Climate Change (State Action) Amendment Bill 2021
**Check against delivery**
Ms WEBB (Nelson) – Mr President, I also thank the Leader for organising the briefings for us, and particularly, for the minister’s time today to come to speak with us about the bill in some more detail. It was much appreciated and I look forward to the contributions of all members because this is a really interesting one for us to be contemplating together. I welcome the debate on the Climate Change (State Action) Amendment Bill 2021 currently before us. I will begin with the following statement by a climate scientist:
It seems to me like our Government could encourage things like renewable energy use, energy conversation and could discourage discourage high rates of usage of fossil fuel. Government could encourage solar energy research and development, including installation of suitable technology and could encourage more energy efficient housing designs.
And this:
Total preservation seems to be impossible. We have already gone too far.
These climate change concern statements could have been made last month, last week or even today. However, in fact these statements were made by a climatologist and environmental scientist, Dr Albert Barrie Pittock OAM, who preferred to go by Barrie, in an interview published in February 1987. Dr Barrie Pittock was no lightweight or novice in this area. Between 1965 and 1999 he worked at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Aspendale Laboratory, which was part of the Marine and Atmospheric Research Division.
He became one of Australia’s leading scientists in the field of climate science, and was awarded the 1999 Australian Government Public Service Medal for his work. In 2007, Dr Pittock received a share in the Nobel Peace Prize for his role as a principal scientist on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This was followed in 2019 with the award of the Medal of the Order of Australia (OAM). In 1987 Dr Barrie Pittock was warning us here in Australia, and I quote again, ‘we have already gone too far.’
Dr Pittock was not alone in his views or his warnings, nor was he the first. It is beyond the scope of this debate to detail all specific developments of international climate science and intergovernmental policy development that occurred last century and continues into the current century. However, it is worthwhile to highlight a few key climate milestones as context for today’s discussion. In a paper summarising the history of climate activities and research, John Zillman, former chairman of the World Climate Conference-3 International Organising Committee; former president of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), and former president of the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences, identified the origin of climate change science as emerging from the post-World War II combined scientific, technological and geopolitical developments in the 1950s.
Zillman’s chronology details that by the late 1960s scientific concern was beginning to mount that human activities could already be starting to impact on the earth’s climate at a global scale. 1970 saw a range of high level scientific studies undertaken, with results prompting planning by the World Meteorological Organisation for an inter-agency world climate program, also triggering the WMO decision to convene the historic First World Climate Conference of February 1979 in Geneva.
This historic 1979 conference was co-hosted by the WMO in collaboration with: the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO); the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations; the World Health Organisation; the United Nations Environmental Programme; the International Council for Science (ICSU); and other scientific partners, as a world conference of experts on climate and mankind. That involved approximately 350 specialists from 53 countries with 24 international organisations attending, representing a wide range of disciplines. In another first, a World Climate Change Conference Declaration was issued at the conclusion of this gathering, which was an appeal to all nations to strongly support the proposed world climate program and suggested immediate strategies to assist countries to make better use of climate information in planning for social and economic development.
In October 1985 another international climate conference was held in Villach, Austria. The primary focus of this gathering, known as the Villach Conference, was to assess the status of climate change knowledge at the time. It was attended by scientists from 29 countries, who produced highly influential statements foreshadowing temperature rises in the first half of the 21st century, greater than any in human history.
This 1985 statement included the following unanimous conclusion:
The understanding of the greenhouse question is sufficiently developed that scientists and policy-makers should begin an active collaboration to explore the effectiveness of alternative policies and adjustments.
November 1988 saw the first session of the WMO’s UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an entity which most policymakers and many community members are now aware of. It was held in Geneva, and eventually resulted in the first IPCC Assessment Report in August 1990. Reports continued to be produced over the next 30 years, with the next one currently in preparation. Additional to the IPCC work in the 1990s, we saw the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established as the main global forum for climate change negotiations.
The UNFCCC was adopted in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, entered into force in March 1994, binding most nations to avoid dangerous climate change. We saw the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which sought to translate the Earth Summit’s resolution into action, but by the time major nations and states came on board, such as the USA in 2005, climate events had largely overtaken it, with most global aspiration and hopes turning to the 2015 Paris Accord.
People are now probably familiar with the reference to the annual UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, known as the COP, the first of which was held in Berlin in 1995. The most recent meeting was the Glasgow COP 26, held last year.
November this year will see the 27th COP held in Egypt, 27 annual global climate summits yet the seas keep rising.
The point of that very quick overview of some key milestones in the global climate change scientific and policy community’s history, is to highlight that we have known about the very real risk of, and threat posed by, climate change for the last 50 to 60 years.
The other pertinent points to note are the fact that these early warnings were issued to policymakers with urgency at the time, and also that a broad range of sectors were involved, all those decades ago, from agriculture to medicine, from sociology to economics.
More on that later but for the moment it is significant to note, not only what was known all those decades ago, but also who knew all those decades ago. It is 43 years since the inaugural world climate change conference and declaration. It is 37 years since the 1985 Villach agreement, and 35 years since Dr Pittock warned us, we have already gone too far. In the meantime, the climate scientist’s warnings get more and more dire, with increasingly urgent calls for action issued, culminating in a statement issued on 28 February this year, upon the release of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report, in which the IPCC Chair, Hoesung Lee said:
This report is a dire warning about the consequences of inaction. It recognises the interdependence of climate, biodiversity and people, and integrates natural, social and economic sciences, more strongly than earlier IPCC assessments.
It emphasises the urgency of immediate and more ambitious action to address climate risk. Half measures are no longer an option.
It is now broadly recognised that this is not some esoteric scaremongering fringe issue, that instead climate change is the greatest and most pressing public policy challenge facing us globally, nationally and locally. I would add technologically, socially and economically, which brings us to this bill.
Just as an aside, given the recognised gravity and urgency of the climate change challenge facing us, I recognise the tension between the impetus to swiftly pass this overdue bill, versus the impetus to take the time necessary to ensure we seize this opportunity to amend and refine the current principal act, which to be frank, barely qualifies as a gutted half shell of an act, to make it as effective as possible, on behalf of the Tasmanian community, and our unique biodiversity heritage.
I note, that despite the pressure to progress this bill, which was introduced last year, the minister saw fit to resist rushing the recent debate in the other place, and instead paused proceedings so that he had the opportunity to go away and carefully consider second reading contributions and the extensive series of amendments proposed.
I commend that effort to review and consider matters raised, and I hope that this place will also be encouraged to take the time necessary to debate and consider matters thoroughly as well, without being rushed. So far, indications are good that that is the case.
So that was a polite heads‑up, that my contribution on the second reading may be a little lengthy, you may be surprised to hear, for which I am unapologetic, because I point to the minister’s example of careful, thoughtful, thoroughness.
Back on track though, the bill provides us with an opportunity for a tale of two trajectories.
Trajectory 1. Let us imagine that we have got into our solar-powered Tardis because as we know, it is larger on the inside than it appears on the outside, so it can fit us all comfortably. Into the TARDIS we go and we have landed in Tasmania, December 2030. We discover we have gatecrashed the premier’s livestream press conference where she is congratulating all Tasmanians for their fantastic effort, all pulling together to be the first Australian jurisdiction to have verified by an independent climate audit that the state has built upon its threshold of maintaining the legislated December 2023 net zero greenhouse gas emissions by also meeting its initially set absolute greenhouse gas emissions reduction target legislated to occur no later than the end of 2030.
We would also be celebrating that the corresponding latest climate change just transitional authority status report continues to record an increase in new climate-friendly sectors with new job creation remaining steady and inclusive of new job entrants as well as those who are older and retrained.
Further, on this trajectory when we land in 2030, we find support for climate-friendly technologies and innovation continues to expand creating new export markets and, importantly, the brunt of addressing the climate crisis has not fallen disproportionately upon women, part-time and low paid workers, people of colour, the disadvantaged, vulnerable and marginalised, unlike the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic that now features in our school history lessons.
On this trajectory in 2030 the just transitional authority also maps the cost of living improvements created by addressing former brittle and vulnerable food security routes. Hopefully that means no more $13 iceberg lettuces for Tasmanians. Costs of living efforts includes strong planning and construction codes requiring affordable new and retro-fit housing to be eight-star energy rates with urban green canopy and water sensitive designs, improving both biodiversity and people’s health and mental wellbeing.
The latest independent State of the Environment Report also details improvements in key indicators detailing the health of our natural environment, water quality and biodiversity. Significantly on this trajectory there appears to have been a halt to any further biodiversity lost. Well, there are cheers and much clinking of tea cups in celebration on the electric buses and the green hydrogen-powered ferries crossing the Derwent.
However, the premier warns that while it has been hard work to achieve the verified legislated absolute greenhouse gas emissions reduction target by the 2030 deadline, it will continue to take hard work to retain that status. However, for the moment, a collective pat on the back has been earned.
However, this is not climate utopia that we are imagining here or anything as simplistic as that. There will always be in this trajectory unease and uncertainty regarding the impacts and ramifications of other jurisdictions, state or global, that have not managed to meet the emissions reduction commitments. However, this Tasmania that we are imagining is about to step into the 2030s with robust and rigorous climate change actions plans detailing adaptation and resilience-building capacity and which are supported by all political parties and, just as importantly, are implemented in a transparent manner and an accountable parliament.
It reflects input from those with relevant expertise and experience across the community. Tasmanians from all walks of life, where the captains of industry to workers transitioning to new climate friendly sectors to local Tasmanian Aboriginal representatives, climate scientists, ecologists, health practitioners and children and young people can see not only how their concerns are addressed but also identify where and how their direct input was incorporated.
Of course, in this scenario we are imagining there are major dissenting voices. However, they know that within the next three years they would have an opportunity to raise their concerns and propose alternatives via the legislated Climate Change Risk Assessment processes, updated action plans, or through the broad community representation of the advisory council, as well as via the ongoing work of the Parliamentary Joint House Standing Committee on Climate Change. In this ‘trajectory 1’ Tasmania, if you want to be an active participant in shaping Tasmania’s climate change prevention, adaptation and resilience action plans you are welcome to do so via a variety of avenues. If you are disinclined or unable to participate in the policy formation process you can feel assured that it is rigorous with parliamentary accountability and oversight, hardwired into the policy development and delivery framework.
This 2030s future is characterised by social equity and inclusion, just transitions incorporated into action plans, fostering equity and innovation, adherence to precautionary principles to minimise creating biodiversity risk and loss but then require expensive and extensive diversion of finite resources and efforts to create technological fixes and a commitment to rigorous independent oversight and parliamentary accountability. That is trajectory 1.
Now let us leave that and explore and compare trajectory 2. The TARDIS takes us for another spin into a parallel universe where we land on the date of 1 July 2030, though in a very different Tasmania. There is no congratulatory press conference under way. Instead, we blinked and almost missed the 4 p.m. media release quietly issued by the government media office, which, reading between the lines, appears to be saying that by some calculations it could be said the 2030 net zero greenhouse gas emissions target may have been met. Though some sectors may have begun to increase emitting again and are underperforming. However, that has evened out by the international carbon offsets made and the credits bought. This consultant’s report is currently being considered by government and will be tabled in parliament in due course, in a one-way process which equates, apparently, to consultation. It is evident, the community of this 2030 Tasmania is ridden with conflict and division. Protests are more frequent, louder and angrier as those who are directly affected feel locked out of decision-making processes. Some sectors appear to have benefited from the climate changes, whereas, others are struggling or shutting down. Health and mental health problems have remained statistics to increase steadily.
Infrastructure damaged in the recent catastrophic natural disaster events has not been repaired or replaced. Coastal properties cannot secure insurance. The government is being sued by young people, displaced people and others arguing a failure of duty of care.
Tourists ask, what happened to the wildlife? Which can only now be readily seen in zoos, due to the combined impacts of disease, habitat loss and other unaddressed ecological pressures.
People do not feel part of the Climate Change Action Plan and they do not have much hope it will make much difference. This future is characterised by top down exclusive decision‑making; an increasingly disenfranchised alienated and resentful populous; entrenched social inequalities and an apparently ineffectual Climate Change Action Plan which failed to prevent the impact of adaptation and economic shifts from being inflicted disproportionately upon those least able to absorb it. And, also failed to address unsustainable uses of natural resources, growing urbanisation or losses and damages from extreme events.
I realise the TARDIS has a reputation for being unpredictable, but looking at trajectory 1 and trajectory 2, I know which future Tasmania I want to see and be part of. I am sure most people would choose the same version.
The question facing this parliament is, on what trajectory does this Climate Change Amendment Bill place us? In all likelihood and honesty, somewhere it probably places us somewhere in between the positive trajectory 1 and the negative trajectory 2 I have described. The bill in its current form, we can actually agree, does not deliver what is required to fully reach trajectory 1, even if it keeps us somewhat bubbling along above trajectory 2.
To be blunt, it will not prevent us from sliding down less collaborative robust and resilient pathway towards trajectory 2.
To be clear, neither the purpose of the amendment bill before us nor the Climate Change State Action Act 2008, will do the decarbonising of our economy nor reduce greenhouse gas emissions by themselves. Instead, they are to provide the framework, establishing particular mechanisms by which Tasmania’s greenhouse gas emissions are reduced by a particular time frame.
The framework sets out who is responsible for what, how and by when. The issue facing us here today is whether that framework in this bill is as robust, transparent and effective as it could be, as it needs to be in face of the climate emergency.
This legislative framework also details the interface between government, the private sector, the community and the parliament. The key components of the bill can be loosely grouped into four broad categories:
(1) Contemporary updates of the objects of the act, definitions and emissions reduction targets.
(2) The range of assessments, reports and plans for which the minister is responsible to deliver and the timeframes by which that is to occur.
(3) Sector based emission reduction plans.
(4) Who is to be involved and to what degree and when.
I am aware there are a range of proposed amendments which relate to these areas of the bill, however and I will leave substantive arguments on those to when those amendments are debated; assuming that the bill will go to the Committee stages. Instead, I now wish to touch on some specific areas relating to the bill which were raised through the last round of consultation on it, as well as during briefings that we have received.
One of the key characteristics which propels the climate change crisis into the realm of being a key public policy challenge of our time is its intergenerational reach and implications. Decisions made now will impact upon and determine the future of our children and grandchildren and their children’s children. Actions taken now, or potentially those we fail to take, will pose dramatic ramifications for those coming after us. We all know this. It has been pointed out emphatically by regular mass school walkouts held around the globe and by the collectives of young people taking court action against governments, even in this country.
Days prior to the 2021 Glasgow COP2, another UN conference was held, the 16th United Nations Climate Change Conference of Youth, known as the COY16. This conference focused on capacity building and policy training in order to prepare young people for their participation at COP and their life as local and international climate activists and advocates. The COY16 culminated in the Global Youth Position Statement, representing the views of over 40 000 young people worldwide. This statement opens with the following words:
Our overarching demand that unifies all themes is that the youth should be actively and meaningfully included in all decision-making processes concerning climate change governance and implementation. We call for these policy demands to be integrated into national and international agendas and commitments. We demand an intersectional approach to youth inclusion in environmental governance, acknowledging that the climate crisis affects some communities and social groups disproportionately and recognising that the climate crisis is a broader socio-political crisis that necessitates systemic and radical action.
In Tasmania we heard from the Commissioner for Children and Young People who reiterated the global COY statement sentiment. He stated clearly that not only are young Tasmanians very aware of climate change, they also wish to be actively and meaningfully included in the state’s response. Rather than attempt to speak for Tasmania’s young people, I spoke to some, inviting them to write down in their own words to allow their perspective to be included in this debate first hand; from the horse’s mouth, as it were.
Two Tasmanian young people have given me permission to read out their perspectives as part of this debate. The first statement I will share with the Chamber is by Allie Barry, [TBC] who is currently undertaking grade 12 at Hobart College:
In the year 2020 the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that 12 per cent of the Australian population was made up of young people aged 15 to 24. That is 3.2 million people whose future lies in the hands of today’s politicians and decision makers. 3.2 million people with no formal involvement or consultation outside of their vote and recommendations. As one of these young people, I find our voices are often left unheard and our future compromised by politicians who do not seek to understand or represent us, and do not consider the impacts that decisions made today have on our future and the life ahead of us. This is absurd.
It is critical to allow us to have a say on issues that involve us. If the bill fails to do so adequately, this shows young people and other members of the community that our voices are not valued and appreciated, and that the decisions made for our future, on our behalf aren’t taking our wants and opinions into consideration. This is hurtful, scary and isolating. I want a say in my own future. I want a say in decisions that will affect me and I want people to listen. [TBC]
That was Allie’s request to us all here today. The second statement that I would like to share was provided by Kuba Meikle, who is 17 years old and lives in Launceston. This was his message.
We know the importance of community engagement to ensure people can have their say. However, for the youth, such consultation is crucial. Young people are underrepresented in federal and state parliaments. We are not in positions of power or authority and we are dismissed as not having enough experience by many of any elders. If the youth is not consulted, we are silenced. We cannot vote, we cannot donate millions to political parties and our questions are answered with ‘Thank you for contacting us, your views have been considered.’ Most politicians ignore us. Even still, it would be ridiculous not to consult young people on climate change.
Today’s youth are the ones who will have to face the reality of global warming. The reality of a changed Earth. For over 40 years, politicians have ignored the climate science. They have given the green light to fossil fuels and forest logging, shifting the blame to meaningless carbon footprints. Politicians of the past destroyed the youth’s future and now you can show that today’s reps are better than past members.
Giving youth the opportunity to have a say on such a life changing issue, will acknowledge rather than entrench those past mistakes. Sure, some will say that there is no point in consultation if people’s opinions are ultimately ignored. No matter if our thoughts are implemented or not, reaching out to the youth shows that to some degree, politicians now care.
Not requiring community consultation in such an instrumental piece of legislation reinforces people’s beliefs, young and old, that politicians only serve themselves. It says the decision makers do not care what will happen next because by then, they will be in 20 non-executive board positions, living the high life while the rest of the world burns.
We just have one simple request: Please listen to us, then one day, when we are the ones writing the history books, we can write that you stood up, that you cared and that you were true leaders. [TCB]
It is forthright stuff, Mr President. In their own words, these young people have made their position quite clear. They do not purport to be representative of anyone other than themselves, and I am not seeking to suggest that they are representative of all other young Tasmanians. However, it is quite clear that, should there be a formal appropriate mechanism provided by which they could have input and genuinely participate in developing Tasmania’s climate change efforts prescribed by this bill, in all likelihood they will leap at that opportunity. I acknowledge that the current bill before us was amended in the other place to make specific reference to children and young people and future generations in the new objects of the act clause, as well as in the development of the action plan, the statewide risk assessment and also in the review of the act provisions. All of that is very welcome. However, where these inclusions relate to consultation, they are fairly general, rather than prescriptive and there may be potential to explore options for a more direct involvement – for example, involvement with or representation on an advisory council, should such an entity be established.
Another area of inexplicable silence in this bill is the absence of any specific inclusion of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community as a specifically recognised stakeholder to be included in the range of consultation processes provided in the bill. I do not understand this omission. It is undisputed that for Australian and Tasmanian Aboriginal peoples, land is intrinsically entwined with culture. Climate change impacts, industrial development and environmental degradation can all impact upon the ability of Aboriginal communities to remain connected to country, to protect their heritage and maintain culture. As an Aboriginal academic based at the ANU stated in an article recently:
As people uniquely impacted by – and with demonstrable knowledge and practices to mitigate against – climate change, Indigenous peoples must be at the table in all climate change talks.
We cannot allow climate change mitigation and adaptation to become another colonial process of dispossession and disempowerment.
Excluding our voices will inevitably mean opportunities will pass us by, or negatively impact us, even when we are expected to contribute our knowledge and skills to support larger climate mitigation and adaptation efforts.
These are unique skills and knowledge and also unique impacts. Only last week, a United Nations committee, found the Australian Government had violated the rights of Torres Strait Islanders by failing to take adequate action to cut emissions. The committee stated the Australian Government should pay compensation and also:
… engage in meaningful consultations with their communities to assess their needs, and take measures to secure the communities’ safe existence …
A call which I believe the Tasmanian Government could also heed. In an attempt to justify the omission of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community from the list of those detailed to be included in consultation processes, it was argued that the Government did not receive any submissions from the Tasmanian Aboriginal representative during the consultation period on this bill, the inference being, I take it, that if this community was interested they would have made a submission. Given they were apparently not interested to do so, then ipso facto, they do not want to be included in climate change policy development discussions hereon in.
I hope this was not the argument relied upon, inference or otherwise. It would be laughable for this to be considered a serious argument except that I find it quite insulting and I believe others would also. I refer back to what that United Nations committee suggested to the Australian government that it do which is this: engage in meaningful consultations to assess their needs and take measures to secure their community’s safe existence.
The key question for any government would be, if Tasmanian Aboriginal community members have not participated in the consultation exercise that you have undertaken, perhaps you have to ask yourself how you failed in that consultation process and what more, or differently, you needed to do in order to meaningfully consult with that community.
My question for the Government is – and I am hoping that the Leader of the Government can clarify for me – whether the Government has meaningfully sought feedback from any Tasmanian Aboriginal representatives since the bill was originally consulted on or since the bill was tabled in the other place regarding the lack of submissions that were received during the public consultation. Also, whether the Government has sought any feedback from the Tasmanian Aboriginal representatives in the community on whether, and how, future consultations regarding the state’s climate change approach could occur. Have they been asked whether they should or should not be included as specific stakeholders in this bill? Have they been asked how they might tie into the mechanisms presented in the bill?
I will briefly discuss tipping points. A tipping point is defined as a small intervention that leads to major long-term consequences which are hard to reverse. During debate in the other place the minister refers to 2030 as the climate tipping point, hence the bill seeking to amend the net zero emissions target deadline to 2030. On the surface, that appears consistent with the latest IPCC report which warned global emissions must peak before 2025 and be reduced by 43 per cent by 2030. In this context, the climate tipping point is a recognised negative tipping point. This is particularly relevant in relation to this bill in that it seeks to define the state’s emissions reduction target as net zero greenhouse gas emissions or lower from 30 June 2030.
Without wanting to get bogged down discussing in detail the difference between net and actual emissions, this proposed target, I feel, borders on the ridiculous. Tasmanian governments have been patting themselves on the back for the last half dozen or so years or so that our greenhouse gas reporting indicates Tasmania has already achieved net zero status. I recognise there is still contention regarding that greenhouse gas reporting methodology but the point remains, why on earth are we legislating that in seven years or so time we are to achieve something we apparently already did six years ago? Surely, we would have red tape busters from the Office of the Coordinator-General swooping down on a provision like that before the ink was even dry.
Submissions to the exposure draft bill argue that instead we should be legislating something meaningful which will then also serve as a tangible baseline from which serious ongoing climate adaptation and mitigation efforts can build so that we are as well positioned as possible by the time we reach the 2030 tipping point. Such submissions made by those with relevant expertise, such as the Climate Tasmania group that I know has been engaging with many of us, that they have nominated the net zero target to be 31 December 2023. While that may appear awfully soon, remember that according to the latest greenhouse gas reports we are already there.
If the backslapping is to be believed then actually there should not be an issue with nominating 31 December this year. Legislating for an earlier target is also consistent with the IPCC statement, to which I referred earlier, that emissions must peak before 2025 and then be well on the decrease leading into 2030.
Nor can we leave the tipping point of 2030 as if it is an end in itself. This bill is disturbingly silent on what happens after the tipping point has been passed.
Presumably, the rolling sequence of stipulated plans et cetera will be reporting progress, but without meaningful or legislated targets. Therefore, addressing the nonsensical net zero target of 2030 by instead stipulating that threshold is to be achieved by the end of December next year, then provides an opportunity to legislate actual emission reduction targets to be achieved prior to 2030.
At this stage, I am inclined to agree that solely legislating for a 2023 net zero target without also legislating an absolute target down the track would render the 2023 target as meaningless, without there also being explicit and structural mechanisms signalling it is to be maintained, and to serve as a basis to drive down actual emissions as we transition through to the decarbonised economy we know we need to arrive at.
I expect this point will be discussed further in detail in the Committee stage, so I will leave it there. The key point I wanted to make is that the 2030 tipping point is very real, within and at the global scale, and therefore locally we have a responsibility to make our preparation for it as meaningful and robust as possible. The role of tipping points is something I will come back to later when discussing amendments during this debate.
We have heard a lot about the need for a just transition, particularly in the context of impacts upon local economies, industries and employment insecurity, and we will continue to do so, I expect. It will certainly be a feature of this particular debate, no doubt, especially once we begin to consider amendments.
I will not comment in detail on any specific amendments to do with providing a just transition mechanism; however, I do want to spend some time discussing the concepts principles, and why those just transition principles should be embedded in this bill before us.
It is indisputable: the transition to net zero emissions will require a considerable transformation of particular sectors and industries. It is equally indisputable that this prospect can create significant anxiety, confusion and uncertainty, about those communities’ futures.
The involvement and consideration of those affected by the state’s adaptation and resilience plans is pivotal in achieving a just transition leading up to, and continuing beyond, the identified 2030 tipping point.
There are already international examples of effective transition authorities established in countries such as Canada, Germany and Spain. Nationally here, there are moves to legislate a federal independent statutory national energy transition authority that would plan and coordinate new opportunities for affected workers and provide advice to government.
The proposed national transition authority has the support of the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, as well as local councils, superannuation funds and environmental groups.
There is also an established regional transition authority in Victoria’s Latrobe Valley, for example, and currently an alliance of unions, local and environmental groups are campaigning for one to be established in the Hunter Valley, as its coal‑based industries begin to shut down.
Given the established clear need for transition entities as experienced interstate, plus moves to establish one as part of the federal government’s climate response, clearly there is going to be similar need for a similar focus and support to be provided to adjusting Tasmanian communities and workers.
We may not have such a coal reliant economy as some of the examples that I mentioned, but transition shocks will still be felt. Investing in a formal mechanism by which to secure a just transition as we move towards a decarbonised economy, is essential. To not address this now, while debating this amendment bill, would be a wasted opportunity, to say the least because it also risks leaving Tasmanians out of step with our national counterparts.
This current bill should provide an opportunity, a vehicle by which this parliament recognises the need for, and provides an integrated and holistic approach delivering a just transition strategy. I look forward to a more thorough and detailed debate on the merits of a just transition mechanism and what it may look like when we get – and if we get – to the Committee stage.
It will come as a surprise to very few here, that the protection of human rights is a core passion of mine. It was, and remains, pivotal to my seeking election to this place, to work, to progress and build a strong human rights ethos through all our systems of governance.
The climate change crisis is a human rights issue. On 28 July this year, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to declare the ability to live in a clean healthy and sustainable environment a universal human right. It also called on governments, the private sector and other organisations to increase efforts to deliver that human right.
I do not have the time now to detail all the ways in which climate change is a human rights issue, but it is pertinent to this debate and this bill to examine some implications of the July UN resolution. While this UN resolution is not legally binding on its member states, such as Australia, in some jurisdictions it could have serious ramifications for the growing field of climate-related litigation. Again, something from which Tasmania is not immune.
However, even without specific human rights laws, a human rights-based approach to climate change can drive the prioritisation of environmental protection and climate action by highlighting the ways in which climate harms impact our human rights and by ensuring any climate responses are driven by those most affected by climate change. Studies have identified that successful human rights-based climate response models tend to share common elements, including these: the participation of rights holders in decision-making processes; clear links to human rights; accountability for duty bearers with respect to human rights; respect for principles of equality and non-discrimination of rights holders; the empowerment of rights holders to understand and enjoy their human rights and participate in decision making and the formulation of laws, policies and practices that impact upon them; and finally, transparency for all stakeholders involved.
Legal research at the Monash University Centre for Human Rights Law, Scott Walker, states: (tbc)
A human-rights-based approach to climate policy has the potential to focus our nation’s climate change responses on those most directly impacted by climate change, including first nations peoples, persons experiencing homelessness and those living in rural and remote communities. It would empower them to participate in decision making and the formulation of laws, policies and practices to address climate change.
I am sure it is clear where I am going with this. Not only is climate change a human rights issue, but by taking a human-rights-based approach and developing and implementing our climate response, we can ensure we are on a trajectory towards a more effective, inclusive, accountable and just transition. An inclusive human-rights-based approach is consistent with and furthers the proposed new objects of the act as set out in this bill. As Scott Walker states in his article: (tbc)
While progress will not be linear and will require sustained campaigning and community action, a human-rights-based approach has the potential to provide us tools to respond to the turbulent climate we face. A human rights response to climate change has the potential to marshal actions to avoid falling over the precipice into climate disaster.
A human-rights-based approach clearly has a bearing upon the themes discussed earlier in my contribution of the need to specifically include sectors such as Tasmanian young people and the Tasmanian Aboriginal communities into our climate response framework, as well as the identified need for a formal just transition method. A human rights-based approach is also central to the need for broader representation of involvement in greater accountability, transparency and parliamentary oversight.
This bill basically provides for the minister of the day, along with select business and industry representatives from specified sectors to do the doing, or at least develop a plan by which the rest of us would need to abide. Other than the occasional consultation opportunity or receipt of tabled reports and draft plans, those empowered to act in any meaningful way within the Climate Change (State Action) Act is remarkably limited, especially given the urgent imperative on this most pressing policy issue of our time. There are amendments circulating to provide greater inclusion and improved ongoing parliamentary oversight and accountability mechanisms. Again, I will leave until later making my substantive argument in relation to those particular proposals.
In the interim though, I do want to address some of the things in the argument I have heard put forward to justify rejecting calls for the inclusion of, say an expert advisory body and the establishment of a joint House standing committee on climate change. Hopefully, that will mean we do not have to waste too much time in the Committee stages discussing these, because I certainly consider them to be mostly quite blatant red herrings, one of which is the spurious argument that scientists have made the case so we do not need them in the room anymore. We are now convinced of the climate emergency and now we just need to talk to those who can fix it, i.e. apparently, those in the sectors which can drive the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
At the risk of generalisation, the main reason those sectors are in a position to drive emissions down is because they are, in the main, responsible for producing those emissions and have usually benefitted, financially or otherwise, while doing so. This is commonly referred to as a vested interest. By all means, they should be involved, but other voices and other areas of expertise should also be involved and included.
To briefly circle back to the potted chronology, I opened with. That, in itself, paints a stark picture detailing that climate science is not static. It is the understanding of climate impacts and ramifications. The diverse range of particular expertise has developed exponentially since the 1950s and it will continue to do so. Yet, some things do remain consistent over the decades. Since as the historical first World Climate Conference of 1979, which had 350 specialists spanning diverse disciplines which included agriculture, water resources, fisheries, energy, environment, ecology, biology, medicine, sociology and economics. While, nobody here is arguing for 350 representatives to be involved in developed sector-based emissions reduction plans, the diversity of experience and lived experience does need to be formally provided for in an appropriate mechanism.
The impact of these industries and sectors does not not occur in isolation, nor should any purported solution be developed in isolation. This crisis requires a new way for government to do business and clearly the other paramount consideration is making the delivery of action plans, risk assessment reports and sector emission reduction and resilience plans meaningful and accountable. The tabling of reports periodically in parliament is a useful first step, but it is limited in providing for interrogation or relevant evidence-based input. I do also note here the phenomena we have heard described in briefing as ‘the policy churn.’ This refers to the fact that say, here in Tasmania, we have seen a lot of plans, but not a lot of progress in reducing non-forestry emissions.
From 2007 until now, there have been seven ministers responsible for climate change, two of them held the role twice. From parties of every stripe, Labor, Greens and Liberal. Across the same period, there have been six climate related emissions reductions plans put forward by those ministers. Yet, from 2007 to 2019, non-forestry emissions have barely reduced in Tasmania.
‘Policy churn,’ now, it is interesting we have heard the minister make the argument to us today, apparently, that is because those were produced just by consulting with the scientists about the problem. We have not then engaged with the industries themselves who will be the ones, according to the minister, to fix the problem. That is interesting, it is his government that has been responsible for that for the last eight or so years and probably quite a number of those reports if not four or five of the ministers. I am glad they are pivoting to something they feel might work better. In the meantime, I am not sure. I think he is being somewhat disingenuous in attributing a lack of progress purely to absence of industry from those plans. It probably felt quite virtuous in the past to produce lovely looking glossy plans. There is certainly plenty of busy work in it. The thing that was missing, perhaps alongside the presence of engagement with industry, was rigorous accountability. Specified targets and accountability around them. Ambitious oversight, ambitious and appropriate expectations from the community incorporated into those plans.
Without that kind of rigorous accountability, we risk a continued lack of progress. The longer that continues, the more exponentially we see damages and costs rise for all of us in community and particularly, for those most vulnerable.
I am very interested to see, perhaps the minister and I are both somewhat right, but the bill as it stands now incorporates the minister’s view of what is needed, engagement with industry, but it does not incorporate sufficiently what I believe is needed, and that is that much more rigorous accountability. I would like us to put both those things in there and see if we can use both our ideas of what is needed to work, going forward. Why not do everything we can, pull every lever we can?
How do we ensure that action and real progress are made beyond producing plans? We need to find ways that hold people to account, hold governments, hold sectors, hold the community, for us to hold each other to account.
We know that in the course of considering this bill there is a range of potential oversight and accountability issues that have been identified that are not currently provided for in the bill, which could be addressed and will be addressed in discussion of some amendments.
It brings me to the second spurious argument that I have heard that I would like to mention, that I believe needs to be rebuffed. It relates to one of the proposed oversight mechanisms which is a joint House standing committee on climate change. I will mention briefly, although we will discuss it in much more detail later, apparently it has been argued that this parliament does not have a culture or precedent of establishing special parliamentary standing committees on such areas as health or others, where there is a shared interest across the Chamber or parliament.
I beg to differ, and so does the public record on this. At the same time this bill was being debated in the lower House, in fact, both Chambers had just formally agreed to the establishment of a joint committee on gender and equality. Further, if we look back since the enactment of the Integrity Commission Act 2009, this parliament has had in place a joint standing committee on integrity, this particular issue, established under Division 2 of that act. I am hopeful that we will get a change to discuss proposed amendments in these areas and we can, I hope, forgo silly excuses or unsubstantiated arguments and focus on the real benefits and rationale for a joint standing committee that relates to this area.
Things like the joint standing committee and other accountability mechanisms are consistent with a human rights-based approach by encouraging all Tasmanians to contribute to our climate response.
It goes some way towards providing the mechanisms to reckon with the exploitation of our environment and hold accountable governments which fail to act adequately on climate change. (TBC)
That was a quote again from Scott Walker.
I also note, there is a range of other amendments being circulated and I will discuss them in greater detail at the time of their debate. I am going to flag here some of the areas I am interested in exploring in greater detail during the Committee stages. The refining of meaningful net zero emissions targets and actual emissions reduction targets is a key area. There is also discussion to be had regarding the inclusion of numerical estimates of emissions reduction in the Climate Change Action Plans, as well as the sectoral or emission reduction and resilience plans. Time frames by which particular plans and risk assessments are to occur is an area for discussion and the range of stakeholders able to participate at various stages of the framework provided for in this bill, are also areas I intend to explore more thoroughly during Committee stages.
In the meantime, I have another question relating to this bill that I would like to take the opportunity to ask the Leader. There are numerous references to time frames in this bill being triggered by receiving Royal Assent. For example, new clause 5C subsection (3) and (4) on page 14 which detail that within 12 months of the act receiving Royal Assent, the transport sector-based emissions reduction and resilience plan is to be prepared. Whereas, for other sectors they have until 24 months from the day on which the act receives Royal Assent.
In other cases, such as new clause 5B, ‘Statewide climate change risk assessment’, on page 12 of the bill, subsection (1) requires the minister to prepare a statewide climate change risk assessment within two years after the commencement of this act. It is just a practical question, but my question is this: Leader, could you clarify for me that it is the Government’s intent that all sections of the final bill will commence the same time the final act receives Royal Assent? Is there a particular reason why some specified time frames are triggered by commencement rather than Royal Assent? It is probably just my lack of experience to not understand what that is.
To conclude, following the positive tipping point sparked by Greta Thunberg and the global young people’s movement demanding decision-makers act on climate change, the European Parliament voted in 2019 to declare a climate emergency with speakers attributing their decision to support this to Greta and that youth movement. Others followed suit, including Pope Francis, who declared a climate emergency in June 2019 and in November that year the Oxford dictionary declared the term ‘climate emergency’ word of the year.
However, as members may recall, the first governmental declaration of a climate emergency in the world was made by the city of Darebin in Melbourne which declared a climate emergency on 5 December 2016. A recent estimate has put the global number of jurisdictions that have since declared a climate emergency as of September 2022 at 2274 jurisdictions which demonstrates how instrumental catalysts can originate from all walks of life, from all tiny corners of the globe. Such instrumental catalysts could originate in proposed independent expert advisory bodies, in just transition mechanisms and also from those even appearing before parliamentary committee hearings.
The minister has declared he considers 2030 our tipping point in line with the IPCC’s projections. The intent of this bill, it is argued, is to establish frameworks by which the new to be mandated net zero greenhouse gas emissions’ target is reached by the mid 2030 tipping point. There are regular reports on progress with sectors of the community consulted to some degree at specific steps along the way. As mentioned earlier, there is a strong argument that we need to have moved beyond net zero emissions by the time we reach 2030 if we are to have embarked on a sustainable inclusive trajectory towards transition to a low emissions future, as mentioned in the proposed new objects of the act.
What will be apparent as we draw closer to the 2030 tipping point and when we look back on it in future decades, is whether the framework we are debating here today made the type of intervention resulting in long-term and hard to reverse consequences that benefit a few, such as those represented by mobilised capital that left people behind, entrenching divisions and leaving avoidable gaps and missed opportunities to protect our unique natural environment. Or did the tipping point mark a milestone in our drive to develop a positive synergy between achieving actual emission reduction targets and building a genuinely just transition that was inclusive, equitable, innovative, resilient, accountable and transparent? Whether the state’s Climate Change Action Plan is a living document open to being regularly fine-tuned, detailing a pathway that people can see and feel confident in, rather than feeling alienated and resentful towards.
The suite of amendments flagged that touch on the areas I have discussed here in my contribution are consistent with the intent of this bill. They are to intervene in our greenhouse gas impacting activities in a manner that sets Tasmania on a trajectory, where the irreversible long-term consequences of that intervention respects universal human rights while building a stronger, healthier, resilient and more equitable society, and also protecting our natural environment for future generations. That will be the baseline criteria by which I will evaluate any amendments debated in the committee stage which trajectory to and beyond the 2030 tipping point will they reinforce? As I consider each amendment, will they put Tasmania on to the positive trajectory of climate change mitigation and application in an effective and coherent and just way? If so, they are arguably consistent with the new objects of the act as detailed in the bill.
The harsh reality is we have barely eight years before the 2030 tipping point. We are already on a trajectory of some sort. It is whether we can wrench back some degree of control to use that trajectory to fashion the sustainable future for the Tasmania we want. Well may we look back at the chronology with which I opened and rue our collective failure to heed the warnings and calls to action from 1979 through the 1980s, the 1990s, to earlier this year with the release of the IPCC’s warning bell to humanity as described by the UN Secretary General.
Let us ensure we take whatever opportunity is available to us now to ensure that in future decades Tasmanians have little need to look back and rue any current unheeded warnings or calls to action as we consider this bill.
I wish to close by again quoting from the IPCC statement released with the working group’s recent report in February, this year.
It said this:
Our assessment clearly shows that tackling all these different challenges involves everyone – governments, the private sector, civil society – working together to prioritize risk reduction, as well as equity and justice, in decision‑making and investment.
In this way different interests, values and world views can be reconciled. By bringing together scientific and technological know-how as well as Indigenous and local knowledge, solutions will be more effective. Failure to achieve climate resilient and sustainable development will result in a sub‑optimal future for people and nature.
