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

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

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

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

(2) calls on the Government to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the motion seconded?

Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Julie-Ann Campbell (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank the member for Warringah for bringing this incredibly important motion to the House today. Acting on climate change is crucial, and the reasons are obvious to us all: 2024 was the hottest year on record, our communities are enduring more extreme weather events more frequently and ecosystems are under strain.

In my home city of Brisbane, this year alone we've experienced a cyclone, an earthquake and flooding. In my local community on Brisbane's southside, we know the drill when it comes to natural disasters. Our local community is strong. Our local community helps each other out. Our local community is resilient. We also have a number of incredibly active community groups who are driving that preparedness and resilience. We have Benarrawa, the Sherwood Neighbourhood Centre, Community Plus+ in Yeronga and Communify in Acacia Ridge. What is clear, however, is that more action must be taken in order to make sure that that resilience is kept up and that our communities continue to get the support they need.

Since 2022, Labor has made major investments to help our communities adapt to the realities of climate change. We've committed $3.6 billion to targeted resilience efforts and around $9 billion to broader policies and programs that support long-term adaptation. This includes the $1 billion Disaster Ready Fund, Labor's initiative to strengthen disaster preparedness, and the rollout of Australia's first National Health and Climate Strategy and health National Adaptation Plan.

We've invested nearly $16 million in the Torres Strait and Northern Peninsula Area Climate Resilient Centre to coordinate local responses to climate impacts, and we are working with the insurance industry through the Hazards Insurance Partnership to better manage risk and improve our data sharing. By the end of 2026, we will identify priority actions with the states, territories and local governments to develop a climate change focused action agenda. The world is changing, and this is partly because of the transformation of industries and complex economies to net zero.

As part of Australia's journey to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, we've committed to reduce emissions by 62 to 70 per cent by 2035. This responsible approach is backed by science. It's not just a responsible approach; it's also an ambitious approach, with proven technology and a road map to get there. This transition also offers economic opportunities that benefit our nation. Our environment initiatives like the Cheaper Home Batteries Program have inspired Australians to install over 100,000 home batteries since 1 July this year. Since May 2022, we've also added over 18 gigawatts of wind and solar energy to the grid. We've approved more than 100 renewable energy projects—enough for power in every home across the nation—and we are working towards 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030.

We're also committed to supporting large industry to decarbonise. The National Reconstruction Fund is driving industry to scale up more renewables and low-emissions manufacturing. Such initiatives are forward-thinking and are having a positive effect right now as well as helping manage the effects of climate change into the future. While those who sit in the opposition are still arguing whether climate change is real or not, Labor is taking decisive action. In addition to the measures I've already outlined, we have invested up to $2 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to support the rapid development of renewable projects.

When it comes to climate and energy, what is clear is that people­—whether they be households or businesses—deserve clarity. What we have seen in the climate space is decades under a coalition government where we have had a policy shambles, and that continues this week. That's continued over the past few months. What have we seen from the Nationals? What have we seen from the Liberals? What have we seen from the coalition? They've walked away. They've voted against net zero. The member for New England has abandoned the party room. The Nationals have scrapped net zero, and the opposition leader is now at a crossroads. Only Labor can take the action on climate change that our community needs.

Nicolette Boele (Bradfield, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Immediately before being elected into this place, I worked in finance, at a venture capital fund, where I served as a member of its impact committee. My role was to evaluate the counterfactuals of an investment—that is, what would the cost or impact be had the fund not invested into a particular climate tech solution? What if we invested at series A and B rather than series C, or what if we didn't invest at all? When governments put their budgets together, you'd hope that they would also be asking these kinds of questions. What are the cost of and the likely return on investing in this policy over that one, and what if we invest in early prevention rather than coughing up at treatment time?

Let's turn our mind to defence, for example. The government has never really produced an economic calculation of investing in AUKUS. It's a key strategy to deter future aggressors and to defence our nation. Experts simply opine that, compared to the other options, it's the superior move, and hence we commit $368 billion to it over a full 30 years. Let's look at health care, where we are starting to weigh up the policy options. Health insurers offer members rebates to have regular dental check-ups, and governments do it for bowel and breast cancer screening. Why? Because their experts, generally actuaries, show them that investing to prevent harm early saves money over the longer term. It saves a lot of money.

But, when it comes to climate change impacts so far, we simply don't do these things. Instead, we do this. Firstly, we rely on volunteers such as those in the RFS to prepare us for wildfires by carrying out fuel-hazard reductions, and we rely on volunteers in the SES to help us with emergency response and recovery from storms and floods. We basically rely on the goodwill of volunteers in our communities. But, in a changing climate, we can't rely forever on the kindness of strangers. The second thing we do when things get really bad all at once is call in the members of the ADF and spread what is already very thin capacity across a terribly broad and complex response situation. When the ADF is called out to do this and assist state and local authorities with evacuations, logistics, clean-up and other critical support operations, they are not defending our country. Our ADF should not be deployed to clean up after climate crises. It's uneconomic, and it's unfair on the personnel. We can't continue to fail to internalise the externalities and appropriately cost a clean-up on climate. We need to get on the front foot, and doing so will help ready our communities to weather the onslaught of a changing climate, free up our ADF personnel and community volunteers to better serve, and save Australians money by investing in preventive measures upfront. That's why I find it extremely easy and pleasing to stand here today, second this motion put by the Member for Warringah and commend it to the House and chamber.

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

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.