cruelty, I don't know what is.

Even after witnessing a truly terrifying year of this government acting like the political wing of the fossil fuel industry, its support for this destructive project is next-level shocking. The sea dumping bill that passed this House last week, with only the Greens and crossbench opposing, appears designed to directly assist Santos to obtain approvals by using extremely questionable carbon capture and storage technology. The resources minister, who, as we know, receives private jet flights and other gifts from the resources lobby, has also initiated—to add insult to injury—a review into traditional owners' consultation rights after the Tiwi Islanders successfully took Santos and the regulator to court over the failure to consult with them.

In Darwin, we have the Middle Arm project, which is receiving $1.5 billion in federal government funding. That's your taxpayer dollars funding a project that will make climate change worse and will, as we've heard from the delegation of NT doctors here this week, affect the health of children. I certainly don't want a cent of my tax dollars financing global warming and the development of long-term serious illness in children while apparently we can only fund a maximum of a mere $500 million a year for housing. These are baffling priorities. Labor tells us the Middle Arm project is about developing new technologies and using gas as a transition fuel—clearly, fossil fuel industry lines gaslighting Australians. FOI documents show that advice was provided to the government that the Middle Arm project was essential for unlocking the Northern Territory's gas fields, including Beetaloo, the beneficiary of bipartisan supported public funding. This is criminal behaviour from a government completely in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry.

It's not just the corporate donations; It's the revolving door of personnel. It's the infiltration of these corporations right into the heart of government, to their clear advantage. They have had eye-watering profits: Santos made over $3 billion of profit last year; BP made $2 billion last year; Chevron made over $12 billion; Shell made $4 billion last year; Woodside made nearly $10 billion—all profiteering off the worsening climate crisis to little advantage to Australians. They mine our resources and send most of their profits overseas. From 1987 to today, the percentage of revenue the government receives from oil and gas has fallen from 57 per cent to just seven per cent. That is slim compensation for the price we all pay for more frequent and severe bushfires and floods, which will worsen.

That's lots of bad news—sorry! The good news is that we still have time to act to prevent catastrophic warming, urgently. We need to stop opening new coal and gas now. Imagine imposing a windfall tax on these companies and investing the proceeds into renewable energy, battery storage, developing green hydrogen and green steel technology and creating new export markets for Australian clean energy and manufacturing. More than anything, for any chance of a safe future, we need to stop opening new coal and gas now.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a very lacklustre effort from the Greens, to only speak for five minutes on an MPI. It demonstrates that they're just throwing their arm over, trying to wring political advantage out of climate change. The truth is that that's what they do, time and time again. The speaker could only speak for five minutes, showing their commitment to climate change. In the end, just like housing, climate change is a political issue for the Greens, where they want to wring votes out of it rather than taking concrete action. They count on people having a short memory. I'm happy to inform the previous speaker that I've got a long memory. I remember, in 2009, the Greens political party voting with Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott to sink the carbon pollution reduction scheme. They voted next to Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce to sink the carbon pollution reduction scheme. We're all paying the price for that because, if that scheme had been passed, emissions between 2010 and 2020 would have been 218 million tonnes less. That's 218 million tonnes less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere if they had done the right thing and voted for the carbon pollution reduction scheme rather than team up for political advantage.

How can I demonstrate that it was a political move rather than some genuine deep-seated policy belief? Only two years later, they voted for the emissions trading scheme, which was browner than the carbon pollution reduction scheme. It had more assistance for the steel industry, it had more assistance for the coal sector, and it locked in lower targets. Before the election, to keep climate change as an issue, to win the seat of Melbourne, they sank the CPRS by voting with their mates Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce. After the election, they voted for a browner emissions trading scheme and had the planet pay the price by letting 218 million more tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. They genuinely have the blood of the planet on their hands right now. Now they're trying to wring political advantage out of this. It's all about posturing, from a party that would rather have a fight on climate change than solve it, just like they're demonstrating on the housing policy. Maybe they've written an article about it in the Jacobin magazine that I haven't read yet! This is all about winning seats in the inner city, keeping these issues alive, rather than trying to find a solution. If they were trying to find a solution, they'd actually work with us.

I'm proud of our legacy and our commitment on climate change. I'm proud of what we've done, as the only party of government to have actually passed legislation on climate change. The Labor Party is the only party that has done that. We've legislated net zero emissions by 2050. We've legislated a 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030. We are one of only 33 nations in the world that have legislated those targets, demonstrating our deep commitment to these issues. We'll achieve 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. And we're implementing the safeguard mechanism, which will cut 200 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions to 2030. We've legislated a $20 billion Rewiring the Nation Fund. We've finalised the law to allow offshore wind zones. We're implementing a capacity investment scheme. We're putting emissions reduction objectives into the National Energy Objective. We've signed the Global Methane Pledge and joined the Climate Club and the Global Offshore Wind Alliance. And we've passed the electric vehicle discount. By any account, that is a huge amount of work on climate change.

But it doesn't end there. We've got $1.7 billion for the energy savings program. We've established the Net Zero Economy Agency, headed by Greg Combet—the last climate change minister, before Minister Bowen, to get climate change legislation through this parliament. We've funded and are developing the Guarantee of Origin scheme. We've budgeted $2 billion for the Hydrogen Headstart program, starting in my home region of the mighty Hunter. And we've lodged our bid to host COP31, co-hosted with the Pacific. That's concrete action to protect our environment, fight climate change and play our part in global efforts. It stands in stark contrast to the Greens' posturing on this issue.

And our action doesn't stop at our border. We've been a really constructive participant in international debate. We've joined the Pacific family in declaring that the Pacific is facing a climate emergency. We've increased official development assistance by $1.7 billion, with a climate focus—so much so that our new international development policy that Senator Wong and I released yesterday has a requirement that 80 per cent of all foreign aid programs have a climate objective, something that Senator Canavan labelled a 'Western eccentricity'. This is the same senator those opposite voted with to sink the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2009.

We're providing $2 billion in climate finance out to 2025, and that includes $700 million for the Pacific. We're establishing the new Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership. And we've established the $20 million climate and infrastructure partnership with Indonesia. This is significant action to help fight climate change globally. We're also committed to amplifying the voice of the Pacific in these debates, because the Pacific is the region that is most impacted by climate change. Not only should we be taking action to fight climate change; we should also be amplifying their voice and shining a spotlight on their experiences. That's why I was proud, when I represented Australia at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting last year, to support the efforts of Pacific countries to get the international laws of the sea changed so that when, unfortunately, islands do disappear due to climate change—some of that will occur, very unfortunately—they preserve their exclusive economic zones so that they don't lose the fishing rights that go with their exclusive economic zone. That's practical action to help with climate change adaptation.

I was also proud, when I represented Australia at the Pacific Islands Forum Foreign Ministers Meeting, to announce that Australia had changed our position and was supporting Vanuatu's efforts to get an opinion on climate change from the International Court of Justice—concrete policy to amplify the voice of the Pacific. Another one was at the UN Climate Conference, where I represented Prime Minister Albanese for the leaders day, when Australia actively and aggressively intervened in the negotiations to ensure that loss and damage was put on the agenda for that COP, and we played our part in ensuring that was part of the outcome.

At the same time, think tanks aligned with the Greens were briefing journalists that Australia was blocking action on loss and damage. They were deceiving journalists about what Australia was doing; whereas we were proudly fighting for the Pacific, to make sure that loss and damage was on the agenda. The truth is, when it comes to concrete action on climate change, there's only one party that can be trusted because there's only one party that's delivered: the Labor Party. The Labor Party has delivered strong action on climate change.

We don't try and divide the community; we try to take the whole of Australia with us. While those Greens are content to vote down climate action, to win petty political advantage, demonstrating their mendacity, we engage in a conversation, in all parts of Australia, to persuade people. That's not just in the inner city, as important as that is; it's when we're in the Hunter region, where the Deputy Speaker, the member for Paterson and the member for Hunter and I engage in conversations about how we grow our economy by investing in jobs for the future through renewable energy and talking to, say, coalminers about what's going on. It's about having honest conversations about what is going on in the world, instead of belittling them, insulting them and cheering when their jobs are lost. That's the truth. It's very easy to lecture from certain parts of this country; whereas the Australian Labor Party is committed to taking the whole of the nation on this journey.

I'm very happy to go for my full 10 minutes, on this MPI, because it's got so much to talk about. We're the only party that's passed climate laws twice on this issue; whereas for ever and ever, the history of the Greens political party will be characterised by one action: voting with Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce to destroy the climate by voting down the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. On that day, they demonstrated their true colours. They were more interested in winning Senate seats and the seat of Melbourne than fighting climate change. In the end, all they are is a bunch of massive hypocrites.

Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the minister for what was perhaps the biggest heap of garbage I have ever heard in this place. For a bit of context, I think I was 12 years old when the CPRS happened in this country, and the government conveniently forgets that, yes, the ETS went through. We got a price on carbon. We got the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. We got the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We got more action on climate, in that short period of the Gillard government, than we have ever seen from you guys since. I also want to say that we on the crossbench share our speaking spots. That is why the member for Ryan only spoke for five minutes. So thank you for your grandstanding there.

The science is clear. We are in a climate emergency. We are facing harsher and more frequent fires, floods, heatwaves and droughts. It threatens the safety of people, our health, water, the ability to grow food and the air we breathe. The stakes could not be higher. A climate emergency requires an emergency response. It means putting the climate crisis at the centre of all policy and planning decisions and mobilising the whole of government to protect Australia's people and ecology.

The biggest cause of global heating is the mining, transporting and burning of fossil fuels—coal, oil and gas. In an emergency, the very first action we have to take is to immediately remove whatever is causing the damage. That means keeping all untapped coal, oil and gas fields in the ground. This is not some far-off distant threat. We are already experiencing a shift in climate, with one-in-100-year bushfires and floods every few years. Already, the Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences has calculated that each Australian farmer has lost at least $29,200 in average reduced income per year because of climate change.

Significant bushfires in Tasmania and New South Wales in 2013 and the Black Summer bushfires in 2019 to 2020 show that an El Nino weather event is no longer needed to produce a bad fire season. Even a neutral phase can now produce periods of extreme and catastrophic fire danger. As the International Energy Agency has made clear, not one new coal or gas project can proceed if we are to stay below 1.5 degrees. To meet net zero by 2050, not a single piece of new fossil fuel infrastructure can be built: no more coal; no more gas. It is simply that straightforward.

So what is the Australian government doing to address such an emergency? This is a government that, just last week, passed a sea-dumping bill which paves the way for fossil fuel giants to expand their Australian gas projects.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yeah, thanks for that one. The Labor, Liberal and National parties are captured by the donations and influence of coal, oil and gas companies, with tens of millions of dollars donated to them in the past decade alone. We don't need more bandaid solutions from this government; we need strong action. If we continue to mine and burn coal, oil and gas, we will put more than a million Australian jobs in tourism and farming at risk. Food, insurance and health costs will continue to go up. We'll keep paying more for energy and risk further economic loss across multiple industries.

The government needs to listen to the scientists, to the communities who have suffered from bushfires and floods and to our Pacific neighbours, all of whom are calling for greater climate action.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's what Pat was talking about, wasn't it?

Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, and you're not doing anything to address it, so I'm sure they'll thank you in 30 years when their nations are underwater. Drastically cutting emissions is possible with the technology we have today. We have the distinct advantage in Australia of abundant renewable energy resources. We should look to become a renewable energy superpower in this region, and we can develop new export and manufacturing industries, such as green hydrogen.

But what we urgently require is action. The government must show global leadership and take profound action on the escalating climate crisis. It is vital that we commit to no new coal and gas, end native forest logging, shift electricity generation to renewables and storage, and increase electricity production to allow the direct and indirect electrification of all energy used by households, businesses and the transport industry. I am sick and tired of being gaslit by this government into thinking they are taking bold and courageous steps to address climate change. In reality, they will not do what the science tells us is needed and they will not stop all new fossil fuel projects.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the member for Shortland leaves the chamber, I just want to say that you were spot on in your description of the hypocrisy of the Greens political party and the fact that we need to be taking the nation with us. That is exactly what we're doing, particularly when it comes to the Pacific. We have a huge responsibility there, and we are living up to those responsibilities. I'm immensely proud to be part of a Labor government that is taking climate action incredibly seriously.

We are delivering the big, visionary and practical reforms that will take the nation with us, such as the safeguard mechanism reforms. This mechanism was put in place by the previous Liberal government—those opposite. It was supposed to 'safeguard' against emissions increases from Australia's biggest emitters, but, after a decade of denial and delay, those emissions had in fact increased significantly and were on track to overtake electricity as Australia's largest source of emissions. In a decarbonising global economy, that's not just bad for our climate but bad for jobs and investment in our nation. That's why groups such as the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group recommended changes to the safeguard mechanism before the last election. The government adopted those recommendations and received a mandate for our Powering Australia policy, including reforms to the safeguard mechanism, at the election, and here we are on the government benches.

We are reducing emissions from our top emitters. It is crucial to reaching Australia's updated emissions reduction targets, which we legislated, of 43 per cent by 2030 and net zero by 2050. More than 70 per cent of safeguard facilities and 80 per cent of safeguard emissions are already covered by the 2050 net zero target, which these reforms will help to achieve.

As part of the Powering Australia plan, and funded in the last budget, the government is investing in the decarbonisation of existing industries and creation of new clean energy industries through the $1.9 billion Powering the Regions Fund. At least $600 million of this will assist safeguard facilities in reducing their emissions through energy efficiency upgrades, shifts to lower carbon processes or fuel switching to electrification, hydrogen and biofuels. As the member for Hunter has been very wisely interjecting, this is important for our workers—for Australians who are supporting their families—as we go through this transformation. As a party of government that is what we're committed to doing: taking the nation with us.

Our government is showing a sense of purpose and urgency in defending the natural environment that all Australians cherish. That's why I welcome the draft decision from UNESCO last month not to list the Great Barrier Reef as in danger. Does that mean that the reef is healthy? No, of course it doesn't. But it means that they identify that there is a serious government running Australia that has a plan for reef health. There are a number of ways that both our government and the Palaszczuk government are working to act on climate change and to protect the reef. The rest of the world has taken notice of that. As sources close to UNESCO recently told the French newspaper Le Monde, on climate change and the environment:

…the approach (from the Australian government) has changed completely. Between the new government and the old one, it's a bit like night and day.

Like night and day. The Australian government is back in international climate fora and showing the global leadership that this motion calls for. The Australian government has invested a record $1.2 billion in the reef and we've invested $150 million to improve water quality through projects such as revegetation, grazing management and engineering work, like gully stabilisation.

In the time remaining I'll talk briefly of action in my electorate. Through this government we are revitalising our urban rivers and we're also getting rid of the invasive gamba grass which is a threat to our natural environment in the Top End and to places like the world-renowned Kakadu National Park. I'm proud to be part of a Labor federal government that is taking serious action on climate change, but we must take the nation with us.

Sophie Scamps (Mackellar, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia faces a crossroads when it comes to the escalating climate crisis. We know what this crisis looks like because Australians have already experienced it: drought so devastating that our hardened farmers are suiciding; floods so savage and rapid that people became trapped in the dark of night in their houses with only inches of air space below their ceiling, between life and death; and a world watching on in stunned horror at the extent and severity of our Black Summer bushfires. The UN Secretary General recently stated—and you can't say it any more clearly—that:

… the era of global warming has ended; the era of global boiling has arrived. Leaders must lead. No more hesitancy, no more excuses.

Today, Ross Gittins said in an op-ed in the Sydney Morning Herald:

… I fear they lack … the "ticker" to make the tough decisions.

The question for the leaders of this country, for our government, is simply this: do you have the courage to lead on climate action and the energy transition that is required for a viable future?—not for us, because we won't be here, but for our children and future generations. It is not about us. Currently we have what, at very best, can be described as modest targets in action on climate change, targets and policy that address only domestic and scope 1 emissions—hardly anything.

I would add that it increasingly appears that the Labor government is pushing forward with the expansion of gas exportation on a massive scale: Beetaloo, Scarborough, Browse, Barossa and Liverpool Plains. I believe they are doing so in a way that is not open or transparent with the Australian people. It is devastating.

Last week in the media I called the government's proposed Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023 a colossal attempt at greenwashing. But let's drill down on this a little bit further. We have seen $1.5 billion of investment going to the Middle Arm Hub. The Middle Arm Hub will, in practice, amongst other things, act as a massive methane gas export hub. However, the government continues—as it has right from the start—to describe it as a 'renewable energy hub'. This is greenwashing on a colossal scale. Just be open and honest, please.

Just last week the environment minister brought a bill to the House that will allow the import and export of carbon dioxide for carbon capture and storage—the sea dumping bill. This bill will enable the injection and sequestration of CO2 under the seabed. This is despite the experience of Norway and, with the Gorgon gas mine, Australia, which shows that this is failed technology and unreliable.

The sea dumping bill was portrayed as a move to protect the marine environment. In reality, what the bill will do is enable and give the green light to further carbon capture and storage projects, which will in turn allow the government to approve new massive gas export projects in the future. Again, it is greenwashing on a colossal scale. The Australian people deserve a whole lot better. Already, huge swathes of our ocean floors have been opened up by the Minister for Resources for exploration for carbon capture and storage suitability. All the pieces of the chessboard are being slowly, methodically and surreptitiously moved into place, and the aim appears to be the expansion of gas exportation.

Additionally, today the Clean Air Task Force's report on methane was released. It revealed that Australia is lagging far behind many other countries in measuring, managing and reporting on methane leaks and intentional venting that occur in the gas industry across the country, and there are still over $11 billion in ongoing subsidies to the fossil fuel industry.

But Australians are not dumb. They see through the greenwashing. This week 80 doctors, other health professionals and parents from the Northern Territory and around the country came to parliament to express their distress at the progress of the Middle Arm hub and the Beetaloo basin. The question they are asking is: why isn't the government listening to science like it said it would do? Yesterday, I was honoured to meet a delegation from the Tiwi Islands. They described to me the lack of respect and culturally inappropriate consultation still being done by Santos with their elders and the community regarding the Barossa gas mine. They also expressed their fear that the need for fossil fuel companies to consult with First Nations people on future projects will be watered down to favour large fossil fuel companies. The question they asked was: if this government is serious about a voice for our First Nations people, how could the requirements for companies to consult— (Time expired)

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

I'd like to thank the member for Ryan for raising this significant matter of public importance. The Albanese government recognises that we are facing a climate crisis, and the need for urgent action after nine years of denial and delay by the coalition is now. That's why we are acting right now to deliver on our road map to address this crisis, driving investment in cleaner, cheaper energy and, in the process, becoming a renewable energy superpower.

We are committed to charting our path to net zero by 2050, nurturing our environment and reaping the rewards that come from embracing renewable energy. That means new economic opportunities, making more things in Australia and creating more rewarding jobs for people across the nation. In tackling the crisis, we also understand that a cleaner net zero emissions future will be significant and that it will bring health and wellbeing benefits. We recognise we must do everything we can to reduce the frequency and intensity of bushfires, floods and heatwaves. These worsening disasters impact not only our communities but our Australian landscape, and they put more pressure on our endangered wildlife. While the Albanese government has set in place a mechanisms to address the climate crisis with purpose and urgency, we must also ensure a smooth transition to renewables and away from gas and coal.

I understand the passion of those on the crossbench who want to achieve net zero emissions right now, but in government we need to set targets that are ambitious and that are also doable. One of the first steps our government took when elected last year was enshrining in law our emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030 along with net zero emissions by 2050. We are 100 per cent committed to achieving these targets. To achieve these legislated emissions reduction targets, we've committed to a national renewable electricity target of 82 per cent by 2030. This ties in closely with our Rewiring the Nation reform, which is all about ensuring a national power grid has the capacity to handle the transition to renewable energy sources. We passed the safeguard mechanism, an important reform which will see Australia's biggest emitters make a contribution to our emissions reduction target and put the country on the path to net zero. And we have removed the tariffs on electric vehicles to make them more affordable. These reforms have been carefully calibrated to strike the right balance. They allow for increases in production and critically ensure that businesses which operate in hard-to-abate sectors can access high-integrity offsets to help meet their emissions reduction requirements.

Further to these reforms, renewables and low emissions technologies will be the priority area for our $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund. This includes more opportunities to build wind turbines, produce batteries and solar panels, develop new livestock feed to reduce methane emissions, modernise hydrogen power and develop innovative packaging solutions to reduce waste.

This is important work that has been recognised internationally by UNESCO, who last week released a draft decision to not list the Great Barrier Reef as in danger. This draft decision cites significant progress being made on issues like climate change, water quality and sustainable fishing—all putting the reef on a stronger and more sustainable path.

Of course, this decision doesn't mean the reef is in the clear. If we don't deliver on the goals of the Paris Agreement, every coral reef in the world is vulnerable. But this draft decision demonstrates that our policies are making a real difference. After ten years of denial and delay, Australia is back at the table with our 2030 target, now in line with countries like Canada and Japan. This is climate leadership under the Albanese government.

Monique Ryan (Kooyong, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians are already experiencing the impacts of climate change on our health and on our wellbeing. In just over a century, our climate has already warmed by over a degree Celsius. Higher temperatures have increased the frequency of extreme weather events—heatwaves, bushfires, floods and droughts. Catastrophic events such as the 2019-20 Black Summer bushfires and the 2022 eastern Australia floods demonstrate the growing toll that climate change is having and will continue to have on people's health and lives.

Increasing temperatures are making more parts of the world favourable to the spread of food, water and vector borne diseases. Global warming also threatens food and water security. Climate change affects health outcomes through its effects on mental health, productivity and workforce conditions, housing, infrastructure and population displacement. Acutely, heatwaves pose a greater threat to life than any other natural hazard, including bushfires and floods. Most at risk of dying during extreme heat are the elderly, the disabled and those from a lower socioeconomic background. Heat stress exacerbates underlying conditions like diabetes and kidney and heart disease.

Research from the ANU suggests that as many as two per cent of deaths in this country are heat related. With hot periods and bushfire seasons starting earlier and lasting longer, that figure will only increase. We're undercounting those deaths because we don't capture them in the homeless, and we don't count deaths attributable to heat stroke that are heart disease related or stroke related. Most heat related deaths occur in older houses. Think about poorly designed public housing or rental homes and what hot boxes they can become.

Air pollution is already the single largest environmental risk to public health. Long-term exposure to air pollution is associated with heart disease, asthma and lung cancer. It reduces life expectancy. Air quality in this country is worse in cities affected by traffic pollution, mining and industrial activity. Darwin, we heard from the doctors who came to visit us in this place yesterday, has the worst air quality in Australia. Because poorer people live in places where housing is cheaper—next to main roads and factories—their disease burden from air pollution is twice as bad as that of people who are less socially disadvantaged.

Theoretically, the Australian government has committed to the development of Australia's first National Health and Climate Strategy, which is aimed at improving our healthcare system's ability to cope with the impact of extreme weather events. It's also committed to reducing the healthcare system's emissions, which currently make up about seven per cent of our national emissions.

But at the same time that the government has made this commitment, it has perversely increased our exposure to climate change by allowing ongoing logging of our native forests and by actively subsidising massive new coal and gas projects which will blow any attempt at emissions reduction or mitigation out of the water. Australian healthcare systems are unprepared to deal with extreme weather events. Last week Australian medical colleges representing more than 100,000 doctors, physicians and medical experts released a statement calling on the Albanese government to urgently ensure that the National Health and Climate Strategy is fully funded and that it has a national cabinet sign-off to enable urgent, coordinated and effective implementation. The strategy also has to be guided by First Nations knowledge and leadership across all aspects, including the stopping of new projects which will affect First Nations persons.

I call on the government to act on climate and health in the light of and with respect to the expert guidance provided by our scientists and by our doctors. I call on the government to act with integrity and transparency in shepherding our critical minerals and ore deposits, and supporting their processing in Australia—not overseas. I call on the government to stop subsidising the logging of native forests, which are our very best and really our only means of effective and efficient carbon capture and storage. I ask this government to stop subsidising multinationals while they make windfall profits from our oil and gas reservoirs while polluting our air, our water and our land.

Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all the members who have spoken on this really important matter: acting on climate change. I thank all the members from the Albanese Labor government who have spoken and I thank all the members from the Greens and the Independents, because this is a really important topic. I do note that there were no members from the coalition who wanted to speak on this, and I absolutely understand because if I were in their position I would not be wanting to talk about my record on this policy. After a decade of inaction, I would be avoiding talking about climate change for as long as possible.

I welcome this discussion because it is a reminder for us all of why we are in this place. Like many of the speakers before me, I care deeply about our environment, I care deeply about addressing climate change, I care deeply about making our world more sustainable and I care deeply about moving towards a low-carbon future. We've all got a purpose in this place. We are all here for a reason. For me, that purpose and reason is climate. Over the last decade, my frustration grew and grew because of the inaction I saw from those opposite. The coalition did nothing to address climate change. They refused to acknowledge that it was an issue. But I want to do everything that I can as part of the Albanese Labor government to make sure that we are protecting the environment and addressing climate change. I want to be able to say to my son and his generation, and future generations to come, that this is a government that takes acting on climate change and protecting our environment seriously.

One of the first acts that we did as a government was legislate to reduce our emissions target by 43 per cent by 2030, and to a net zero emissions target by 2050. That's how seriously we take climate change: it's one of the first bills we passed when we came into parliament. But we are not just about setting targets; we are about taking action. That's the difference between this government and the Greens and the Independents. We are about governing and taking action, not protesting and virtue-signalling. We have introduced key policies that will help us reduce emissions and help us make that target a reality. We have reformed the safeguard mechanism, a measure that will reduce emissions from the heaviest emitters while allowing businesses to remain competitive as the world decarbonises. I'm glad to see that those on the crossbench did, in the end, support the safeguard mechanism.

We have set a target to reach 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. But, again, this is a government that is not just about setting targets but is about taking action. We have doubled the number of approved renewable energy projects. A record number of projects are in the pipeline to deliver cheaper, cleaner and greener energy for Australian households. We have set up the National Reconstruction Fund, which will fund projects that will help decarbonise our economy. We have set a goal of protecting at least 30 per cent of our land and oceans by 2030. Again, this is a government taking action, not just setting targets.

Under Labor, Australia's environmental policies have fundamentally changed for the better, and there is no better example of that than the Great Barrier Reef. UNESCO says that Labor's approach compared to the former coalition government is 'like night and day'. Just over a year ago, the reef was on the verge of being listed as 'in danger' because of the denial and inaction on climate change and the environment by those opposite when they were in government. Now, UNESCO has released a draft decision to not list the Great Barrier Reef as in danger.

I urge the Greens and Independents to take note and act because we won't reduce emissions on the back of a wishful hope. We won't protect our environment with a press conference. We won't be able to create a new, clean renewable energy industry with a protest rally. For the sake of future generations, I urge everyone in this place to get behind the actions of the Albanese Labor government to address climate change, because you cannot govern with good intentions and confected outrage. You govern by working with everyone, including industry, community groups and environmental groups, because that's how you deliver real and lasting reform.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The science is absolutely clear on climate change and I think members of the Labor Party know it. I think you probably do know that the International Energy Agency is right when it says that, if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change, then we cannot open a single new coal and gas project. I think you genuinely know that, but you don't care. That does seem to be the conclusion that any reasonable person should reach. The consequences have caused heatwaves, bushfires, floods, deaths, the destruction of our ecosystem, our dying planet—you do not care. That is the only reason that I can come up with to justify why you can look at the science, understand what you are doing and do it anyway.

I would argue it is criminal behaviour by the government to approve coal and gas mines when you know the impact it's having on the earth. You keep doing it. You know the deaths it's going to cause and you know the destruction that it's going to cause, and you do it anyway.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Griffith, I'm taking a point of order.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is why does the Labor government—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Griffith! I'm taking a point of order. Please.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps it might be nice if the new member, who doesn't read the standing orders, refers his remarks through the chair and actually does his job properly, instead of carrying on. You should direct your remarks through the chair. When you say 'you', you're reflecting on—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for McEwen, I'll explain. The standing order requires you to direct your remarks to me, to depersonalise the level of debate, which is escalating somewhat.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed. Thanks, Deputy Speaker, and of course it's escalating. It's interesting to me that the members opposite—the government over there—care more about that sort of decorum than the death and destruction their policies are causing. The question is why the Labor government is acting in a way that financially benefits oil and gas corporations. We have the coalition over here saying I know where I live—let's sum this up. We've got both sides of parliament who act in the interests of fossil fuel corporations regardless of the consequences.

It's not a surprise that the coalition appointed Grant King, previous executive of Origin, a massive gas corporation, as the head of the Climate Change Authority and that the Labor Party government keeps him there. Woodside, of course, is one of the large gas corporations that are benefiting from government policy. We have a strong history of that, and we'll speak about the coalition for a second, lest we forget that it was the Howard government that used ASIS to spy on the Timor-Leste government when they were negotiating with the Labor government, ultimately to the benefit of Woodside. Alexander Downer, the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, went on to work for Woodside after using the Australian security apparatus to spy on behalf of Woodside, essentially, and to financially benefit them. Then Alexander Downer went to work for them.

We also have the Labor Party. I thought I would quote, by the way, to give you an idea of why your party is so deeply corrupted and broken and utterly incapable of tackling climate change. It's a quote from—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Griffith, please take your seat.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Show some respect in the House, you fool. That comment was deeply offensive, and he should withdraw.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me. It is offensive, but I don't want you calling names across the chamber either. Withdraw that, and then I'll deal—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw that.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Griffith, you are casting aspersions on members in this House. I would tread a little bit more carefully if I were you.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will quote directly from Lindy Edwards's Corporate Power in Australia book—

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order. I think that the member should withdraw—

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely not.

Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

his comments about criminal behaviour and death in terms of members on this side of the House. He should be made to withdraw.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member has been asked to withdraw.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Deputy Speaker; I won't withdraw. I'm happy to provide the evidence as to why I think those comments stand.

The DEP UTY SPEAKER: Minister, I give you the call.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, you will note the member is disrespecting your orders and defying the House, so I ask that you bring him back to order.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed. It is quite a serious matter. I am asking you to give it a little bit of thought, Member for Griffith. It would assist the House if you would withdraw.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker, I won't withdraw.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then you need to sit down.

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's been quite some time since my last MPI—since 15 June, in fact. I've been let off the leash, so to speak, but that is probably where the metaphor ends. Today the member for Ryan has afforded not only me but a handful of lucky members on the side of the chamber the opportunity to speak to—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Member for Spence. I'm taking a point of order from the member for Monash.

Russell Broadbent (Monash, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It pains me to say this, but under standing orders, if a member refuses to withdraw after being directed by the Deputy Speaker or the Speaker, they should be named.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be taking it up with the Speaker later. This is a matter I will deal with personally later on. I am sure we will have another discussion about it, Member for Griffith.

Matt Burnell (Spence, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This MPI gives us the opportunity to speak to the Albanese Labor government's record on climate and our environment in a holistic sense. I can understand the tone of the member for Ryan's motion; I truly can. The impatience I see etched on every word is completely understandable. The member for Ryan, like myself, has only just been elected to this place for the very first time during this 47th Parliament, and we share some things in common. Prior to our election to this place, on the outside of the building, as mere concerned citizens, the member for Ryan and I have been waiting nine long years for a government that will take climate seriously, a government that will stand up for Australia's beautiful natural environment and its flora and fauna, and a government that will do its part on the world stage. This is something I know the member believes earnestly.

The member for Ryan and the Greens want an earnest commitment to act. How could they not? After nine years of the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments, the dial on progress has swung so wildly in the opposite direction that I can understand why they are crying out for drastic improvements on the course our nation is travelling. Yet the member discounts quite a large number of moves in the right direction made by the Albanese Labor government since Labor was given the privilege of governing this great nation by its people a little over a year ago.

I will level with the member for Ryan: as a South Australian I am truly horrified, but at the same time I am seldom surprised that over nine years the Liberal and National parties at all levels, along the Murray-Darling Basin, for the vast majority of that period of time—it's not just coincidence now that the Basin Plan has ended up being an uphill battle to deliver. I do apologise for the elevation of my tone, but the Murray is the lifeblood of South Australia. It's why I understand the frustration shown by the member for Ryan and her colleagues. I am entirely certain they are aware of the environmental and climate record of the opposition. I am sure they are entirely aware of the many attempts at convincing the domestic audience that they were fulfilling Australia's climate and environmental obligations on the world stage. But I reckon we all know better.

I know that the Greens remember the Leader of the Opposition joking about water lapping at the doors of our friends in the Pacific islands. It even brought about a very rare smile from the leader. In contrast, one of the first acts of this Prime Minister was updating our nationally determined contribution under the Paris agreement. The contrast is a stark one, but I know the member for Ryan and her comrades are abundantly aware of the history, the facts, the policies and the differences there too. They just want to see those in power do better. I'm sure this isn't just an effort to put up a speech or two on social media in the hope of gaining a few more subscribers or members for their branches. I'm sure Greens members in this place discussed the improvement required by the opposition when they were sitting together in the chamber during divisions on Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund Bill or even the Nature Repair Market Bill, for that matter.

I'm proud to be part of a government that is bringing Australia back in line with where it should be on climate, without the rude shock that would cripple the industry—industries such as manufacturing—before such time as our advanced manufacturing and renewables sector can stand on its own two feet again, after being kneecapped by the opposition over nine whole years in government.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Goldstein community made it crystal clear at the last election that they wanted faster and more decisive action on climate change. I'm not expecting everything all at once, and nor are they, but they have a right to expect more than we've seen from this government. Despite their rhetoric, their repeated record in this place speaks for itself. Labor did legislate a reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions of 43 per cent by 2030, but that's still less than experts state is needed if we're to have any hope of getting to net zero by mid-century. An amendment that I moved explicitly made that target a floor, not a ceiling, but the climate change minister himself admits it will be a challenge to meet even the moderate target his government has set.

Just this week, the Reserve Bank's Carl Schwartz stated that, for clean energy alone to get to net zero by 2050, annual investment would have to be running at three times the current pace by 2030—three times! He didn't disaggregate the figure for Australia, but he did say that financing for sustainable activities would need to increase substantially if we're to decarbonise and meet net zero goals. This is a clear warning.

As I've said before, there is less than meets the eye in the specific actions the government has taken since the election. There are real questions, for example, about the effectiveness and accountability of the safeguard mechanism. Will it really require the nation's 200 or so biggest polluters to change their carbon-heavy habits, or will it enable them to use suspect carbon credits to try to account their way to zero? The challenge of climate change is not an accounting exercise. It requires fundamental and rapid changes in the way we act, as individuals, as families, as communities, as companies and as leaders in this place. The same goes for the nature repair market legislation, which runs the risk of not being a genuine market, nor being particularly helpful for nature.

It is barely a month since International Energy Agency reiterated its assessment that we must stop the exploitation and development of new oil and gas resources if we are to have a hope of achieving net zero by 2050. And what have we seen since then? The government pushed its sea-dumping legislation through the House, with its cute but misleading subtitle 'Using new technologies to fight climate change'. The technology it depends on—carbon capture and storage—is not new, and, despite the investment of billions of taxpayer dollars here and across the world, it has never lived up to the overheated claims of its proponents. Let's be blunt: the sea-dumping legislation does not fight climate change. It's an excuse for supporting and underwriting the massive expansion of dirty gas developments in the Northern Territory and off the coast of northern Australia.

The plans to extract gas from the Beetaloo basin would increase Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 22 per cent. How does that sit with the challenge of meeting even the government's less-than-adequate 43 per cent target by 2030? Not very well. Then there are the Santos plans to exploit the undersea Barossa field, which would yield gas with a very high CO2 content. Neither Barossa nor Beetaloo would be viable unless the so-called sustainable development precinct, a name which represents gaslighting in the extreme, at Middle Arm in Darwin goes ahead. Middle Arm's relationship to sustainability is distant at best. In reality, it would be a gas and petrochemical hub. A recent report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis found:

The promises of thriving businesses, job opportunities and substantial infrastructure investment are unlikely to be realized —

because the projected revenue and profits would be insufficient to cover its social and physical infrastructure needs. In addition, there are significant health concerns for the people of Darwin, with health professionals concerned about exposure to nitrogen and sulphur oxides, particulate matter and ozone as a result of gas processing, leading to the heightened risk of lung and heart disease—and so it goes on.

Intentions are one thing; actions are another. If the federal government is serious about climate change, it should withdraw federal funding for this project. Our children's health, safety and prosperity is at stake.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion is now concluded.