Claire Clutterham (Sturt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Climate change is a complex and multifaceted problem. It requires an ambitious and effective national strategy for emissions reduction and the development of clean industries underpinned by renewable energy. Substantial investment is needed. Although it will create new social and economic opportunities in all sectors and regions, it will need to be sustained over the long term. Mitigating the effects of climate change and the transition to renewable energy will not just happen overnight. We need to prosecute this and we need to be patient. We can't just say, 'Prices are too high, so the transition has failed.' We need to take risks and we need to recognise that risk is not only about what could go wrong but what could go right. We need to continue investing, researching, exploring and walking together when risks don't always crystallise immediately.

We cannot let perfect get in the way of good, and we cannot continue to have unproductive and time-wasting debates about whether climate change is real. At the same time, we cannot engage in debate that overstates the effects, paralyses the population and predicts the immediate demise of the planet. We need to have a balanced discourse which recognises that climate change is real, recognises the role that humans and industry have played in contributing to that, and listens to and respects the contributions of individual communities, businesses, health practitioners, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and government.

If we overstate the risk and infect the debate with drama rather than science, people will stop listening. Conversely, if we understate it or dismiss it, communities and Australians will suffer. The balance based on science is where we need to be, and there is community support for prompt yet patient action that is designed to repair and protect our planet, noting that Mother Nature is a relative, not a resource; prompt yet patient action that protects economic livelihoods; and prompt yet patient action that invests in new technologies and new industries which underpin tomorrow's economic prosperity. Addressing climate change will take time and patience. There will be setbacks. The transition to renewable energy has not failed. To the contrary, the failure is arguing that we should scrap aspirational targets, scrap net zero and just rely on coal and gas because the transition is taking too long, or hasn't already brought retail prices to where some would like them, or requires substantial investment over a significant period of time. To say that would be to fail the Australian people who have asked governments, industry and communities to act on climate change.

In my electorate of Sturt, climate change and the environment are second only to cost of living in terms of issues people talk to me about. We know that climate change is in fact inextricably linked to cost-of-living issues. This government is listening, and we are seeing results. In my state of South Australia, we are leading the way. We've been at the forefront of the global energy transition. Since 2009, we have lifted net electricity generation from renewable energy from one per cent to 74 per cent. In this financial year, the Australian Energy Market Operator has forecast this to rise to circa 85 per cent. In SA, our aspiration is to achieve 100 per cent net renewables by 2027, and we are on our way. In 2021, for example, we met 100 per cent of our operational demand from renewable resources on 180 days; or 49 per cent of the time. This has provided a certain investment climate which is critical to the private sector, with over $6 billion of investment in large-scale renewable energy and storage projects to date, and a further $20 billion in the investment pipeline.

In South Australia, we are just getting on with it by focusing on large-scale renewable energy generation and storage, such as wind, solar batteries, pumped hydro, compressed air and thermal storage. We're focusing on distributed energy resources such as rooftop solar, bioenergy and batteries. We're focusing on energy efficiency and demand management; the uptake of zero-emission vehicles and investment in charging and refuelling infrastructure; supply chain development of low-carbon technologies; and research and industry partnerships in low-carbon technologies. Recently HAMR Energy announced an intention to construct an $800 million sustainable aviation fuel facility in South Australia, creating jobs but also drawing on our vast agricultural resources and helping the aviation industry decarbonise. Having spoken two weeks ago at the GreenSkies Summit at Qantas headquarters in Mascot, Sydney, I can say confidently that the aviation industry is on board with the need to decarbonise.

Thousands of South Australians are also on board, including the thousands in my electorate of Sturt who took advantage of the Albanese Labor government's Cheaper Home Batteries scheme. This scheme works. In November last year, Don, a resident of Sturt, wrote to me and said:

All good here in Beulah Park. We have reached net zero at our house thanks to the battery your government organised. This is a house built in the 1800s which now has the latest technology attached. No power bill here. Thank you very much.

Don is part of the 250,000-plus households across Australia who have partaken in this scheme. We are seeing Cheaper Home Batteries bring down the cost of batteries. Battery availability is helping to regulate evening demand, reducing our reliance on expensive gas and helping bring down bills for everyone. Don and the 250,000-plus other households are leading the charge, and Sturt is leading the charge as well, being third in the country for the uptake of the government's solar battery scheme. Solar sharer is also enabling more Australians to benefit from the transition to renewable energy, whether they are in a position to have solar power or not, including those in South Australia, from July this year.

But we know that energy prices are still too high. In the last quarter of 2025, wholesale electricity prices fell by a third, but this needs to flow through to retail bills. That remains the challenge that we need to meet. It is right that the wind and the sun don't send a bill and that unreliable coal-fired power plants do, but it's also right that, even though the wind and the sun don't send bills, the other pieces of the energy puzzle do, including energy companies and the capital works involved in the construction of the infrastructure required to generate renewable energy, as well as transmission and distribution networks. This is where investment is required and where the work is required to bring down bills.

Bid pricing on the national electricity market is also relevant, which is why in November 2024 the government announced a review of the national electricity market wholesale market settings by an independent expert panel in order to investigate ways to promote investment in firmed renewable energy, with a key priority being addressing price volatility and making bills more stable. The review noted that action to benefit the consumers who pay for energy was critical, including by considering updating the methodology for regulating retail price benchmarks such as the default market offer, considering supporting the development of simple, multi-year, fixed-price retail contracts and considering reforming network tariff structures to ensure that they are more equitable and better aligned with wholesale market dynamics. Again, patience is required in this respect.

So there is work to do, but it doesn't just start today. The Albanese Labor government has been working on a just and fair transition since it came to government in 2022, and it will continue this work to ensure that this country continues to embark on a prompt yet patient transition that reflects our highest possible ambition, grounded in science and underpinned by credible contribution to global efforts to keep warming down and supporting a safer and sustainable environment for future generations. Aiming for net zero is the bare minimum to avoid the worst impacts of global warming. Australia reducing its emissions is something that matters to our future, our economy and our standing in the world. With patience, we can make the transition while still protecting livelihoods. With the best wind and solar resources in the world, we can become a top global destination for clean energy investment.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has failed at every metric that matters under his portfolio. He promised the Australian people cheaper power and delivered a 40 per cent increase in power costs in just a single year. He promised emissions reductions, but emissions are flatlining. He promised 82 per cent renewables and is on track to miss that by a mile. He has legislated for a 43 per cent reduction in emissions, which he'll miss by a thousand miles. He promised reliable supply and instead is delivering blackouts, grid instability and human suffering. He promised secure gas supply and delivered shortages. He promised a $122 billion transition, but we are staring down the barrel of at least a more than $500 billion bill that we cannot pay for.

Energy is the economy. Every successful modern economy is built on abundant, reliable and cheap power. When energy is cheap, businesses expand, wages rise, and industries cluster. When energy is expensive, everything else becomes harder as manufacturing leaves, household budgets tighten and governments scramble to paper over the damage with subsidies. Australia lost sight of this when we signed up for net zero. In doing so, we didn't just set an emissions target; we committed to rebuilding the entire economy around emissions reduction as the primary organising principle. That decision came with enormous costs, profound trade-offs and long-term consequences that were never honestly or fully explained to the public at the time.

The most obvious casualty of this has been industrial capacity. Manufacturing is energy intensive by definition. Aluminium, steel, cement, fertiliser, chemicals and food processing all demand large volumes of cheap and firm power. As energy prices rise and reliability falls, those industries don't adapt; they leave. They go to greener pastures, places where energy is cheaper, and once they're gone they do not come back easily. This matters far more than just jobs or GDP. In the current geostrategic environment, industrial capacity is a first-order national security consideration. The ability to produce, repair and scale physical goods is a deterrent in itself, as there is no military industrial complex without an industrial complex. Nations that hollow out their industrial base in pursuit of ideological goals, a path the minister has chosen to lead Australia down, those nations become strategically brittle.

Cheap energy is also the best wages policy there is. Energy is a core input to almost every product and service. When power prices rise, businesses face higher costs long before workers see higher pay packets. Those costs are passed on through prices, squeezing real wages and living standards. No amount of industrial relations reform can offset an energy system that structurally drives up production costs, yet, instead of confronting this reality, we have layered ideology on top of dysfunction. Nowhere is this clearer than the federal government's approach to firming generation.

Take the Kurri Kurri gas power plant as an example. This was conceived as a reliability backstop for New South Wales—a sensible objective—but it has been burdened with a mandate that defies engineering, economics and common sense: a requirement to operate on 30 per cent hydrogen by 2030. Hydrogen at that scale is not commercially viable, nor is it even foreseeably available by that date. Every engineer knows this. This is not a revelation I'm laying out before you; this is the common, accepted view of engineers around Australia. Hydrogen at that scale is not commercially viable nor will it be available by that date. Hydrogen is expensive to produce and transport, difficult to store and inefficient to burn. Retrofitting the Kurri Kurri station to meet this target will require at least $700 million in capital works alone. The minister has acknowledged that, but that figure doesn't include the far larger cost: the taxpayer subsidies needed to produce the hydrogen in the first place and to underwrite its supply indefinitely. The private sector has already walked away from large-scale green hydrogen en masse because it cannot be made at a competitive cost.

I'm an engineer. I love technology. I have no doubt that there are wonderful, brilliant minds—Australian minds—working towards new technologies, and so they should. They should be encouraged by government to do so. This is one of the things that has dragged us forward. I remember my first car—an XD Falcon. It used to run at about 17 litres to the 100 kilometres. I thought that was OK. I was a student. I didn't have any other options. My Prado now weighs twice as much and runs at about seven litres. Technology will take us forward. It will reduce emissions by reducing the amount of fuel required to do the same amount of work. This is happening, and it's a wonderful thing. Engineers around Australia play their part in that, and they should be very proud of doing so.

When we rush through this and when make decisions on timetables that are not in alignment with where industry is, we leave taxpayers holding the bag—not just once but permanently. This is not transition policy; it's a subsidy treadmill designed to satisfy a target rather than deliver affordable and reliable power to Australians. This is what happens when energy policy is driven by symbolism, as it has been under this minister. Instead of outcomes, we end up paying more for less reliability. We get weaker industry and lower real wages. But we do get one thing, and it's something that this minister prides himself on: ambition. We saw that in the minister's ambition to be the president of the next COP meeting. It's a fine thing, no doubt—a great thing to have on one's resume.

While that is happening, we are seeing energy prices go through the roof. As I stated earlier, we saw a 40 per cent increase in energy costs in just one year. We need a course correction. We must rebuild our economy around industry and not around emissions accounting, and that means restoring cheap and reliable energy as the foundation of national prosperity and strategic strength. Energy policy should not be an excuse to weaken ourselves economically or burden future generations with unnecessary costs. There's a lot of work to be done in taking care of our environment and in making sure that Australia has the cheap and reliable energy that it needs. We are out of balance at the moment. The approach we are taking right now, today, is out of balance, and we must correct it.

Sitting suspended from 13:30 to 16:01

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last year, 2025, was Australia's fourth-warmest year since national records began more than 100 years ago. The national average maximum temperature was 1.48 degrees Celsius above average, the fourth warmest on record. Rainfall was below average across much of Australia. Ocean temperatures were the warmest they have been for the second year in a row. Indeed, a rise in ocean temperatures of 2½ degrees has been a significant factor in the devastating algal bloom that has been tearing through much of the South Australian coast, decimating marine wildlife and ecosystems and the local South Australian economy.

Extreme weather events are expected to cost our economy over $40 billion by 2050. It's unbelievable that it needs to be said in 2026, but for the benefit of those in doubt—if unwilling to respond to what former vice-president Al Gore famously called the inconvenient truth—climate change is real. We're in the middle of it. Our children are, and the generations after them will be, in the middle of it, and they will pay the price. To suggest that there is an easy exit ramp, having abandoned net zero, is like committing to cross the length of South Australia on half a tank of gas; it will never happen—although I'm tempted to say you'd probably fare better in an EV with South Australia's expanding network of charging stations. So, while the opposition continue the decades-long ideological dance around the realities of climate change, the Albanese Labor government continues to act urgently and practically.

Our plan targets every level of the energy sector while ensuring that households reap both environmental and financial benefits. The Albanese Labor government's Annual climate change statement 2025shows the enormous strides that have already been made in reaching the Climate Change Authority's recommended emissions reduction target of 62 to 70 per cent below 2005 levels. For the year to June 2025, we saw a decrease of 2.2 per cent, or 9.9 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, compared to the previous year. Outside of COVID lockdowns, this is the largest financial year reduction in non-land emissions on record. These reductions are not accidental. They are due to a suite of policies and programs deliberately put in place by the Albanese Labor government to ensure that, while we are tracking towards our emissions target, we are not derailed or distracted and we are able to forge ahead while the opposition dither and delay.

Our government has established the new $5 billion Net Zero Fund, in the National Reconstruction Fund, that will help industrial facilities decarbonise and scale up more renewables and low-emissions manufacturing. The government has provided another $2 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to help drive down electricity prices. The government has invested $1.1 billion to encourage the production of more clean fuels in Australia, and the government has introduced a safeguard mechanism to curb the high emissions of Australia's largest emitting facilities. Indeed, the renewable energy transition is well underway. It is charging ahead with a fury that no naysayer with a blinkered view of our present and immediate environmental dangers will be able to stop.

Forty per cent of Australia's two largest electricity grids now consist of renewable energy. In September and October 2025, renewables surpassed coal as the largest source of electricity in Australia's largest grid, the national electricity market. The increase of the Capacity Investment Scheme target by 25 per cent will further accelerate investment and expansion of renewable energy generation and capacity.

But even beyond the environmental benefits of a more modern, sustainable and cleaner energy system, we all know that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. The proof is in the pudding as Australian households themselves opt in droves to make the renewable transition. Over one in three households now have solar panels on their roof—the highest uptake of solar anywhere in the world. In fact, each day 500 Australian households are installing solar panels for the first time.

This has been supported by the government's Cheaper Home Batteries Program, which has made the installation of small-scale battery systems affordable for all Australians. The numbers again speak for themselves: over 250,000 batteries have been installed under this scheme since mid-2025, and 1,000 households more are installing a battery in their home each day. I'm proud to report that my electorate of Boothby has seen the third-highest uptake in all of South Australia and the fifth-highest uptake in the entire country.

From 1 July this year, the government's Solar Sharer Offer will see Australian households with smart meters enjoy free electricity for three hours a day. Additionally, the government has invested $40 million to accelerate the installation of kerbside and fast EV charging, which will include 10,000 public charge points, as EVs increasingly become the vehicle of choice for more Australian consumers. This is backed by the new vehicle efficiency standard, giving consumers more choice when it comes to low- or zero-emissions vehicles. More cheaper EVs are now available on the market, the second-hand market is starting up and more Australians are enjoying fuel security that is not dependent on overseas supply chains.

The Albanese Labor government is also committed to retiring our coal-fired power stations, most of which are more than 24 years old, and replacing them with renewable alternatives. The consensus is clear: these coal power plants are outdated, unreliable and difficult to operate. The owners themselves have announced their closures because they are financially uneconomic. In fact, they are driving up Australia's energy costs, not lowering them, with the average level of coal power capacity unavailable due to outages increasing by 28 per cent in the second quarter of 2025.

But we can't go at this alone. The Paris Agreement, whose 10-year anniversary we celebrated last year, entrenches this global effort. The agreement seeks to limit global warming to well below two degrees of pre-industrial levels, and has as its objective the decarbonisation of the global economy and the reinforcement of a reliable energy system—all of which the opposition have effectively given up on by abandoning net zero by 2050. In fact, the opposition are trying to catch up to a narrative that has long run away from them. The International Energy Agency reports that around US$2.2 trillion is going collectively to renewables, grid storage, low-emission fuels, efficiency and electrification—twice as much as the US$1.1 trillion going to oil, natural gas and coal.

Arguably, Australia is only one piece in a much larger puzzle. Our rates of pollution pale in comparison to the bigger economies, but there is something to be said for leading by moral authority. The Pacific countries, our neighbours, who are daily menaced by the possibility of rising sea levels, would expect as much, if not more. Many of our own island communities are facing a similar fate.

That is why Australia will assume the role of president of negotiations at COP31. With our Pacific partners, Australia will set the agenda on global climate discussions and lead the way in developing solutions to a climate crisis that is, as we speak, having a profound and acute impact on island communities and nations. As the Foreign minister last week declared:

Pacific countries have long been leaders on climate action, and their voices are central to shaping the global response.

While much has been achieved, the Albanese Labor government recognises there is much more to do. Complacency is the killer of progress, or, more regrettably, in the case of the opposition, ignorance is the killer of action. Net zero is—or, rather, should be—a non-negotiable benchmark, and, under this government's plan, Australia is on track to meet its emissions reduction commitments. Under the opposition's plan, Australia would still be idling at the starting line, having heard the whistle blow more than once.

Australia is already in the throes of a renewable energy transition, and it's a transition that is guaranteed to improve the financial standing of all Australians—cleaner energy as well as cheaper energy. While the government's Annual climate change statement 2025doesn't brush over the significant obstacles that are still to be confronted, importantly, it affirms the government's commitment to ensuring that the trajectory we are on now is firm and unyielding. Not only is climate change an issue of the generation and for the generations; it will define a generation. It will define a generation that either chooses to act or refuses to act.

I'm ending by quoting the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, whose visit later this week will no doubt include a discussion about our two countries' ongoing collaboration in the climate change space. He said: 'Climate change is the tragedy of the horizon. We don't need an army of actuaries to tell us that the catastrophic impacts of climate change will be felt beyond the traditional horizons of most actors, imposing a cost on future generations.'

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the government's Annual climate change statement 2025. The government's statement calls 2025 a 'landmark year', and there has been progress. But, if we are to meet the new 2035 target of a 62 to 70 per cent cut on 2005 emissions, the pace of delivery must accelerate markedly over the next 10 years.

My speaking on this annual statement coincides with the launch last week of Curtain's pathway to net zero: progress report 2024-2026. Two years ago, 50 volunteers in Curtin collaborated on a significant piece of work, led by Claire Gardner from my team, setting out what it would take for our community to get to net zero and what was needed from federal, state and local governments and individuals. Last week, we released a report card showing how federal, state and local governments have performed in relation to our policy asks across electricity, buildings, transport, greening and waste. Looking at the annual climate change statement and our progress report on Curtin's pathway to net zero, there are some policies to celebrate from this year.

First is household storage and rooftop solar. The Cheaper Home Batteries Program has sparked a record surge in installations, with over 250,000 household batteries now installed. The government has now tripled the program, with the ambitious aim to take us to around two million batteries by 2030, about 40 gigawatt hours of distributed storage. This will make a real difference, slashing household electricity bills by an average of 90 per cent and reducing emissions. In Curtin, we're seeing the benefits. More than 1,500 batteries have been installed under the Cheaper Home Batteries Program. City Beach has now surpassed 50 per cent rooftop solar uptake.

Second is that we have now implemented policies for cleaner cars. After decades as a global laggard, Australia now has a new vehicle efficiency standard. This is already expanding the range of efficient and zero emissions vehicles on offer, with more than 150 models available as of mid-2025. Curtin is pulling its weight. We have more than 3,500 EVs on the road, placing my electorate in Western Australia's top position and among the top 10 nationally.

Third is nature protection. The Commonwealth finally legislated its EPBC reforms, which is an important start to improved environmental protection and accelerated construction for renewable energy projects. I was proud to contribute to these reforms with an amendment in the House and multiple amendments that were accepted in the Senate. These reforms also provide a stronger tool for cumulative urban biodiversity planning.

But there are areas where the federal and WA governments' actions are falling short. First is the electricity transition. Nationally, the statement points to more than 40 per cent renewables across the two largest grids and a Capacity Investment Scheme pipeline of 40 gigawatts this decade. This is a material step, but we're not moving fast enough. To unlock Australia's and WA's potential as a green industry superpower, not only do we need to decarbonise our current grid, but we also need to massively expand our generation capacity. This requires a huge uplift in the rollout and connection of renewable energy and storage in WA and on the east coast, and this uplift needs action at both the state and federal level. Western Australia's main grid, the SWIS, still lacks a legislated 2035 emissions target and a binding renewables target, and WA has comparatively less generation in the pipeline. The state did record a 55.8 per cent renewables month in November 2025, proving that high penetration is feasible even on an isolated grid, but isolated peaks aren't a substitute for year-round progress. The WA state government needs to step up. We need a clear transition plan for the SWIS.

Across Australia, there's no clear policy to support renewable rollout beyond 2030. Both the WEM and the NEM need policy signals to drive renewable energy and storage through a renewable energy target and expanded Capacity Investment Scheme and streamlined approvals. But there's an elephant in the room—new and expanded fossil fuels. Our community's Curtin net zero update gave fail grades to both state and federal governments on phasing out fossil fuels, noting that continued approvals and extensions, especially for export, undermine the credibility of all other action.

In relation to decarbonising our buildings, the decision by governments to pause residential NCC updates until mid-2029, except for safety and quality, may simplify short-term approvals but lock in higher bills and higher emissions for the next wave of homes. The statement cannot be considered complete without acknowledging this trade-off. Every underperforming home built in this pause period is a future retrofit job for a household already under cost pressure.

On transport, the transport and infrastructure net zero road map sketches the right pillars—electrify, shift to active and public transport, tackle embodied emissions and reserve low-carbon fuels for the hard-to-electrify niches. But without firmer funding and binding milestones, especially for mode shift, it risks becoming a plan on a shelf. In WA, the situation is worse. The state's sectoral plan offered only a token summary for transport and ended the EV rebate without a replacement.

On waste and packaging, we are still waiting. Curtin households are doing their part. FOGO is rolling out across most councils, yet the single biggest system lever, federal packaging reform, remains stuck between consultation and decision. Ministers agreed in 2022 that reform was needed. In 2024, the Commonwealth consulted on options, including mandatory design requirements and a national extended producer responsibility scheme. The consultation is done. The evidence is clear. It's now time for action. I'll explain my community's specific ask shortly.

Finally, while our community report did not look at industrial emissions in great detail, these form a significant chunk of our national emissions. In Curtin, industrial gas use is up, which reflects WA's broader challenge—growth in the gas sector wiping out gains elsewhere. On a national level, the safeguard mechanism has started to drive down emissions, but more will need to be done. The safeguard mechanism review commencing in the second half of this year represents a real opportunity here.

Looking at Australia as a whole, the department reports that emissions are down 29 per cent on 2005 and 2.2 per cent lower during 2025, with record renewable uptake. This is welcome, but the Bureau of Meteorology's Annual climate statement tells the other side of the ledger. It was Australia's fourth-warmest year on record, with record-hot seas and hydrology under stress. This is the test of the annual statement—whether the documents and policy announcements actually translate into reduced emissions at the pace the authority says we need.

In light of the annual statement and my community's recent report card on what our governments are doing, here is my wish list for the federal government for this year. Firstly, legislate packaging reform. We need a mandatory extended producer responsibility scheme, with certainty and consistency across the country, which places obligations on producers and importers to fund the recycling, reuse and disposal of packaging. We need mandatory targets for industry to accelerate reuse, recycling and composting of packaging. There have been voluntary targets in place, but these have not worked. There is clear appetite across industry and community for these targets to become mandatory. My community is also calling for a new target to reduce plastic and packaging. We can't recycle or reuse our way out of this pollution problem; we need less plastic coming into Australia.

Secondly, accelerate the rollout of renewable energy and storage. The government should seek to expand the Capacity Investment Scheme past 2027 in line with Climate Change Authority advice. It should also ensure that funding promised to WA for renewable generation, storage and transmission is delivered, and it should allocate funding to support the SWIS transition. Other policies to drive the rollout beyond 2030 should be considered, like an expanded renewable energy target across WA and the east coast.

Thirdly, improve the safeguard mechanism through the upcoming review. The safeguard mechanism is one of the central policies for driving our net zero transition. The 2026-27 review presents an opportunity to lower the threshold, expand coverage, improve the mitigation hierarchy, encourage best practice, disincentivise new polluting projects and safeguard our industries from international competition.

Fourthly, go beyond the new vehicle efficiency standard. The government must ensure that NVES is aligned with our national net zero by 2050 target. Importantly, this may require targets to decarbonise our light vehicle fleet even faster, giving time for heavy vehicles to decarbonise. The government should also introduce policy to start decarbonising our heavy vehicles. This is one of the largest emitting sectors that has no policy around it to drive emissions reduction. The government must also accelerate the rollout of EV chargers and continue to fund and support active transport.

Fifthly, drive decarbonisation of buildings through the National Construction Code.

The annual statement is a useful stocktake, but it shows how much more work is to be done. Our community is doing its part, and the Commonwealth must match that.

Sarah Witty (Melbourne, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Annual climate change statement 2025 is more than a legal requirement; it is an accountability document. It sets out in clear terms how Australia is tracking against our legislated climate targets, explains how our emissions are expected to change over time, outlines sector-by-sector progress and confirms that the Albanese Labor government is delivering the most serious climate action this country has ever undertaken. The statement shows that national emissions are lower than when we came to office. It shows that renewable electricity generation has reached record highs, the highest share ever recorded in Australia. It shows that coal fired generation continues to decline, large-scale solar and wind are expanding and storage is scaling to support a more reliable grid.

That progress is not accidental; it is the result of deliberate policy choices made by the Albanese Labor government. This government legislated a 43 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030. This government enshrined net zero by 2050 in law. This government strengthened the safeguard mechanism so that Australia's largest industrial emitters must reduce pollution year after year. This government created the Net Zero Economy Authority to ensure workers and communities are supported through the transition. This government is not stopping there.

For too long, climate policy in this country was marked by delay and division. Under the Albanese Labor government, it is marked by delivery. The statement confirms that renewable energy is now supplying a record share of Australia's electricity. That matters not just for emissions but for households because when renewable generation increases, wholesale electricity prices are pushed down. When we invest in storage and transmission, reliability strengthens. When we reduce exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets, we stabilise energy costs.

This is climate action aligned with cost-of-living relief, and in Melbourne that matters deeply. In Melbourne, most people live in apartments. Many rent. Many are deeply aware of both the climate challenge and the cost-of-living pressures they face. When wholesale prices fall because of record renewable generation, that benefits renters and apartment dwellers as much as anyone. When we strengthen energy efficiency standards and electrification policies, that reduces bills and improves comfort in older buildings. When we expand renewable supply through Renewable Energy Zones, we are building the generation and infrastructure that cities like Melbourne depend on. Renewable Energy Zones are transforming how Australia produces power, concentrating large-scale wind and solar in areas with strong resources, then delivering that clean electricity into urban demand centres. For Melbourne, that means ensuring that transmission upgrades, grid modernisations and storage investments keep pace so the clean energy being generated across the country flows efficiently into our homes and businesses.

The Albanese Labor government is delivering those structural reforms, and the statement makes clear that the trajectory is rising. Electric vehicle uptake is accelerating strongly. EVs now account for a growing share of new car sales in Australia. That shift has been supported by the introduction of national fuel efficiency standards, which send a clear signal to manufacturers and consumers alike that Australia is serious about transport decarbonisation.

In Melbourne, that shift is visible. Apartment buildings are installing charging infrastructure, rideshare fleets are electrifying and small businesses are transitioning delivery vehicles. Transport emissions are a significant part of our national profile. The Albanese Labor government's reforms are beginning to shift that trajectory, but the statement is also honest about the scale of the task ahead. It outlines the sectors where deeper reductions are required. It highlights the need to continue accelerating renewable development to expand storage, modernise distribution networks and electrify buildings and transport at scale.

In inner-city electorates like mine, those challenges have unique characteristics. How do we unlock rooftop solar for renters? How do we electrify high-rise apartment buildings built decades ago? How do we integrate community batteries into dense neighbourhoods? How do we scale EV charging in shared car parks and CBD precincts? These are the conversations my office has every week with residents, sustainability advocates and local businesses.

The people of Melbourne care deeply about climate action. They expect ambition. They expect integrity. And they expect their federal government to continue to lead on this transformative agenda. That is why the government continues to push for solutions that reflect dense-city realities—policy settings that work for renters, apartment dwellers and small businesses operating in high-density environments. Climate action must be inclusive. If it only works for detached homes, it is incomplete.

The statement also documents the climate impacts Australia is already experiencing: rising temperatures, more frequent extreme heat and changing weather patterns. In Melbourne, extreme heat is not imaginary. When I visit the Carlton Urgent Care Clinic, health professionals speak about the impact of heatwaves: breathing difficulties, dehydration, vulnerable older residents struggling in poorly insulated rented apartments. Climate policy intersects directly with health policy. When the Albanese Labor government strengthens building standards, invests in energy efficiency and speeds up electrification, we are not only cutting emissions but protecting public health. A well-insulated, electrified apartment is safer in a heatwave. A city powered by renewables has cleaner air. A grid strengthened by storage is more resilient.

The statement reinforces that climate action is economic reform. Clean energy investment is flowing into advanced manufacturing, battery technology, critical mineral processing and research. Melbourne is well positioned to benefit from that. Our universities are leading climate science and clean tech research. Our engineers and designers are building new systems. Our workforce is ready to participate in that clean energy economy.

Under the Albanese Labor government, Australia is no longer seen internationally as a straggler. We are credible. We are constructive in global climate forums. We are engaging with Indo-Pacific partners. We are contributing to international emissions reduction efforts. That credibility strengthens trade, investment and diplomatic relationships. The Annual Climate Change Statement 2025 confirms that the Albanese Labor government's approach is working—emissions are trending down; renewables are at record highs; electric vehicles are accelerating; targets are legislated; policy architecture is in place. The statement confirms that Australia's emissions are now significantly below 2025 levels and continuing to trend down. Electricity emissions, once the largest and fastest growing source, have fallen sharply as renewable generation has surged. At the end of 2025, renewable accounted for over 50 per cent of electricity in the national electricity market, the highest share ever recorded. This is proof that policies of this government are working. Large-scale wind and solar capacity continues to expand, with gigawatts of new projects committed or under construction. Rooftop solar alone now sits on more than three million Australian homes, one of the highest per capita rates in the world. Battery storage is scaling rapidly. Grid-scale batteries are coming online to firm renewable supply, while household battery uptake is increasing as costs fall.

But the work is not finished. We must continue expanding renewable generation, continue strengthening the grid, continue electrifying transport and buildings, continue supporting workers and communities through transition. Climate leadership is not abstract for my community. It's about whether a renter in Richmond can lower their power bill, whether a high-rise in Docklands can electrify affordably, whether a small business in South Yarra can rely on stable, clean energy and whether vulnerable residents are protected during extreme heat. The Albanese Labor government is building a clean energy transition that lowers emissions, strengthens the economy and delivers cost-of-living relief. The Annual Climate Change Statement 2025 shows that momentum. It shows a government getting on with the work, a government legislating, a government delivering and a government committed to seeing this transmission through. The climate challenge is generational. It requires consistency, persistence and integrity. This government has fronted up to the challenge, and we will continue to do so.

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

Every Australian has felt the effects of our warming climate, whether they realise it or not and whether they accept it or not. We've all experienced sweltering summer nights that won't cool down. We see grocery and power bills climbing and insurance premiums soaring. Beaches are disappearing to coastal erosion. Communities are flooding. We see the Great Barrier Reef, repeatedly, bleaching and dying. We see droughts getting worse, and we see storms and flooding getting worse. But the question is: are we responding fast enough as a nation? The Annual Climate Change Statement reveals the answer, and it is clearly no, despite all the things said by the government members.

Australia is at risk of missing its emissions target. We rely too much on offsets instead of cutting pollution at its source. We also continue with a flawed system when it comes to monitoring and measuring methane emissions, and spending on adaptation is woefully inadequate. Even Australia's military and intelligence experts warn that climate change is an existential threat to human civilisation and say the government refuses to face up to that challenge. So the reality is clear. This government must urgently strengthen both mitigation and resilience to protect Australians from the climate risks ahead.

In January, my electorate of Warringah and nearby areas were hit by violent summer storms, heavy rain, pounding winds and flash flooding that upended people's lives and disrupted business. The economic impact of disruption is the piece that doesn't get talked about, but it is a very vital piece. Torrential downpours swamped streets and homes. Stormwater systems overflowed, turning roads into rivers. Passengers were rescued from stranded cars. Residents were forced to evacuate, returning days later to soaked homes and damaged belongings. Insurance premiums were absolutely tested and stressed. This is experienced in many coastal communities. It's a sobering reminder of what happens in Warringah and many places in Australia and what we are going to face as it worsens. We know impacts are going to cascade, compound and escalate. We know these storms will get more severe. A warming climate with warmer temperatures means greater amounts of humidity in the atmosphere, leading to a year's worth of rain falling in short periods. Too often our infrastructure is not equipped to cope.

But the risks go far beyond just worsening disasters. Climate change is a cost-of-living issue that drives up your power bills and insurance costs as disasters become more and more frequent and severe and disrupt food production, transport and many other aspects. It's also a problem of intergenerational equity. It steals opportunities from the next generation, leaving them with a heavy carbon debt, this existential threat, and a very heavy burden to bear. Governments are not moving fast enough to protect all Australians from the climate risks ahead.

The climate change statement shows that Australia needs to accelerate its action to meet even just its 2030 emission target. Our emissions are falling but not fast enough. Australia has committed to cutting emissions by between 62 and 70 per cent by 2035, based on 2005 levels, and I know that many members of government want a pat on the back for that because it certainly is better than the woeful ignorance of the opposition and their complete lack of policy or commitment to our biggest threat. But the reality is that only the upper end of that 2035 target is even remotely within the range of science and what is needed to actually keep the temperature increase under two degrees. We urgently need to accelerate emissions reduction, especially around transport, agriculture and industry. Right now, only the energy sector is doing the heavy lifting.

Last year, the Climate Change Authority released decarbonisation plans for six sectors of the economy, but, disappointingly, the authority did not set specific, binding targets for each sector. We need clear sectoral plans for all of these areas. Without those targets, there is no accountability and companies or governments can ignore the guidance without consequences. Voluntary targets rarely drive the urgent change needed to meet Australia's climate goals and don't give businesses a clear signal to plan for cleaner operations over the long term and meaningful investment.

The other issue of great concern I referred to is that Australia's net zero strategy relies too heavily on carbon offsets. These allow polluting industries to continue business as usual, and, in fact, the government continues to approve coal and gas projects that then rely on offsets, so we are continually putting fuel on the fire. Offsets have a role for hard to abate sectors, but they cannot be used to justify continuing to increase emissions and continuing with polluting industries like coal and gas. We have to ensure that we don't replace genuine low-emissions transformation with the use of offsets.

We can't overlook, of course, the problem of methane, a greenhouse gas that is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over its first 20 years. It is absolutely responsible for the increases in warming that we are currently seeing, and yet you don't hear a peep about methane from anyone in government. Reducing methane is a huge necessity and opportunity, yet the government action to ensure that it is properly measured has not been progressed. If we can't measure methane emissions, how are we going to reduce them or at least acknowledge that they are there? In 2023, the Climate Change Authority made recommendations to improve how Australia measures and reports methane emissions, as part of the NGER Act review. The government has agreed to those recommendations, fully or in principle, and set up an expert panel to examine the issue. But, two years on from that review, we haven't heard a peep. Progress has been painfully slow. Meanwhile, those emissions are continuing and we are continuing to cook! I urge the expert panel to ensure its interim report, due in June this year, meaningfully progresses the issue of methane reporting, monitoring and measuring, especially in the oil and gas sector.

Meanwhile, we can't forget native forests—powerful natural carbon sinks that protect biodiversity. They still lack the adequate protection from logging and other threats. It is mind-blowing that we are heading into a budget period where I believe further millions or billions of taxpayer dollars are going to be wasted on carbon capture and storage when the best carbon sink capacity, our native forests, is just being ignored. Millions are poured into unproven carbon-capturing projects that continue to fail to meet benchmarks, but—and they continue to excuse high emissions—it's a 'unicorn technology'. I compare it to nuclear SMRs—it's this great big hope on the horizon that never delivers but costs a bomb. Why are we continuing to talk about that most expensive, uncertain technology? Why is the government still not protecting native forests and putting an end to native forest logging?

Last November, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, admitted that based on current global emissions the world is on track to 2.8 degrees of warming. That is diabolical. For Australia, it means bushfires like Black Summer could happen nearly every year, days over 50 degrees in Sydney and Melbourne will be common, storms and floods will reshape our coasts and the Great Barrier Reef will be lost forever. I can assure the members in this place from regional communities that they will be bearing the brunt of it, and then we will see the endless need for emergency disaster relief packages which we simply will not be able to afford. We know you won't be able to have insurance; insurance will be unaffordable for many. We will see spikes in heat-related illness and biodiversity loss. Billions in spending on disaster recovery will become the norm.

Sustainable economic management is not possible without addressing climate risks. In 2022 alone, climate fuelled disasters cost Australia $30 billion, and the cost will only rise. What's missing from the picture is serious investment in adaptation and resilience.

The National Climate Risk Assessment last year outlined the threats, but since then nothing: no funding, no serious plan. As we approach the next budget, I am calling for at least one-quarter of one per cent of GDP to be invested annually into climate risk reduction. We don't blink an eye when we talk about the percentage of GDP to be invested in defence. Well, our domestic defence, our risk to climate, needs that same focus. Natural disasters already cost nearly $40 billion a year—about two per cent of GDP—and it's projected to nearly double by 2060. Investing in adaptation saves money. For every $1 spent, we save about $11 in future losses. So if we want to talk about sensible economic management, it must include investment in adaptation and resilience.

I've proposed a detailed plan of how we can strengthen building codes, invest in local government capacity, protect wetlands and dunes, and make climate risk disclosures standard in financial decisions. This is not ideology; this is sensible economic management. My time is up, but there is so much more we can talk about. From a national security perspective, we know it is existential and urgent that we address this and do more. I urge the government to get real and actually do more.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Annual Climate Change Statement 2025 tabled by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. I welcome this fourth annual report. I commend the department for comprehensive work and the government for its commitment to targets and reporting. The statement is an important stocktake of progress. This year it shows emissions 29 per cent lower than 2005, following the largest annual drop outside the pandemic. It shows renewables are working, with electricity emissions falling 3.3 per cent. It shows the safeguard mechanism beginning to deliver reductions after a first year of reform, and it reminds us there is still much work that needs to be done, if we are to meet our 2035 targets.

There are a number of issues I would like to speak about. Firstly, on the least-cost pathway, Treasury estimates that a least-cost pathway to net zero would make Australia $1 trillion richer by 2050, compared with a disorderly transition. Real wages could be four per cent higher if we were to get the transition right, so how we decarbonise matters. But, when I look across the state of the policies, I'm not convinced we are on the least-cost path.

There are 430 climate related policies in government, as identified by the Climate Change Authority. The Productivity Commission, however, identified that we should have greater transparency and reporting on the cost effectiveness of emissions reductions against this. This transparency is much overdue. Neither the Parliamentary Library or the Parliamentary Budget Office can advise me or my office on the cost per tonne of abatement of the government's policy suite. This is important. We need this information, particularly if we're not going to have an economy-wide climate target.

The one estimate the Parliamentary Library could locate was for the electric vehicles novated fringe benefit lease tax exemption, the so-called EV discount. It is estimated to cost over $900 per tonne of abatement, yet Treasury's least-cost pathway assumes that the highest marginal abatement cost to 2030 will be $67 per tonne. It suggests government policy has wandered away from the least-cost pathway. I understand that there are reasons why you would adopt a non-least-cost pathway initially: to encourage a technology into a degree of maturity. But we also must be willing to pull back when that is no longer needed and redirect funds to the least-cost pathway.

If we are going to make this transition at its lowest cost, we must be disciplined about where and when we procure emissions reductions, and the pathway—not the politics—matters. An economy-wide carbon price or an expanded safeguard mechanism would provide the market structure to deliver this least-cost transition. It would replace the government's captain's calls with a predictable, pro-business framework. At the very least, the government should transparently cost its actual climate policies, not just model a theoretical trajectory. I strongly support the transition to net zero and the urgency of getting there, but it must be done with the least cost and in a way that shares the benefit. At present we do not know the cost of emissions reductions the government is purchasing through subsidies, and it does concern me that many Australians cannot access these incentives.

The second piece I'd like to talk about is shared benefits. The two cornerstone programs—the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme and the Cheaper Home Battery Program—are largely available only to homeowners, especially those with green title. This is the same cohort already benefiting from additional tax settings. Similarly, the EV discount provides the greatest benefit to high-income earners purchasing expensive vehicles through employer-provided novated leases. Renters, apartment dwellers and many Australians under cost-of-living pressure struggle to see how the transition is working for them. The Solar Sharer scheme was pitched as a mechanism to share the benefits, but it relies on smart metres not due to be rolled out until 2030. Many have also questioned whether households, particularly those who can't readily shift their usage, could end up paying more overall.

There is another issue that the statement largely avoids: Australia's exports. It mentioned coal exports just once, in the context of South Korea's COP commitments affecting Australia's export opportunities. My community sees this inconsistency. They see ministers pulling in different directions, spending money on decarbonisation while expanding fossil fuel supply. Someone said this week that the investors regard the Future Gas Strategy as the government's most significant climate policy. Domestic emissions are now 29 per cent below 2005 levels. That progress matters, but domestic emissions pale in comparison to those we export in the form of fossil fuels. Australia's contribution to global emissions—more than triple our domestic emissions—continues to rise. We will not be shielded from the consequences of those emissions. They will be felt here, in more frequent and catastrophic floods, fires and droughts, in increasing insurance premiums, in more days spent indoors escaping the heat and in the decimation of the Great Barrier Reef and Ningaloo Reef.

At COP30, Australia joined the Belem Declaration on the Transition Away from Fossil Fuels. That was important, but, despite the minister leading preparations for the next COP in Turkiye, we are far away from leading the transition. If there is a plan to phase out coal, I have not seen it. Recent decisions to expand or extend projects suggest one does not exist. Just this week, the NSW government approved an extension for a thermal coalmine, allowing another 36 million tonnes of coal to be extracted, roughly equivalent to one-fifth of Australia's annual domestic emissions when burnt. This is an affront to Australians making concerted efforts to reduce their own carbon footprint. The government has also introduced mandatory climate disclosures, requiring businesses to report emissions across their entire value chain, yet when it comes to the minister's own scope 3 emissions, which the government is asking businesses to report on—the emissions from the fossil fuels we export—apparently they cannot be reliably reported.

Australians understand that the transition to net zero is necessary. What they want to know is that it is being done sensibly, fairly and at the least cost, and at the moment this story is incomplete. We celebrate progress on domestic emissions while expanding the export of fuels that drive global emissions. We promise a least-cost transition while failing to measure the cost of the policies delivering it. If we are serious about climate action, as I know the minister is, then our policies must match our ambition. That includes being transparent about the cost of our policies, disciplined about pursuing the least-cost pathway and honest about the full climate impact of our decisions, including the emissions embedded in what we export.

Australians are already doing their bit, installing solar, electrifying homes, buying more efficient vehicles and adjusting their lives in meaningful ways. They deserve a climate policy framework that is coherent, economically disciplined and consistent with our international obligations, because the pathway matters. As we look to bridge the gap between the projections and the 2035 target, these new policies do need to be cost effective. The safeguard mechanism review will need to consider how to best cover a greater portion of emissions without strangling businesses with red tape, and barriers to investment need to be addressed to accelerate the renewables rollout and lower power bills. The transition to net zero is one of the largest economic transformations Australia will undertake this century. If we do it well, it will make us more prosperous, more competitive and more resilient.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.