Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak to the Climate Change Bill 2022 and the Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022. The coalition will not support either of these bills. This is legislation that their own minister has called 'not necessary'. The minister stated:

While this legislation is not necessary for the Albanese government to embark on the policy actions we sought and received a mandate for, it is best practice.

The minister also said:

… we have designed our Powering Australia plan so that it can be implemented whether legislation passes or not …

It's difficult for me to understand that this remains such a priority for Labor if it's not necessary.

This legislation will introduce serious externalities. Why impose those consequences on the Australian economy if the legislation is not necessary? Australia has already made known its formal 43 per cent target, regardless of how the parliament deals with this legislation. The government updated Australia's nationally determined contribution, the NDC, in June. One would have thought that the priority of the government would be addressing the inflationary pressure and cost-of-living pressures that Australian families are suffering through. Amidst their broken promise to reduce power bills for families and businesses by $275, they have now overseen the highest electricity prices on record, so I repeat the call of the Leader of the Opposition: if you actually want to help Australians at the moment, keep the promise you've abandoned—reduce their power bills by $275. Rushing to legislate an emissions target does nothing to fulfil that promise. This legislation has serious problems, which will have significant unintended consequences.

I want tonight to briefly summarise the coalition's main concerns. We believe that the consultation process overlooks significant stakeholders. The government chose to alleviate itself of rural and regional concerns, instead of properly consulting with those most likely to be impacted. The legislation will invite green activists to enter vexatious claims in our legal system for political purposes. Environmental activist groups could now challenge crucial projects under Commonwealth legislation, potentially delaying or halting them altogether. Furthermore, the coalition believes that the government's Powering Australia plan is not an achievable or genuinely practical plan to firm 80 per cent renewables by 2030. We are, however, concerned that the legislation is neither equitable nor fair.

What I mean when I say that this legislation gives no consideration to how an increase in power bills could cause economic distress to families or businesses, these bills are actually also likely to restrict crucial government agencies such as the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, Infrastructure Australia and Export Finance Australia from supporting projects. Furthermore, there are grave concerns that these restrictions will inhibit our national security and particularly objectives in the Pacific by reducing export financing authorities' flexibility. The coalition believes that the Labor government's continued rejection of sensible debate on the latest generation nuclear power is disingenuous.

Stakeholders have spoken to us and to the inquiry that was held. Stakeholders such as the Australian Forest Products Association raised concern with the legislation as it relates to consultation—or rather, I should say, the complete lack of consultation—concerning certain aspects of the bills. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was not consulted on the Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 prior to its introduction. This bill could have serious impacts on the agricultural industry as an emissions-intensive industry, for the climate change department failed to consult with the agricultural department on how this bill might impact on our primary producers. This leads me to believe that the consultation process failed in its duty to inquire into the manner in which this legislation may impact all communities. The consultation process has heightened concern because of the government's failure to conduct popular socio-economic modelling.

Whilst providing evidence the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry admitted they had done no modelling on the impacts of the Climate Change Bill and the consequential amendments bill on rural and regional Australia. The government failed to properly consult on the rural and regional perspective and failed to conduct socio-economic modelling on the impact it would have on these communities—absolutely disgraceful. Without such processes these bills may now have provisions that lead to incredibly serious unintended consequences. These are significant oversights on behalf of the government, and they should have been addressed. The government should have sought to facilitate genuine consultation and discussion around this legislation. Unfortunately, though, despite claiming they would govern under a new style of politics, the government's haste is an attempt to influence political outcomes and obviate genuine criticism and differing perspectives. As we stated in our dissenting report to the inquiry into these bills, the coalition believes rigorous consultation, modelling and social impact assessments have been overlooked in the drafting and introduction of these bills.

If the Labor Party continues to insist on passing this legislation, it will effectively have entered Australia into a new era of green lawfare. The coalition believes that these bills will invite unacceptable and fundamentally vexatious green activism into the courts and our legal system. I note the experience of other countries that have codified into law some of these pieces of legislation. The UK, in particular, has been subject to significant legal consequences as a result of the codification of emissions reduction targets. Activists in the UK have challenged crucial projects such as a new high-speed rail network, challenged government decisions to invest in the maintenance and construction of new roads because this would lead to increased traffic and thus greater emissions and delayed a third runway at Heathrow Airport for years by challenging it in the court system. The government of France has been ordered to take all necessary measures on climate change by 2022 or it will be subject to penalties by the court. In Germany the courts ordered the government to increase its emissions reductions target. These scenarios have eventuated through the legislation of emissions reductions targets. These are very real scenarios that Australia is facing now.

Disappointingly, though, at the inquiry environmental groups such as Greenpeace and others absolutely refused to rule out using this legislation to challenge agriculture, primary production, infrastructure, energy, resources or forestry projects. The coalition is gravely concerned that these may impact on access to the justice system if the court system is to be used for this. Already many of these projects are subject to significant delays, and allowing the green activism to add to the courts' workload would not be in the interest of our legal system.

The government's target of 43 per cent includes a plan to have 82 per cent renewables, under their Powering Australia Plan. The committee inquiry into these bills received evidence that this plan would actually lead to an increase in power bills. So, after breaking their promise of providing families with $275 of relief on their power bills, the government is actually going to be contributing to additional costs to families and businesses. We note the variability of renewables cannot be firmed by current battery storage technology. As outlined in our dissenting report, evidence was provided to the inquiry into these bills that current battery technology could power a city the size of Sydney for seconds if the grid failed. This is especially concerning, given that members of the government continue to demonise fossil fuels. To introduce such significant variability with no visible means with which to firm that technology would be a very large mistake. The coalition also has very serious doubts concerning the Labor government's ability to deliver on its commitment of 82 per cent renewables by 2030. Nuclear for Climate Australia, in their submission to the inquiry into these bills, said:

… its intended that emissions reductions in electricity generation throughout all sectors of the economy be achieved using renewables with storage. In view of the embodied carbon emissions in wind, solar and storage devices it is physically impossible to achieve net zero using these devices. Their constant replacement, weather dependency and lack of reliability will render methods of negative emissions such as carbon sequestration or atmospheric removal entirely uneconomic.

For Australians who are already under constant cost-of-living pressures, any rise in their power bills will have a detrimental impact on their lives. However, this legislation fails to address the economic cost of rising power bills.

We know that this government has very little concern for families who are managing very expensive power bills. Amidst the highest electricity prices on record, this Labor government has abandoned its $275-better-off plan for families. They ditched that promise. I believe that one of the primary responsibilities for government when altering energy policy is to ensure that people can keep their lights on, that they can turn the dishwasher on after 6 pm at night and that they can afford to do so. I have said this time and again and will continue to do so. These bills will put pressure on already very high cost-of-living pressures on families. This will potentially inhibit some Australians from being able to afford to keep their lights on, to keep their fridge running, to keep the air conditioning on in summer or the heater on in winter. This will have significant impact on our communities.

But what could be of greater or equal concern is the fact that this legislation could actually inhibit our national security objectives, particularly in the Pacific. Our region, I think everyone would agree, is going through a period of heightened tensions. China has certainly become more assertive in the region and is pushing its objectives into our neighbourhood via the Pacific. We have heard and we believe that reducing Export Finance Australia's ability and flexibility is not in our national interest.

Export Finance Australia do critical work supporting projects in the Pacific, and if we don't continue to provide that important support, other countries may attempt to do so on our behalf. Restricting Export Finance Australia's flexibility could lead to exactly that. If we do not support these projects, we could be opening up the door for China to do so. I and the coalition object in the strongest possible terms to any legislation which may negatively impact upon our national security objectives. But it is not just Export Finance Australia; it is also the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility supporting projects in various industries which are considered emissions-intensive. These agencies manage and support the funding of projects which create significant investment, provide economic stimulus and create jobs. But restricting their decision-making is not in the national interest and can inhibit these opportunities.

I do also want to touch on nuclear energy. For the government, with its Powering Australia plan and its calls for 82 per cent renewables in the grid, to achieve its target of 43 per cent emissions reduction, there needs to be input into the grid, more variability into the grid and it needs to be firm. Given the government's focus on reducing emissions, it would appear to me now that its continued rejection of a genuine debate—that's all, a discussion—on nuclear power is purely ideological. So the coalition urges the government to please engage in sensible discussions with us on these matters.

In closing, and I know we have a long night ahead of us because, again, in transparency we are going to push this through and maybe guillotine it at some stage, we won't be supporting these bills because we support Australians. They are founded upon unachievable policy principles, and they will have very, very serious unintended consequences. The government has in no way done adequate consultation. In fact, it looks like they have gone out of their way to not consult those sectors like agriculture, like primary reduction, like forestry that will be so affected by this. They have done no modelling of how this will impact rural and regional communities as they shut down jobs.

These bills will also increase green activism—the lawfare, the lawyers' picnic. The vexatious claims that are about to be launched will be significant. We will see a continual increase in energy prices and, as I said, this has the potential to have a very significant impact on our ability to further our national security objectives in the Pacific.