Executive Summary
The Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy was tasked with inquiring into the Climate Change (Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020 (the Substantive Bill) and Climate Change (Adaptation and Mitigation) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020 (the Secondary Bill).
The Committee received over 6500 submissions and had three public hearing days where 49 witnesses appeared. As a part of the process the Committee reports on the inquiry to the Australian Parliament.
It was unfortunately not possible to reach bipartisan agreement on the Chair’s Final Report (Main Report) and recommendations flowing from the inquiry. Despite the evidence received being overwhelmingly in support of the Bills, the Government members of the Committee refused to incorporate the full extent of that support in the Main Report or support recommendations to progress the Bills or development of Australian climate policy.
Prime Minister Scott Morrison has on a number of occasions stated that Australia would not be told by the international community what its climate policy should be - that Australian policy would be set in Australia. Yet here was the opportunity to listen to a broad section of Australian civic society, environmental and business groups, industry, unions and health on what is needed by way of policy to address climate change impacts in Australia. But still the Government Members of the Committee were not willing to listen and acknowledge that better policy is needed in Australia.
The Main Report does not accurately reflect the broad support shown in submissions and by witnesses at the public hearings for the Bills and fails to make recommendations to benefit this policy area. It overlooks the many voices, in particular from the business community, calling for a cohesive and co-ordinated national framework and clear legislated commitment to net zero by 2050. Predictably, the Main Report argues that Australia’s current approach is adequate, that the Government will ‘meet and exceed’ its commitment.
As the evidence bore out throughout the inquiry, that is simply not the case. Further, current efforts are insufficient to meet Australia’s commitment under the Paris Agreement to pursue efforts to keep warming to 1.5°C. It is clear that these Bills are needed to ensure a fully coordinated response to the many challenges climate change impacts will have across all sectors of Australian society and economy.
Importantly, the evidence clearly demonstrated that climate change impacts are being felt now across many sectors, from business to health, farming to industry and planning. The lack of clear policy and coordination between risk assessment and mitigation action is creating uncertainty and increased costs. This is not a problem for the future but one impacting Australian business and lives now and requires improved policy settings and framework. The overwhelming majority of submissions and witnesses submitted that the Climate Change Bills propose an effective national framework that Australia needs to improve its policy settings and coordinate its disparate climate policies.
The core elements of the Bills, including the objects, guiding principles, a legislated net zero target by 2050, five yearly emissions budgets, National Climate Change Risk Assessments and National Adaptation Plans, to help Australia prepare for and respond to the consequences of global warming, were clearly supported by the evidence, as was the need for a strong independent expert Commission to advise the Government. Much of the evidence presented to the inquiry was in support, however as the Main Report detailed, there was compelling evidence that the Bills could be improved with amendments. Some amendments will be adopted, and the Bills will be re-introduced at a later date.
Finally, a series of recommendations based on evidence provided to the Committee were proposed to progress this policy area in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, whilst supported by the opposition members of the Committee (other than the final recommendation to which opposition members abstained), Government Members of the Committee did not support these recommendations. Proposed recommendations were:
The Committee received overwhelming evidence, particularly from community members, that urged an end to the political impasse on climate change and for all sides to work together. Climate change is an existential threat and as such should be a multi-partisan matter. Therefore, the Government should establish a multi-partisan Joint Select Committee on Climate Change to review matters of climate policy and to offer members of all sides an opportunity to work together to find common solutions to the challenge.
Recommendation 1: Establish a Joint Select Committee on Climate Change.
Much of the discussion during the inquiry was around the role and operation of the proposed Climate Change Commission that would replace the Climate Change Authority. Noting the evidence received was critical of the operation and utilisation of the Climate Change Authority by the Government, it is recommended that the Climate Change Authority Act 2011 (Cth) be independently reviewed for efficiency, effectiveness, and ability to give independent advice.
Recommendation 2: That the Climate Change Authority Act 2011 be reviewed to assess its efficiency, effectiveness, and ability to give independent advice.
Evidence received by the Committee suggested that Australia’s current 2030 target and lack of legislated 2050 target was not sufficient to limit warming to as close to 1.5°C as possible and urged the Government to commit to net zero by 2050 as a bare minimum. The Climate Change Authority can be requested by the Minister to conduct special reviews on climate policy including targets, yet the Minister has not requested such a review at least since the last review in 2014. It is therefore recommended that the Minister request the Climate Change Authority to review Australia’s 2030 target and provide advice on the adequate long-term target to limit warming to as close to 1.5°C as possible.
Recommendation 3: That the Minister request that the Climate Change Authority review Australia’s 2030 target and provide advice on the adequate long-term target to limit warming to as close to 1.5°C as possible.
Many inquiry participants highlighted the value of a full costing of climate impacts. However, the evidence received from the Department of Agriculture, Water, and the Environment (DAWE) was that no costing of national climate impacts has been undertaken. It is understood that DAWE will update the 2015 ‘National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy’ (the Strategy). It is therefore requested that as part of the works on the update to the Strategy, DAWE undertake a costing of climate impacts across sectors, including but not limited to tourism, agriculture, mining, and health.
Recommendation 4: That as part of the update to the National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy DAWE undertake a full assessment of the costs of climate impacts across sectors.
Much of the discussion in the inquiry was centred on Australia’s long-term emissions reduction ambition and what that meant for the setting of emissions reduction targets. As part of that discussion, many submissions and witnesses called on the Government to commit to net zero by 2050. The Prime Minister has also committed to net zero ‘as soon as possible’ and ‘preferably by 2050’. Yet, from the evidence it was not clear on whether work was underway on modelling the implications of that target. Noting that the current position of the Government is to undertake modelling on long term emissions pathways as part of the long-term emissions reduction strategy to be taken to the Conference of the Parties 26 in Glasgow, the Government should request that the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, as part of that analysis, model pathways to net zero by 2050.
Recommendation 5: That the Government instruct the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources to model a pathway to net zero emissions by 2050.
Substantial evidence was received by the Committee calling for the Bills to be debated in Parliament and allowed a conscience vote. A conscience vote is 'a rare vote in parliament, in which members are not obliged by the parties to follow a party line, but vote according to their own moral, political, religious, or social beliefs’. Previous conscience votes have happened on other contentious issues such as marriage equality, euthanasia, and sex discrimination. Climate change is an issue of such stature that should be debated on the floor of Parliament and be allowed by both parties as a free vote. It is therefore recommended that the Government consider allowing the Bills to be debated and voted on as a matter of conscience.
Recommendation 6: That the Bills be allowed to be debated in Parliament.
Of the more than 6500 submissions and 49 witnesses that presented to the inquiry, over 99% were in support of the Bills. Given the evidence received in support, there is no doubt that passing the Bills would have substantial positive effect on Australia’s policy suite and international standing. It is therefore recommended that the Bills be passed.
Recommendation 7: That the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020 and Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020 be passed.
The impacts of climate change are undisputed, and Australia is exposed to its worst effects
Australia is currently not doing enough to act
Australia’s policy settings can be improved
The Climate Change Bills are an effective framework to guide climate action
The Climate Change Bills are in line with the science
The Objects of the Bill and Guiding Principles assist decision makers and guide action
Australia needs a legislated net zero target, five yearly emissions budgeting and emissions reduction plans
Five yearly emissions budgets
Emissions reduction plans
An independent Commission is needed to advise Government
National Climate Change Risk Assessments and National Adaptation Plans will help Australia deal with the consequences of climate change
The Climate Change Bills – a way forward
The Bills can be improved
Introduction
Climate change is already impacting every sector in Australia and these impacts are predicted to worsen over time. The evidence received highlighted the many areas where current policy was described to be inadequate, lacking coordination or non-existent.
The evidence highlighted that the Bills’ effectiveness lies in their flexible framework design that co-ordinates and directs climate policy at the national level. The core elements are a legislated net zero target, emissions budgets, risk assessments and national adaptation plans, all underpinned by an independent Climate Change Commission (CCC). Taken together these allow for comprehensive coordinated action above and beyond what is currently being pursued at the national level.
The Committee received a large number of submissions totalling more than 6500 and heard from 49 witnesses over three public hearings days. Approximately 99% of submissions and witnesses were in support of debating and passing the Bills. Several dozen submissions were also broadly in support of the legislated approach but also provided detailed feedback on improvements that could be made to the Bills.
The evidence received by the Committee also suggested that many in the community hoped that the Bills could break many years of policy deadlock on climate change and be a bipartisan way forward.
Of the few submissions not in support, the issues raised could be categorised as concerns about the duplication of existing policies, additional bureaucracy, the role of the proposed CCC and its independence, and disputes about the science of climate change and the need to address global warming.
The impacts of climate change are undisputed, and Australia is exposed to its worst effects
The Main Report, although accepting climate change is happening, did not reflect the evidence of the urgency and scale of the challenge. Numerous witnesses presented evidence that climate change is happening now, and that Australia is uniquely susceptible to its impacts. The Environmental Defenders Office, citing the Bureau of Meteorology, stated:
Australia is already experiencing the impacts of climate change, which include increasing temperatures, the warming and acidification of oceans, sea level rise, decreased rainfall in southern parts of the country and increased and more extreme rainfall in the north, longer dry spells, greater number of extreme heat days and the long-term increase in extreme fire weather.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) highlighted the dire effects these changes would have on Australia’s natural environment:
Australia is already the world leader in mammal extinction. In the last 200 years we've lost over a hundred species, and recent studies have found that up to half of all plant and animal species in biodiversity hotspots like south-west Australia could face local extinction by the turn of the century due to climate change, if carbon emissions continue to rise unchecked.
Various submissions outlined that impacts will not only affect Australia’s natural environment but also economic growth, productivity, infrastructure, international trade, and diplomacy as well. Pollination Group noted:
From an economic perspective, based on our current trajectory, a recent report published by Deloitte Access Economics concluded that failure to take decisive action on climate change in Australia will cost the economy $3.4 trillion and 880,000 jobs in the next 50 years. By contrast, adopting a policy of green growth would see an additional $680 billion pumped into the economy and create 250,000 jobs over the same period of time.
Local governments outlined the potential risks to Australia’s infrastructure:
In Australia, between 26,000 and 33,000 of kilometres of roads and between 157,000 and 247,000 residential buildings are potentially at risk from the combined impact of inundation and erosion due to projected sea level rise. Local government-owned public assets that are at risk from climate change have been valued at $212 billion.
Out of all local governments that participated, the City of Melbourne was distinctively exposed and found that if there is no change to the current level of ambition on Australian climate change policy, it would cost the Melbourne economy around $12.6 billion by 2050. Aware Super noted that the overall combined affects to all Australia’s physical infrastructure could number up to $5 trillion in cumulative losses.
Further, the Impact Investment Group drew the Committee’s attention to the potential downstream effects on Australia’s diplomatic relationships and international trade with delayed action:
If Australia further delays taking strong legislative action on climate change, our national reputation will be further damaged. This, in turn, damages our companies' reputations and their professional relationships. It also exposes our exporters to explicit and implicit trade barriers, as more of our main trading partners are expected to reflect their climate policy in their trade treaties, thereby protecting the competitiveness of their local constituents. This could hit our already-vulnerable regional communities particularly hard.
Given these impacts and despite the prevailing pandemic, several submissions stressed the urgent need for action. Science & Technology Australia furthered that:
Even amidst a global pandemic, the challenge of climate change is a pressing concern. The projected disruptions to the planet’s climate - and the resulting risks to food and water security, the economy, and human health - would be substantially more challenging to navigate than even the COVID-19 pandemic … The most recent State of the Climate report by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO presents a grim picture for Australia’s climate. The hopes of limiting climate change to 1 degree have faded, but this does not mean efforts to limit climate change should be abandoned.
Equally many submissions found that despite the risks, there were substantial opportunities if a transition to a low carbon economy was embraced. In his opening remarks to the public hearings, Mr. Buckley of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) stated before the Committee:
The costs of inaction are huge, but we also need to figure in that the opportunities for Australia are equally huge and that Australia will be a world superpower in renewable energy, and that opportunity shouldn't be overlooked. To me, Australia should be a leader, not a laggard as we currently are.
This sentiment was shared by many of the inquiry participants. Dr. Nicky Ison of WWF-Australia went into further detail about the kinds of opportunities available to Australia if a transition was embraced, outlining:
We have some of the best renewable resources in the world, we have abundant land and we have strong trading relationships with countries like Japan and South Korea, who are going to need our help and our renewable resources in order to achieve their net zero by 2050 targets. We also have the expertise. Australians invented the modern solar cell. We also have the mineral resources essential to decarbonising the world. We are, for example, the world's leading exporter of lithium, a mineral essential to the production of batteries and electric vehicles. However, last year we captured just 0.5 per cent of the value of that commodity. We are also the world's leading exporter of iron ore. If we were to create an onshore green steel industry, the Grattan Institute projects we could create 25,000 new jobs, though Andrew Forrest, just last week, put that number closer to 40,000.
Our abundant renewable resources mean that we will have some of the cheapest renewable electricity in the world. This can power our manufacturing in existing industrial centres, such as Gladstone, the Hunter Valley and Bell Bay. Indeed, Bell Bay is arguably already being powered by renewable energy, as Tasmania achieved 100 per cent renewable status last year.
These are just a few of the many opportunities that Australia is presented with as the world acts on climate change. However, we risk being left behind in the global race to renewables.
Given the risks and opportunities before Australia, we need to elevate our policy ambition because we are currently not doing enough.
Australia is currently not doing enough to act
Notwithstanding the urgency of the crisis, the extensive potential impacts and opportunities in transitioning to a low carbon economy, and despite the Main Report insisting that Australia is ‘meeting and exceeding’ its current targets, several submissions, including from the Australasian Centre for Corporate Responsibility (ACCR), stated that the Commonwealth Government was currently not doing enough on climate change:
Despite being a signatory to the Paris Agreement, Australia’s carbon pollution trajectory is far from where it needs to be. Analysts from various quarters including the International Monetary Fund, Climate Action Tracker and NDEVR Environmental Auditing have drawn attention to the stubbornly high rate of Australian carbon pollution, which must fall sharply to meet commitments government representatives made in Paris in 2015.
Seemingly in response to critical comments about Australia’s performance and ongoing policy uncertainty, throughout the inquiry’s public hearings, the Government members of the Committee defended the Government’s current policy and emissions reduction targets and drew participants’ attention to the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources’ (DISER) submission, which purported to show Australia performing well in investment in renewable energy per capita and per capita emissions reductions. This contention also featured in the Main Report at paragraph 2.68.
For example, on 29 January 2021, the Chair quizzed the Clean Energy Council’s (CEC) Ms Anna Freeman:
CHAIR: Thank you all very much. My first question might go to the Clean Energy Council and, Ms Freeman, some of the comments you were making on a high degree of uncertainty holding back investment. The submission from the Clean Energy Council goes to the same point—that a lack of certainty is restricting investment. I certainly don't challenge the tie between certainty and investment. I understand that link. But I just go back to data we were presented this morning from the department showing that Australia is investing more money in renewables on a per capita basis than probably any other country in the world. The Clean Energy Regulator confirmed last year that the deployment of new renewable energy in Australia on a per capita basis is happening 10 times the global average. So my question to you, then, is: do you reject those statistics on performance or are you talking more about things from a prospective point of view—that, as we move forward, even more can be done?
Ms. Freeman: Thanks for the question. You're absolutely right. We've seen outstanding investment in the last three years. I think we've had something like 200 projects since the start of 2017 be commissioned, be financially committed or are under construction at the present time. A lot of that was driven by the Renewable Energy Target, which no longer provides that same incentive, so there has been a bit of chilling in some of the investor interest. There have been strong incentives for the states, but certainly in the last 18 months or so we've seen a reduction in projects...
The DISER evidence referred to by the Chair can be seen in Figure 1 below:
Figure 1: Attachment E: Change in emissions and renewable energy comparators for selected countries (Source: Department of Industry Science Energy and Resources, Submission 588, p. 17.
In supplementary evidence provided to the Committee by The Australia Institute (TAI), TAI argued that the evidence provided by DISER was misleading, stating:
Recently, the Department of Industry, Science, Industry and Resources (DISER) produced a submission to the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020 with a table titled Attachment E: Change in emissions and renewable energy comparators for selected countries that again suggested Australia is leading in per capita renewable energy uptake.
The fourth column, titled “New renewable energy capacity installed per person 2019 (watts)”, appears to draw exclusively from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) Renewable energy statics 2020 report. DISER seems to extract 2018-2019 data of nine countries and three supranational organisations, to calculate the per-capita change in renewable energy capacity over the year. While the statistic itself is calculated correctly, it misrepresents IRENA’s data.
The Australia Institute analysis of the IRENA report, with per-capita calculations, found:
the 2018-2019 data extracted for Australia corresponded with a surge in capacity … which, as described in BNEF [Bloomberg New Energy Finance] 2020, is not indicative of future trends; and
Sweden and Norway outperformed Australia both in terms of per capita capacity and total renewable energy capacity despite being smaller countries, for every year on record.
In an exchange with the Chair on the same point, energy financial analyst Mr. Tim Buckley from IEEFA disputed Australia’s performance both in renewable investment and more broadly. He stated:
Is Australia a world leader, 10 times better than every other country in the world on average, as you cited? To me that's cherry-picking the data. At the end of the day, per capita, we're a very small country. I will go back to the guiding principle of the Paris Agreement: common but differentiated responsibilities. Australia is an OECD country. We should be doing more than our fair share because India, Africa and China didn't cause the problem; Indonesia is wearing the problem. So, when we talk per capita, it's a great way of redefining the data to try and make Australia look good, when the opportunities for Australia are huge. As Professor Hughes cited, the UN is ranking Australia as a global laggard. That's the independent referee, not the data for any particular day, week, month, year. To me, if we want to divide numbers by per capita, that's missing the big picture. The opportunities for Australia to be a world leader are very clear.
Australia is not doing our fair share. If we want to look at other stats—EVs—we're a global laggard; vehicle emissions standards, we're a global laggard; power plant emission standards, we're a global laggard; and if we look at value-adding of our resource exports, we're a global laggard.
Mr. Buckley also provided a supplementary graph showing declining renewable investment in 2019 and 2020. See Figure 2:
Figure 2: Renewable Energy Investment has Declined in 2019 and 2020 (source: Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), Submission 346.1, p. 5.
He believed the causes for this decline were related to the Renewable Energy Target and lack of clear federal climate policy:
The downgrading and subsequent expiry of the Renewable Energy Target (RET), absent any follow-on energy or climate policy of any credibility, has undermined investor confidence dramatically, despite the fact that renewable energy in Australia is now the least cost source of new generation.
Regarding Australia’s per capita emissions reductions performance in the second column of Attachment E, Mr. Buckley believed the data was cherry picked and presenting a ‘false narrative that Australia was making strong progress on green house gas (GHG) emissions reductions relative to leading countries’.
To that point the Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering (ATSE) simply stated ‘per capita emissions are irrelevant to our targets and their inclusion seems to be aimed at obfuscation,’ and ‘”clever” reporting of emissions is no substitute for meaningful, consistent policies that are well informed by the science.’
Mr. Buckley provided supplementary evidence suggesting that DISER had chosen the base year of emissions from 2005-2018, ‘knowing [that] 2005 was one of the five highest recordings in Australian recorded history’. And further stated that ‘if the Department had chosen 2000 as the base year, there would be no material improvement in our national GHG emissions in the last two decades…’. For Figure 3 please see below.
Figure 3: Net greenhouse gas emissions under the UNFCCC, by sector, Australia, 1990-2019 (Mt CO2-e) (Source: IEEFA, Submission 346.1, p. 2.
Putting aside the dispute on the renewable energy investment and emissions reductions figures, the Committee also heard that there is strong community opinion that Australia needs to act beyond current commitments. In a submission to the inquiry, TearFund stated:
There is clear support amongst the Australian constituency to act. In a recent poll, more than 80% of Australians wanted the government to enhance their climate action, and more than 90% wanted to see more renewable energy.
Community opinion on the need for stronger action was also reflected in the many submissions received by the Committee from members of the public. For example, Mr. John Waterhouse stated:
I’d have liked the Government to acknowledge and address these issues years ago and think it’s a gross failure of leadership and governance that this has not happened ... We desperately need action from Government to drive and regulate climate change action, not least to provide a policy framework to encourage long term investment. Concern about coal-fired power stations closing (at the end of their effective lives) shows the lack of investment that has resulted precisely from a lack of Federal Government leadership.
Dr. James McArdle felt similarly:
Iʼm writing to ask that Parliament cease its equivocation on climate action. Global heating is a real threat to our safety, and increasingly so for our children, and a moral issue over which Australians and their Government must take steps to plan and prepare, instead of retreating into denial. It is a global issue in which we all have a stake and which should accordingly transcend party politics.
Christine O’Grady, a former teacher from New South Wales, submitted Australia is simply not doing enough and needs to ‘raise the bar!’ ...and ‘get off the treadmill and move at a rapid pace towards a feasible net zero goal’.
There is no time to waste. In the words of Osher Günsberg, ‘We must act with enormous volition, we must show leadership in our region, and we must enrol the full might of our economy in this direction.’
Australia’s policy settings can be improved
It is no surprise that people felt this way. Despite the Main Report insisting Australia’s climate policy framework is adequate, the Committee heard from several witnesses that Australia’s current climate policy landscape is insufficient to drive emissions reductions, including the Technology Investment Roadmap, and would be improved by an integrated and coordinated response, as provided by the Bills. The CEC asserted:
The opportunity for Australia to prosper in a carbon-constrained world is clear. Yet our ambition and our pathway are not. Australia’s climate change and energy policy framework is a patchwork of Federal, state and territory government policies, targets and interventions fundamentally working to fill the void created by the absence of an integrated climate change and energy policy framework.
The Australian Industry Group, representing heavy industrial emitters and workers, also suggested a more comprehensive approach is needed, above the response detailed in the Main Report:
While Australia has undertaken valuable and important climate policies, we would be better off with a more integrated and systematic approach to mitigation, adaptation and the assessment of progress. The iterative Technology Roadmap process is a step in this direction, but is limited in scope. …
In short, while the Commonwealth has taken significant steps on climate over the years, it would be positive for industry and the rest of the community if Australia adopted clearer long term national goals around climate and pursued these in a more strategic and systematic manner.
The Technology Investment Roadmap (the Roadmap) was announced in May 2020 and is one of the Government’s signature policies for climate action alongside the Climate Solutions Package. The Roadmap ‘is a strategy to accelerate development and commercialisation of low emissions technologies’. It sets out a process to assess low emissions technologies and selects which technologies will be the focus of Government, sets aspirational targets only, and a governance structure to provide advice to the Minister on technologies and is supported by funding streams from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.
ATSE found that Australia’s current approach, including the Roadmap, was ‘unambitious’ and ‘in some cases it is seemingly designed to protect incumbents and slow the uptake of new technologies that can help us reduce our emissions’.
It is no surprise that other witnesses like the City of Melbourne argued for a comprehensive policy response to climate change including a national framework on climate change:
A national framework for climate change action is needed to address these challenges and support local governments to respond to the climate challenge in ways which protect the health and livelihoods of communities, and create economic growth … The City of Melbourne believes a national response to the challenges of climate change would create opportunities for the most efficient and effective deployment of solutions across Australia to the benefit of all communities.
The Climate Change Bills are an effective framework to guide climate action
In light of the inadequacies with current Government policies, various witnesses felt that the Bills could be an effective addition to Australia’s climate policy suite.
The Business Council on Sustainable Development Australia (BCSD) was one organisation that believed the Bills complemented a range of different existing climate policies including:
The National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System, the Safeguard Mechanism, corporate obligations under the 4th edition of the Corporate Governance Principles; the recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures; the Sustainable Investment Movement (supporting the recently released Australian Sustainable Finance Investment Roadmap); and the Technology Investment Roadmap.
The Business Council of Australia (BCA) also suggested the Bills both complement existing policies and provide:
… an architecture which will be critical to mapping out a planned and predictable approach to emissions reduction across the economy as we work towards the net-zero target in 2050 — noting that many of the individual policy measures required for such a response are already a part of the national and jurisdictional governments’ suite of climate-related policies. Importantly, the proposed legislation provides a much needed overarching framework for streamlining and consolidating these existing measures.
Not just a complementary policy, the NSW Council of Civil Liberties thought that this kind of national framework law was also vital to coordinate action:
A comprehensive framework law is an essential tool to coordinate and advance climate action with respect to both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and climate resilience… A good climate law contains statutory targets, assigns clear duties and responsibilities and provides clarity about the long-term direction of travel.
Picking up on the same coordination theme as the NSW Council of Civil Liberties, some witnesses like the Centre for Policy Development believed the Bills could be a ‘North Star’, a framework to guide all climate action efforts:
We think these bills provide that much-needed north star for our collective response, a national net zero commitment, and provide an independent framework to monitor long-term process, regular carbon budgets and risk assessments to guide the responses...it's based on the best precedence internationally and it's a platform for safeguarding Australia's economic and strategic interests at a moment when they're being fundamentally reshaped by climate impacts and the carbon transition.
Others like the Pollination Group drew the Committee’s attention to examples in other jurisdictions where similar framework legislation had been effective at the state and national level at coordinating and driving action:
We note that the Climate Bill has been modelled on the UK Climate Change Act which has driven meaningful emissions reductions, while growing the UK’s economy by 72%. In the domestic context, the Climate Bill would build on the success of the Victorian Climate Change Act 2017, which was the first piece of legislation to enshrine a net-zero emissions target into law in Australia, and has seen Victoria emerge as a leader at the State level in relation to renewable energy reform and climate action.
ClimateWorks also considered the similarities between the Victorian Climate Act and the Climate Change Bills and how these kind of framework laws assist with driving culture change and behaviour:
In their law journal article, Calabro et al (2018) highlighted the importance of ‘emphasis on embedding a strong policy process, rather than prescribing specific policy measures; changing culture and behaviour across government to mainstream climate change in decision-making’ in the Victorian Climate Change Act. ClimateWorks considers that the Climate Change 2020 Bill would create these aspects at the federal level.
ClimateWorks also pointed to several other nations who have embraced a similar approach including:
Finland (since 2015), France (since 2019), Germany (since 2019), Ireland (since 2015), Mexico (since 2012), New Zealand (since 2019) Philippines (since 2009) and Sweden (since 2017).
In addition, the Committee received evidence from the United Kingdom’s Climate Change Committee (UK CCC), the independent adviser to the United Kingdom Government on Climate Change and established by the UK Climate Change Act 2008. The UK CCC posited that the United Kingdom’s framework climate law had significant benefits and that the Climate Change Bill shares the same qualities:
Over-arching climate legislation such as the proposed Climate Change Bill and the UK’s Climate Change Act can provide the frameworks for meeting those targets at least cost while adapting to the further climate impacts that cannot be avoided. They provide clear signals to investors, help build political consensus and navigate political challenges, and encourage an evidence-based approach to climate policy.
The Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, based in the United Kingdom, has published various studies on the performance of the UK Climate Change Act. They submitted a review which found the UK Climate Change Act had several core benefits including:
Established a firm long-term framework with a clear direction of travel.
Changed the institutional context and strengthened the processes through which climate change is addressed.
Helped UK climate policy to become better informed, more forward looking and better guided by statutory routines.
Contributed to reducing emissions, particularly in the power sector, while the economy has continued to grow.
A national framework climate change law, like those in the United Kingdom, and Victoria, has been beneficial to those jurisdictions’ climate responses. It is not a step too far to therefore suggest that the Bills, based on overseas experience, would not only be complementary to existing policies but would bring benefits above and beyond the current approach. The Bills also have the advantage of being in line with the latest science of climate change.
The Climate Change Bills are in line with the science
Climate change action must be based on the best available science; only then can we be ensured that we are acting in the right areas, with the right speed and with the right technology. But to date, climate science has been treated with disinterest by Australian politicians. In response, several witnesses, including Ms. Julie Beagley, asked that the Government follow the science on climate change like the Government followed the science on COVID-19:
Climate change has somehow become a political issue and it is time to listen to the scientists and take action. The Government has followed the advice of the medical professionals in determining how to manage COVID-19 so why can it not do the same for climate change?
Science & Technology Australia (STA), representing over 80,000 scientists, concurred with Ms. Beagley and stated:
The approach that has protected Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic needs to be applied to climate change. The best available evidence is not only integral in climate change modelling, but in mitigating the effects of climate change already being felt.
The Bills are in line with that science and best research. STA went on to note that the ‘Bill highlights the importance of evidence-informed decision making. Clause 11 “…provides that any decision or action under this Bill must have regards [sic] to the best available peer reviewed research...” among other resources.’
Scientist and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report contributor, Professor Mark Howden, like STA, believed that the Bills were aligned with the science:
…the draft bill is very well aligned with our current understanding of climate science, of the current and future impacts of climate change and the adaption [sic] responses needed and also in relation to the emission reductions needed to achieve the Paris Agreement goals and broader achievement of sustainability across the globe. In particular, the science community synthesises information understood by science and policymakers into the IPCC reports and they are released on a seven-year cycle but also with special reports at intermittent periods. The draft bill very closely aligns with the findings of the IPCC in terms of the science but also, importantly, in terms of …understanding of best practice in the institutional and policy responses required to deal with climate change.
The Academy of Social Sciences in Australia, another prominent organisation in academia, also supported the Bills, submitting that the objects were ‘consistent with international scientific consensus regarding the causes, risks and impacts of anthropogenic climate change’.
Australia’s climate policies must be aligned with the science. The Bills are evidence-based, best practice, policies that leverage our understanding of the science including climate risks and impacts. Furthermore, the Bills’ core elements including a net zero target is based on the latest understanding of the science in line with the IPCC.
The Objects of the Bill and Guiding Principles assist decision makers and guide action
Section 3 of the Substantive Bill establishes the Objects of the Bill. Objects set out the broad objectives of the legislation. Objects are useful for the interpretation of the legislation and any future review of the performance of the Act is judged against them.
Regrettably, the Main Report provided an uneven analysis of the importance of the Objects. The Main Report only highlighted amendments to alter the Objects without showing the broad support they enjoyed.
Inquiry participants were supportive of the Objects of the Bill. The BCA submitted that:
The proposed legislation adopts a science-based, risk management approach to addressing climate change (in its objects and other sections) which is aligned with how business and their shareholders, increasingly, are responding to climate-related risk.
The Responsible Investment Association of Australasia (RIAA) also submitted that:
RIAA can support the Objects of the Act because they are aligned with the global Paris Agreement, as ratified by Australian in October 2016 (3.1b); and adequately focused on the key aspects of an orderly but rapid transition to net zero, being prosperity and security, as well as measures to protect livelihoods, business, and the environment.
Assisting decision makers to make optimal decisions regarding plans, policies and proposals under the Bills are seven guiding principles found in sections 9-16 of the Substantive Bill.
The Main Report touched on the guiding principles, mainly to highlight amendments that would potentially improve them without canvassing the support they had. For example, the Centre for Policy Development stated in support:
The legislation also codifies clear principles for evidence-based and balanced carbon budget creation. These may seem unduly restrictive, but they are an important feature.
RIAA too submitted that the guiding principles were ‘well founded’ and provided a ‘sound underpinning for informed and considered decision making’. RIAA ultimately found them ‘helpful to guide current and future decision making around a transition to net zero...’.
The principles were also supported by ClimateWorks, who submitted:
The proposed Act would establish clear principles for action. These would ensure that plans would look across environmental, social and economic benefits and costs to optimise Australia’s benefit. This is highly important given that climate change has such widespread yet varied impacts that are expected to affect different people, places and industries in different ways.
Objects and guiding principles are essential to guide action. Importantly, they are augmented by other crucial elements in the framework canvassed during the inquiry. In particular, the net zero by 2050 target in the Substantive Bill.
Australia needs a legislated net zero target, five yearly emissions budgeting and emissions reduction plans
Net zero by 2050 in law
The framework proposed by the Bills contains several important elements including legislating a net z target. The inquiry spent significant time and attention on the issue of a net zero target by mid-century and the means to get there.
The target of net zero by 2050 arises out of the IPCC’s Special Report on 1.5ºC. The report finds:
In model pathways with no or limited overshoot of 1.5°C, global net anthropogenic CO2 emissions decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030 (40–60% interquartile range), reaching net zero around 2050 (2045–2055 interquartile range). [Emphasis added]
Following the IPCC report, international consensus has quickly grown around the need to meet net zero by 2050. The NSW Council of Civil Liberties discussed the trend in its submission:
There are now legislated emissions targets of net-zero emissions by 2050 in New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, France and Hungary, among other states. Canada has recently introduced a net zero by 2050 Bill to its Federal Parliament. Australia is increasingly lagging behind other developed states in this regard.
The trend is such that the BCA believed that the ‘central issue now is setting a national target of net-zero emissions by 2050 and, critically, outlining a pathway to achieve this goal’.
To address the issue of a long-term target, the Climate Change Bills propose to legislate a net zero target. The Bills’ Explanatory Memorandum explains that:
The proposed legislation would require … a long-term national emissions target that aligns with scientific imperatives, State government policies and global commitments… Currently, that target is net zero emissions by 2050. The target is reviewed every five years by the independent Climate Change Commission taking into account a range of factors and may only increase in ambition.
Implementing a federal net zero target has several downstream positive effects. The Australian Industry Group felt that setting a long-term goal would benefit co-ordination and investment:
A clear long-term national goal has obvious value in organising the disparate efforts of Commonwealth agencies; coordinating among the States; and providing guidance to industry and other stakeholders to assist long term investment decisions. Achieving net zero emissions by 2050 is the most obvious and widely discussed goal, and is appropriate.
On investment, the Investor Group on Climate Change (IGCC), representing some of Australia’s largest financial institutions including banks and super funds, believed that the net zero goal would facilitate decision making and the management of risk. IGCC stated:
A clear and robust long-term strategy to manage the systemic economic risks of climate change and achieve net zero emissions would support economic growth, avoid unnecessary disruption, unlock investment opportunities and support a just transition in communities impacted by shifting global and domestic markets…
…Economic modelling commissioned by IGCC and undertaken by consultancy Energetics estimates that Australia would create $63 billion in fresh investment opportunities over the next five years by strengthening climate targets and policies in line with reaching net zero emissions by mid-century.
Since the Bills were tabled, there had been some debate as to whether the net zero target need be legislated, as the Bills propose alongside what our peers in other jurisdiction are doing. Reporting suggested that while the Prime Minister was considering adopting net zero by 2050 he would neutralize any threat from his recalcitrant backbench by avoiding a vote in Parliament on it. While potentially politically astute, Australia will miss out on many benefits by not legislating a clear target and providing policy certainty.
The question of the importance of legislating a target was put to some witnesses. For example, the Law Council of Australia (LCA) provided a detailed supplementary submission on that question. The LCA summarised some benefits of a legislated net zero goal:
…a legislated target would provide certainty to policy makers about the guiding policy goal and timing. This will be essential when developing emissions reduction and adaptation plans and assessing the relative merits of different policy options. This assessment is an essential part of the law-making process. For the business and community sectors, a legislated target would provide certainty about the long-term policy framework and reduce legal and regulatory risks.
…For all stakeholders, a legislated target will enhance transparency about current policies and the possibility of change. Where policies remain in place only as long as the prevailing government, and have less public visibility, there is ongoing uncertainty amongst the business and community sectors. Legislation which has a unifying objective, and is backed by strong support across multiple sectors, may help to overcome such uncertainty.
The UK Climate Change Committee (UK CCC) also commented on a statutory net zero target in law. The UK CCC believed that:
The adoption of a statutory 2050 Net-Zero emissions target … will contribute to the delivery of the Paris Agreement. Our experience in the UK has been that setting a legal net zero target for 2050 has greatly clarified what is needed and mobilised greater engagement and ambition across businesses, local government and civil society. It has been widely welcomed and supported by the UK business community.
It was clear from the evidence that substantial work will have to go into navigating the challenge of net zero and the pathway there. It will take orienting the private and public sectors on a common goal and having an integrated and coordinated response.
Whilst the Bills propose to legislate the net zero target, the Government needs to prepare each sector to reach that target and assess the impact and opportunities that the transition will occasion.
However, on the evidence before the inquiry, it is far from clear whether the Government is even planning or requesting DISER to undertake work to plan the best way to net zero emissions, as soon as possible or by a definite target of 2050.
The Main Report states work is ongoing on a ‘long term emissions reduction strategy’ but no further detail or clearer commitment was forthcoming from DISER. This is far from satisfactory on such an important policy area. Recommendation 5 of this dissent report, that the ‘Government instruct DISER to model a pathway to net zero emissions by 2050,’ was proposed to clarify the situation and ensure this important work is being done. All Government members of the Committee again opposed this.
It is essential for Australia’s long-term safety and economic prosperity that this work be done without delay.
Five yearly emissions budgets
Another core element canvassed by the inquiry was the proposed five yearly Emissions Budgets which establish sequential five yearly caps on emissions, with two budget periods set at a time by the Minister, upon receiving and considering the advice of the Climate Change Commission also established by the Bills. This is distinct from current Government policy of having only an emissions reduction target to 2030 and much uncertainty and speculation around further targets.
According to the Bills’ Explanatory Memorandum, these emissions budgets must work towards achieving the overall goal of net zero by 2050. As the UK CCC put it in their submission:
The use of emissions budgets (Part 5, Division 1) to provide stepping-stones to the long-term target will help to ensure that near-term actions are taken that are consistent with the long-term goal. With decade or longer lifetimes of our vehicles, heating and cooling systems, and multi-decade lifetimes of our infrastructures, the pathway to net zero must lay the groundwork now to enable a cost effective and well-managed transition.
This approach is best practice around the world with many nations undertaking it. In fact RIAA drew the Committee’s attention to what our trading partners including New Zealand were doing:
The proposed emissions budget making processes is functionally in line with how New Zealand and other trading parties [sic] are managing their respective emissions budgets. The provision of having two consecutive budgets in place at any one time is also helpful for improving business planning, valuations and capital allocation.
Importantly, the emissions budgeting process outlined was also noted by some as consistent with processes under the Paris Agreement and that the regular ratcheting and reviewing component is a beneficial feature. The Centre for Policy Development found that:
… this proposed legislation would give the Australian people a regular independent appraisal of the carbon budget. If enacted in 2022, the proposed 5-year cycle of risk assessments and Budgets fits well with the 5-year UNFCCC cycle of global ratcheting under the Paris Agreement, and ensures review cycles can take account of key global developments.
The benefits of this approach were suggested by various participants including ATSE, which asserted that the emissions budgets would ‘better position’ Australia to meet its 2030 Paris Agreement targets as well as net zero emissions by 2050.
ATSE expanded on this by also suggesting that ‘setting milestones will help to make these challenging targets achievable, as well as allowing an opportunity to evaluate the impact of technology’.
Emissions reduction plans
Working in parallel with the emissions budgeting are a series of sequential five yearly sector wide emissions reduction plans to deliver and meet the budgets. These emissions reduction plans would detail specific challenges and opportunities in each individual sector, and require developing policies and programs to reduce emissions. In contrast, the Government’s Technology Investment Roadmap only details technologies but does not focus on sector specific policies. BCSD outlined the synchronous relationship of the two functions:
Setting carbon budgets for consecutive five-year terms would provide a robust framework against which to check the efficacy of national emissions reductions plans. The impacts of individual policies could then be aggregated and measured against the required carbon budgets, and adjustments could be made accordingly to ensure the carbon budgets are met.
Several witnesses endorsed the idea of having emissions reduction plans. ACCR forwarded that:
In order to contribute Australia’s fair share to global carbon pollution reduction, short-term and detailed planning are needed in addition to a long-term, net-zero horizon. This need is addressed in the bills’ inclusion of five-year carbon budgets (in other words, hard limits on carbon pollution) and five-year plans to guide the mandated carbon pollution cuts.
Some, like Science and Technology Australia (STA), found the benefits of emissions reduction plans extended to industry planning and this planning approach would address key concerns:
A 5-year plan, as outlined in Part 3 of the legislation, is important to help industry to plan for the future. This has been a key concern for industry groups who need to be able to ensure their long-term energy needs, and opportunities to invest in new, low emissions technologies. In 2018, the International Monetary Fund said Australia needed policy certainty on emissions reduction to reduce uncertainty for investment decisions.
Whilst others like ATSE suggested that detailed emissions reduction plans would improve Australia’s technical emissions accounting:
A multi-sectoral approach is important to ensure responsibility is shared, rather than focused on, or avoided by, any particular sector. The approach proposed in the Bills will also assist in standardising emissions inventory methodologies across sectors, which are variable at present.
A multi-sectoral approach will further enable the development of sub-sectoral targets, which will be helpful in ensuring national engagement. For example, within agriculture, the profile of emissions varies (CH2, N2O, CO2) and a sub-sectoral approach would encourage the development of appropriate technologies for each of these profiles.
Emissions reduction plans alongside a net zero goal and emissions budgets work synchronously to lower emissions. By structuring the response in this fashion there are various downstream benefits. As the inquiry has shown however, all efforts must be underpinned by rigorous, evidence-based advice and review as would be provided by a Climate Change Commission.
An independent Commission is needed to advise Government
The Bills seek to establish an independent Climate Change Commission (CCC). The explanatory memorandum of the Bills sets out that the CCC:
will advise the Government on the adaptation plans, long-term target, emissions budgets and emission reduction plans (the Bills’ “elements”) in a transparent and accountable way.
The CCC is based upon similar advisory bodies in other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom. The UK CCC was created as an independent statutory adviser and:
Includes two Committees (effectively boards) covering mitigation and adaptation. Members are expert and politically impartial and supported by an analytical secretariat. The CCC advises on the appropriate level of UK carbon budgets, and on key climate risks facing the UK. The CCC also monitors progress on reducing emissions (every year) and adapting to climate change (every two years). The Government is obliged to respond to the CCC’s assessments, creating an annual cycle of policy development.
The UK CCC cites several benefits of having an independent advisory body, including that:
The presence of an independent adviser has helped resolved political differences. When politicians disagreed on the appropriate level for the 2050 target before the Act was finalised in 2008, it was set on the CCC’s advice. When new coalition partners disagreed in 2010 on the role of renewables and nuclear in the energy sector, the CCC [was] asked within the coalition’s program for Government to advise on renewables.
The creation of an independent Climate Change Commission (Part 6) will help to ensure that the 2050 target, emissions budgets, climate risk assessments as well as the policy to meet and respond to them are evidence-based. The monitoring requirement on the Commission ensures that the Government can be held to account on delivering progress towards the targets agreed by Parliament and that unforeseen circumstances can be responded to. Our experience is that clear independence, an evidence-led approach, and proper resourcing, sufficient to have internal specialist analytical capability, is key to fulfilling our advisory and monitoring roles effectively.
Notwithstanding the clear benefits, much of the opposition against the Bills in the Main Report and by a small number of inquiry participants focused on the CCC including its role, the membership, interaction with existing bodies like the Climate Change Authority (CCA) and the CCC’s relationship with the Executive.
The CCA was established under the Climate Change Authority Act 2007. According to the CCA’s website it ‘provides independent, expert advice on climate change policy’.
The CCA is therefore very similar in structure and mandate to the CCC proposed in the Bills. Due to this similarity some, like the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, felt that the existing CCA was enough:
AIGN believes that in reflecting on the main bill, the case needs to be made why the current suite of institutions that advise, enact and report on government policy needs replacing and/or rescinding as would be the case for the Climate Change Authority.
In contrast, several witnesses presented evidence to the contrary. TAI pointed to the fact that the CCA is consistently ignored as one reason for a fresh approach:
The Climate Change Authority, a further independent public agency charged with advising the Government on emission reduction targets, has been largely ignored (and reduced to a fraction of its original staffing profile). According to the Authority, ‘the reduction in emissions embodied in the government's [2030] target is substantially weaker than that recommended by the Authority.
Professor Clive Hamilton, an ex-CCA member, stated that the relationship between the CCA and the Government was problematic:
Although the government could not act on its wish to abolish the Authority, it made it clear that it would not listen to its advice (although it does seem to have been influenced by its recommendations on vehicle emissions standards and international permits). In this situation, four members of the Authority last year notified environment minister Greg Hunt of their resignations.
Evidence to support this sentiment was also presented to Senate Estimates in July last year. In one session, the Chair of the CCA, Dr. Wendy Craik, was asked whether the Government had read or responded to the ‘Economic Recovery, Resilience and Prosperity after the Coronavirus’ report the Authority published at the time. She responded ‘no’.
Dr. Craik also stated that the Government had not consulted with the Authority on its ‘Gas-Led Recovery’ proposal which aims to expand gas extraction and usage in Australia. A proposal many critics have suggested would impede Australia committing to or achieving net zero emissions.
During the inquiry, it was further confirmed that the Government is not consulting with the CCA and has not requested the CCA to advise and model a pathway to net zero, or requested advice on updated emissions reduction target since 2015.
This is in direct contrast to the approach taken by the UK Government with its CCC. According to the UK CCC:
The Government has generally followed independent advice from the CCC. Successive UK Governments have accepted the CCC’s advised level of the carbon budget for all five of the legislated budgets thus far. The 2050 target was also legislated and then updated in line with the CCC’s advice. Many policy developments have also followed from CCC advice.
Not listening to the CCA’s advice or requesting any reviews is contrary to best practice and indeed the Government’s own position during other crises, like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Added to the fact that the CCA is being ignored, during the inquiry the Government Member for North Sydney, Mr. Trent Zimmerman, believed that a government could and should tell an independent body, like the proposed CCC, what policies and/or technologies the expert body should investigate and recommend to Government, noting:
Mr ZIMMERMAN: …I would've thought it was not an unreasonable proposition to say that a government could indicate to the commission the parameters that it was prepared to consider, so it didn't go down the path of providing advice that would actually have no functional reality in policy. So, for example, in the current environment, where both major parties have said that they will not go down the path of carbon pricing, I would have thought it would be reasonable for a government to say to its bureaucracy: 'We want you to prepare options for getting us to net zero, but the carve-out from that is that we're not prepared to consider options with carbon pricing.
When this scenario was put to Professor Penny Sackett, the Chair of the ACT Climate Council and former Chief Scientist of Australia, it was rejected. Talking about the provision of independent advice, Professor Sackett stated:
… I think it's actually vital. There are roles in public service where we do hope frank and fearless advice of course is given, but that is not always transparently seen by the taxpayer. I think that any government, recognising the importance of climate change as an issue and how quickly things are changing on the ground, would want to have all advice available to it and not to fetter those who are giving it in any way.
It is the onus of those who are giving the advice to follow their expertise and to present the best case, whether it be firefighters talking about fighting fires, climate scientists talking about climate science, or epidemiologists talking about COVID-19. We recognise that at the end of the day the government and the opposition will decide what goes forward, but I think that the country deserves to hear independent advice on these matters.
This exchange shows the unwillingness of Government members to embrace genuinely independent expert advice being in the public domain to address this policy area. It is the Government’s prerogative to accept or disagree with expert advice and select which policy option is prefers but it is in the public interest that Government should also be accountable and have to explain its choices or departure from expert advice. Having all ‘options’ in the public arena for discussion will significantly increase accountability.
Unfortunately, the CCA’s ability to give independent expert advice to Government has been further compromised by the appointment of members with apparent bias and conflict of interest.
These appointments to the CCA have further put in doubt its ability to operate independently of Government influence and provide independent expert-based advice. As stated previously the UK CCC has been successful in resolving political differences. It is only because the appointees are independent and trusted that it has been successful. The UK CCC has found that:
Appointing members for their expertise rather than their interests has allowed [the] Committee to be a credible arbiter and be seen to take judgements based on the best evidence without partisanship or vested interest.
The Community Environment Network stressed the importance of an independent process of selection of members to avoid loss of independence:
It is critical that the members of the Commission be selected through an independent and bipartisan process in order that the Commission may continue to hold a position of integrity across the wider community.
The Bills propose a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Climate Adaptation and Mitigation (see Division 4) that will vet appointees to ensure they have the requisite expertise and are sufficiently independent. According to ClimateWorks this ‘would create confidence and trust in the nature of the advice to Government’.
The Main Report at paragraph 2.143 and a small handful of inquiry participants mischaracterised the CCC’s powers as impinging on the Executive in setting of targets or policy. The National Farmers Federation suggested:
Should there be any consideration of an independent Authority being established, it should be led by Government as the elected Government of the day. The NFF does not believe the current Bill should do anything more than encourage debate on the issue.
As confirmed in the UK CCC’s evidence, the proposed CCC is only advisory and does not in any way impede the power of the Executive to set policy:
The CCC is only advisory – the final decisions on the legislated targets and on all policies to meet them rests with the Government. However, the Government must take account of the CCC advice, and were it to diverge from the CCC proposed targets the Government must set out the reasons why.
The majority of inquiry participants agreed with the proposed CCC and refuted the allegation that the proposed CCC impeded on the power of the Executive. Mr. Tennant Reed of the Australian Industry Group for example stated that the CCC is an independent advisory body for climate policy and does not seek to usurp the role of Government. Mr. Reed commented:
As we read the bills, the process that they would establish would leave the federal government and the minister with exactly the discretion and responsibility that they currently have to formulate policy and take decisions on policy, but it would require them to work to a time line around decision-making and review, and to at least consider advice that is provided to them.
As did the NSW Council of Civil Liberties which said:
The Bill does not dictate any climate policy to the government. As framework legislation, it recognises that the executive may require flexibility and choice in formulating and implementing climate policy. Yet, the Bill represents the elected Parliament’s intention to only permit the development of reasonable, science-based climate policy and decision-making.
Evidence presented to this inquiry as well as recent negative developments have clearly demonstrated a need for a new approach to the Government’s climate change advisor. The Bills provide a sensible approach, with the establishment of a CCC and repeal of the Climate Change Authority, that is backed up by international experience and best practice.
One role, explored below, of the new CCC is to undertake National Climate Change Risk Assessments and provide advice to Government on how to respond to risks identified.
National Climate Change Risk Assessments and National Adaptation Plans will help Australia deal with the consequences of climate change
Climate change impacts will have far reaching ramifications for Australia’s society, trade, environment, and economy. It is therefore essential that Australia fully assess and understand the risks and adapts to the impacts. As the ATSE astutely puts it:
The progressive warming of the atmosphere and oceans is producing changes in rainfall patterns and in the frequency and magnitude of severe weather events such as extreme heat and cold, droughts, floods and storms. Effective adaptation strategies are necessary to manage these risks and proactively identify new opportunities that may emerge from these climatic changes.
To understand and prepare for climate change, risk assessments and adaptation are key policy pillars under various climate change agreements. As a signatory to the Paris Agreement, Australia is currently required under Article 7(9) to engage in adaptation planning processes.
Climate change risk assessment and adaptation commitments under the Paris Agreement are given effect, co-ordinated and responsibilities assigned through the ‘2015 National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy’ (The Strategy). Noting that DAWE is responsible for implementing the various Commonwealth policies and programs arising from the Strategy.
According to DAWE, the Strategy ’set out how Australia is managing the risks of a variable and changing climate, identified a set of principles to guide effective adaptation practice and resilience building and outlined the government’s vision for a climate-resilient future’. The Department further indicated that it is working with the states and territories to update the Strategy this year.
The current approach, including the Strategy, was not considered sufficient by many during the inquiry. For example, the Alexandrina Council stated:
In 2015, the Australian Government launched its National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy in which is recognised the need for governments to consider both mitigation and adaptation to a changing climate to be able [to] establish priorities. However, five years on very little has changed and the impacts of climate change are felt more than ever in Australia.
Others like TAI pointed to the flaws of the Strategy and suggested that it ‘does not include analysis of known and potential climate risks’ and suggested:
Climate risk assessments should investigate a broad range of warming scenarios, including giving particular consideration to higher risk warming scenarios to understand regional and sectoral impacts, and investigate which impacts can and cannot be adapted to.
The BCSD also pointed towards fragmented climate information and how this detracted from planning, and preparing for climate change risks:
However, in addition to being complex, climate adaptation information is fragmented. This applies to core physical data, research into potential impacts, and efforts by individual companies and governments to build resilience to climate impacts. This fragmentation makes it very difficult and costly for companies to develop detailed and accurate pictures of their own exposure and vulnerability to climate change-related risks, particularly with regard to climate impacts that may not directly affect their assets but that could have significant implications up or down the value chain. The result is likely to be inadequate, inefficient planning and preparation.
To fill gaps in current knowledge and bring the information into a consolidated and easily accessible form, the Climate Change Bills propose a National Climate Change Risk Assessment (NCCRA) process. Subsection 17(2) of the Climate Change (Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020 outlines the core requirements of the national risk assessment:
(2) A national climate change risk assessment must:
(a) assess, along multiple global emissions pathway scenarios, the risks to Australia’s economy, workers, society, agriculture, environment, and biodiversity from the current and future effects of climate change; and
(b) identify the most significant risks to Australia, based on the nature of the risks, their severity, probability and cost; and
(c) assess the need for coordinated responses to those risks in the next 5 years.
During the hearings DAWE acknowledged that the federal Government was not undertaking an equivalent NCCRA and was not currently costing impacts:
Mr JOSH WILSON: To the Department of Agriculture, in terms of the approach to adaptation, is it right that under different temperature rise scenarios you're able, perhaps by sector, to have some aggregate sense of the cost impact, whether it's grain production or fisheries or whatever it happens to be? And then you look at adaptation measures in terms of how they deal with that anticipated cost. Would that be a fair way to describe the methodology?
Ms Stuart-Fox : No, we don't do an assessment of cost. What we look at is risks to current systems and how we might adapt or prepare for those risks.
Various witnesses believed that the NCCRA envisaged in the Bill filled gaps in the current approach. IGCC for example said that a NCCRA would be particularly necessary for investors managing infrastructure risks:
Australia is far from understanding its systemic vulnerability to Climate Change, determining adaptation pathways and timing of adaptation pathways and timing of adaptation actions required and the level of investment needed…IGCC believes that a crucial first step, supported by the proposed National climate change risk assessment process under the Bill, is an up-to-date national assessment of infrastructure at risk to the effect of climate change and an indicative quantification of the investment required into adaption, to facilitate private sector capital flows.
ATSE broadly agreed and furthered that the approach proposed by the Bills would raise awareness and assist with future viability of industries. It submitted:
National risk assessments and national adaptation plans, as proposed in these Climate Change Bills, would lead to greater risk awareness and allow for comprehensive forward planning, to ensure more viable and adaptable future industries. It would also enable the identification of technological needs across industries. ATSE supports the implementation of routine risk assessment and adaptation plans nationally as well as by sector, to help identify climate change-driven economic challenges across all industries. As an example, most significant agricultural industries already have national adaptation.
Local Government NSW, the peak body for local governments in New South Wales, believed such a NCCRA to be essential to prepare for risks as some measures can only be enacted at the federal level. It posited:
Since 2006, Local Government NSW has surveyed councils every three to five years on their responses to climate change. Similar to the approach of the Climate Change Bills, 82 per cent of New South Wales councils have already conducted a climate change risk assessment. A national climate change risk assessment is needed, as some vulnerabilities are best addressed through Commonwealth parliamentary levers, national coordination and assessing interdependencies between infrastructure owners and government systems.
The Property Council of Australia warned that if appropriate adaptation, risk assessment and planning was not undertaken, governments would be further called upon to cover the cost of repairs and reconstructions currently met by insurers as certain assets will become uninsurable.
To respond to the risks identified in the NCCRA, the Bills propose National Adaptation Plans. The Explanatory Memorandum of the Substantive Bill states:
The Bill will require the Government to set five-year national adaptation plans (see Part 3) considering a range of economic and social issues, the distribution of the effects of climate change across society, international obligations and other relevant advice.
The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors (ACSI) welcomed the adaptation plans provided by the Bills:
We would welcome a coherent and coordinated national adaptation plan that is underpinned by a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 (and supported by aligned 2030 targets).
While adaptation is a risk minimisation response, when combined with a net zero by 2050 target, this would present opportunities, given that policy and regulatory uncertainty is currently a significant barrier to investment.
Private companies like AgBioEn Pty Ltd agreed and believed adaptation planning would assist with their business performance. Finding that a national adaptation plan will help to ensure a reliable supply of their feedstock and will ensure the resilience of Australia’s regional communities.
An important accountability element of the Bills is their focus on monitoring and reporting. It became evident during the inquiry that DAWE whilst preparing a strategy to deal with adaptation and climate risk was not measuring progress towards any targets:
Ms STEGGALL: One of the questions that was put to you was: how are you measuring your progress against adaptation goals? Your response was that you do not measure progress. So how are we to assess that we are in fact adapting and improving our preparedness for climate risk if you are not measuring your progress?
Ms Stuart-Fox : I understand, and of course the nature of adaptation is that it is something that is undertaken by all levels of government and by private actors for a range of different assets, services and policies and programs. As you know, we don't currently have a set of measures or targets that try to roll that up into outcomes, and we are not currently measuring progress towards adaptation outcomes.
Consequently, witnesses like the Law Council of Australia suggested that the Bills’ emphasis on public reporting ‘facilitates transparency and accountability in government decision making’.
With the current lack of adaptation planning, risk assessment and monitoring of progress towards targets, the Bills are crucial to addressing these glaring gaps.
The Climate Change Bills - a way forward
Acknowledging the impacts and risks to Australia from global warming continues to be a much debated and fractious area of policy, unlike other areas of policy also dealing with Australia’s long term security and prosperity, such as defence and national security. Policy to address climate change impacts and emissions reductions have continued to be delayed by misinformation and political opportunism by a minority in Australia. Overcoming the policy paralysis is essential for the future safety and prosperity of Australia. Several submissions argued that the Climate Change Bills could overcome this longstanding political deadlock.
Some like the BCA suggested that the design of the Bills would mean they could be agreeable to both sides of politics:
The workability of the proposed legislation lies in its specification of a policy framework for defining a policy pathway, rather than attempting to specify the policy mechanism(s) to be implemented. As a set of guiding principles and decision-making processes, the proposed legislation is more [amenable] to consideration by all sides of the political debate, with the possibility of greater alignment going forward. The framework itself is capable of determining the appropriate policy mechanism(s) as required.
The CEC believed the Bills could end the ‘policy impasse’ of the last decade and that the Bills carried a spirit of bipartisanship which it believed was:
…a critical ingredient for addressing the most serious challenge that humanity has ever faced, and for providing the stable policy and investment environment that is sorely needed to plan for the necessary and inevitable structural adjustments in our economy and infrastructure.
The Law Council of Australia also submitted that the Bills would:
…“rule a line” under decades of national policy uncertainty and politics associated with responding to the changing climate and its associated impacts.
Emeritus Professor Andrew Hopkins also submitted that the Bills could be a circuit breaker to overcome ideological barriers. Like the BCA, he commented on the flexible design, saying the Bill ‘provides a framework, but not specific solutions that might create divisions.’
The call was also strong for politicians to put aside political and ideological beliefs, for example the Josephite Justice Office said:
It is our conviction that political Parties should put aside their political and ideological beliefs and work together to determine a direction that is, in reality, in the best interests of the affected communities, and indeed of our whole country and planet.
Several hundred submissions felt that a conscience vote or a free vote by Members of Parliament would be an appropriate means to push forward through the political impasse. A conscience vote is when all parties allow Members of Parliament to vote on an issue independently of party lines. Prior conscience votes have been on issues like marriage equality.
The Australian Institute of Landscape Architects was one organisation that suggested the policy issue be elevated out of the party room and Members of Parliament be allowed a ‘free vote,’ or a conscience vote:
We ask that MP’s be allowed to fully represent their electorate by allowing a conscience vote on this Bill. The issue of climate change is not Liberal, Labor, Green, or Independent - but Australian. We are concerned about our collective future.
The Pitt Street Uniting Church also believed that a conscience vote would ‘maximise parliamentary and community support’. Whilst the Mosman Parklands and Bushland Association called for a conscience vote for the ‘sake of our children and grandchildren’.
Whilst it is not in the power of the Committee to recommend a free vote be permitted, the broad support for this approach should be noted.
The Bills can be improved
In the many submissions the Committee received, several dozen outlined proposed amendments to improve the Bills. The Main Report went into extensive detail on amendments proposed and there were various small technical changes people wanted. Improvements to the Bills are welcome and some of the recommended amendments will be included prior to the Bills being re-tabled in Parliament.
There were also several more ambitious amendments like requesting an earlier net zero target, setting a 2030 target in the legislation, and removing the reference to the Technology Investment Roadmap, including mandatory climate risk disclosure, and various calls to broaden the factors to be considered in making emissions reduction plans, adaptation plans as well as the guiding principles. Further discussion of those proposals is below.
Do we need to set a 2030 target in law?
The Law Council, the Environmental Defenders Office and some members of the public who made submissions, called for a 2030 target in the Bills. The Law Council in its submission believed:
…that the NSW Bar has raised that in its view, a target of net zero emissions by 2050, while better than nothing, is not sufficiently ambitious. It considers that an interim target of a 50 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030 merits endorsement on the ground that action over the next decade is critical to Australia’s long-term future.
Australia’s current nationally determined contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement is a 26-28% reduction on 2005 levels by 2030. This target has been widely criticised as being insufficient.
The CCA in 2014, prior to the Paris Agreement being formalised, recommended setting a target of between 40 and 60% on 2000 levels by 2030, finding that was Australia’s fair share.
Because that advice is outdated various bodies have come up with their own targets. The Climate Targets Panel, a panel of scientists and policy makers employing the methodology used by the CCA, suggested a minimum reduction of between 50 and 74% on 2005 levels by 2030 to stay consistent with 2 and 1.5°C respectively.
There is no doubt that Australia must have a stronger 2030 target to give us a chance of limiting warming.
To be effective, the Government must listen to the advice of the experts on climate policy. That is why the Bills establish an independent and expert based Climate Change Commission (CCC) to provide advice on areas of policy like targets.
As soon as the Bills commence, the first two emissions budgets to 2030 are required to be set under the legislation. These two emissions budgets, when combined, effectively set a 2030 goal. Under the Bills, the Government is required to consider the advice of the CCC when setting those budgets. It is reasonably likely that the new CCC would advise on more ambition in the first two budgets.
The 2030 target is a politically contested area and a circuit breaker is needed. A key advantage of an independent expert based CCC as shown by the experience in the UK is that it can resolve political and policy arguments. The UK CCC has resolved political disagreements on the right level of nuclear in the UK grid. The UK CCC has also consistently advised on ambitious targets which the UK Government has accepted. Similarly, the proposed Australian CCC is key to assessing and setting the right 2030 target.
Should the net zero target be moved earlier?
Just like increasing ambition regarding a 2030 target, various submissions presented evidence suggesting the net zero target be moved forward to an earlier date.
Pollination Group in particular suggested the target be moved earlier in line with the science:
Pollination submits that further consideration should be given to revising the net-zero target date in the Climate Bill to 2040 in light of the findings of the IPCC 1.5˚C Report and emerging scientific evidence, in order to ensure the legislation is consistent with this provision from the outset.
It is not disputed that there is growing scientific evidence of needing to reduce emissions faster to avoid catastrophic global warming. The inclusion in the Bills of a ‘ratchet and review’ mechanism in sections 22 and 23 of the Substantive Bill allows for increasing the ambition of targets in line with the latest science and the advice of the CCC.
Some submissions like Greenpeace’s accepted this compromise:
While we broadly support the aims of the bill, and echo the views of other organisations who note that 2050 is too late, we recognise this can be brought forward at a later date and have some improvements to offer to the Parliament.
Do we need to legislate mandatory climate risk disclosure into the Bills?
The Investor Group on Climate Change, citing the Reserve Bank of Australia, put to the Committee that:
‘…climate change is exposing financial institutions and the financial system more broadly, to risk that will rise over time and, if not addressed, could become considerable’. Risks to financial stability arise from both physical and transition risks.
Hence there is now a trend in corporate Australia for companies to disclose climate risks under a framework called the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD).
With the TCFD, the Financial Security Board ‘developed a framework to help public companies and other organizations more effectively disclose climate-related risks and opportunities through their existing reporting processes’.
Climate risk disclosure under the TCFD framework requires demonstrating the material climate risks to a company. Whether they be physical risks, for example, risks to infrastructure assets from flooding or bushfires, as well as transition risks, for example, a fossil fuel generator being at risk of stranding because of the transition to net zero. These are all required to be disclosed through a report by companies.
Noting that the Secondary Bill that deals with consequential and transitional measures already provides for climate risk disclosure and management by Commonwealth entities (public bodies/agencies), several witnesses called for the Bills to incorporate amendments that would in effect legislate the TCFD framework, making climate risk disclosure mandatory for companies.
Mandatory climate risk disclosure would compel listed companies of any size to report on their material climate change risks. It is an approach that has been recently adopted in New Zealand and is increasingly being called for by organisations.
The Environmental Defenders Office, as one example, called for the Secondary Bill to incorporate risk disclosure by companies:
...we recommend that the Consequential and Transitional Provisions Bill should also address the need to impose mandatory disclosure requirements regarding climate change risks on Australian companies. We recommend that this take place by way of amendment of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (and regulations) and the ASX Listing Rules.
Similarly, Pollination Group highlighted the importance of this kind of framework extending to companies:
…mandatory climate risk disclosure by Australian companies is not proposed by the Climate Bill, meaning that Australian investors will be placed at a disadvantage globally when it comes to understanding and managing climate risk, this is also likely to be detrimental to the ability to attract global private investment into Australia.
It is evident that climate risk disclosure is needed for companies. But climate risk and reporting are already a key focus of Australia’s financial regulators, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).
APRA expects financial institutions to report on climate risks under existing prudential rules and has endorsed the use of the TCFD framework. Because of momentum in the business sector on climate as well as pushes from regulators like APRA, KPMG has reported that ‘58 percent of the ASX100 report using the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) framework. Up from 16 percent in 2017.’
More work needs to be done but progress is already being made with the majority of ASX100 companies reporting. It is expected that the number of companies reporting, and the quality of that reporting, will continue to increase over time.
Therefore, because of the existing momentum and high uptake, the Bills leave future legislators to incorporate climate risk disclosure in primary legislation.
Emissions reduction plans should be disallowable instruments
The Climate Change Bills were referred to the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills (Scrutiny Committee) on 2 December 2020. The Scrutiny Committee reported on the Bills in Scrutiny Digest 17 of 2020 (the Digest).
In the Digest, the Scrutiny Committee pointed to emissions reductions plans made under section 30 of the Bill not being disallowable instruments. Disallowable instruments are instruments that can be disallowed (cancelled) by a vote in either the Senate or the House of Representatives.
Currently the Minister is required to simply table the emissions reduction plans. The Government’s Technology Investment Roadmap is also not a disallowable instrument.
By not providing for the emissions reduction plan to be a legislative instrument, the Scrutiny Committee believed that there ‘would be little opportunity for Parliament to effectively scrutinise and have ultimate control over the plan’.
Parliamentary oversight is extremely important for good governance. In most cases, there should be more parliamentary oversight. The Bills will therefore be amended to incorporate the Scrutiny Committee’s findings and ensure that emissions reductions plans are disallowable instruments.
Should the Minister and the Climate Change Commission consider more factors and guiding principles when making decisions?
The Bills provide a set of guiding principles for decision makers (sections 9-16) to consider when exercising duties under the Act. The intent of these sections is for the Minister when making plans or policies to address climate change to have regard to the various circumstances and scenarios that may arise.
The Minister may for example consider the ‘Principle of informed decision making’ (section 11) to guide them on which sources of information to prioritise when researching and designing climate policy. The Principles are designed to be flexible and adaptable. The Minister can have regard to other factors when making decisions, but the idea is that the Principles have primacy.
Concerns about including additional factors when undertaking the national risk assessment and adaptation planning (section 18), and emissions reductions planning (section 30) were also raised. Whilst not specifically prescribed, additional principles and factors can already be taken into account.
Similarly, additional areas of skill and expertise were proposed for inclusion in the CCC. The Bills will be amended so that the CCC can establish sub-committees for specific issues which may call upon other skillsets when required. This has been used to great effect by the UK CCC and would allow a tailored approach whilst preserving the governance of the CCC.
Should the Technology Investment Roadmap be kept?
The Technology Investment Roadmap (the Roadmap) is the Government’s primary climate change policy. As mentioned previously, the Roadmap sets out a process for assessing low emissions technology development.
The business community in the consultation phase of these Bills suggested that a form of ‘technology readiness assessment’ was integral to climate action. Thus, the Bills incorporate the Roadmap to form a technology readiness assessment. Importantly the CCC will develop and publish Low Emissions Technology Statements (section 70) which are part of the Roadmap process.
However, the inclusion of the Roadmap was not supported by several witnesses to the inquiry. The Law Council of Australia stated ‘…there is a view that the current Technology Investment Roadmap, with its reference to fossil fuels, is inconsistent with peer reviewed research’.
The Australian Conservation Foundation stated that the Government’s Technology Roadmap ‘prioritises harmful technologies such as Carbon Capture and Storage, fossil fuels and nuclear and fails to support key zero emissions technologies such as renewable energy.’
The Roadmap is simply a tool to assess the field of technologies available. At times it will canvass technologies that are less useful than others. These assessments provide useful benchmarks and can be used to inform decision making, such as assessing the cost competitiveness of small modular reactors and cost barriers.
Conclusion
Although the Main Report suggests Australia’s current climate framework is adequate, it is not. On the evidence received, the Bills provide a much-needed comprehensive framework to deal with climate change policy, the issue of our times. Witnesses found that the Bills also build on existing policy gaps and would provide copious downstream benefits including for investment, planning, risk mitigation and co-ordination.
The Bills contain core elements that many regarded as necessary, objects and guiding principles to help guide action, a net zero target by 2050 which the Commonwealth is yet to full commit to, and would provide certainty for many organisation; five yearly emissions budgets which provide a different and beneficial approach than the Government’s ten year budget; five year emissions reduction plans which provide for detailed sectoral plans that will help us reduce emissions across sectors; an independent CCC that is respected and listened to with members who are vetted and non-partisan; and finally national risk assessments and adaptation plans that will help the nation mitigate risk and adapt to climate change impacts already locked in.
Many inquiry participants believed the Bills could be improved. Amendments will be considered, and the Bills will be re-tabled with any improvements at a future date. There is no doubt that our approach to climate change will evolve over time and so must our legislative and regulatory framework.
Finally, so many people and organisations agreed that the Bills could finally break the political deadlock on climate change policy which has vexed Australian politics for so many years. The Bills can be a way forward.
Accordingly, the following recommendations were put to the Committee to reflect the overwhelming support for the Bills and for this policy area to progress. Disappointingly, all Government members of the Committee elected to continue the impasse on this policy area and did not support any of the following notations and recommendations:
The Committee received overwhelming evidence, particularly from community members, that urged an end to the political impasse on climate change and for all sides to work together. Climate Change is an existential threat and as such should be a multi-partisan matter. Therefore, the Government should establish a multi-partisan Joint Select Committee on Climate Change to review matters of climate policy and to offer members of all sides an opportunity to work together to find common solutions to the challenge.
Recommendation 1: Establish a Joint Select Committee on Climate Change.
Much of the discussion during the inquiry was around the role and operation of the proposed Climate Change Commission that would replace the Climate Change Authority. Noting the evidence received was critical of the operation and utilisation of the Climate Change Authority by the Government, it is recommended that the Climate Change Authority Act 2011 (Cth) be independently reviewed for efficiency, effectiveness, and ability to give independent advice.
Recommendation 2: That the Climate Change Authority Act 2011 be reviewed to assess its efficiency, effectiveness, and ability to give independent advice.
Evidence received by the Committee suggested that Australia’s current 2030 target and lack of legislated 2050 target was not sufficient to limit warming to as close to 1.5°C as possible and urged the Government to commit to net zero by 2050 as a bare minimum. The Climate Change Authority can be requested by the Minister to conduct special reviews on climate policy including targets, yet the Minister has not requested such a review at least since the last review in 2014. It is therefore recommended that the Minister request the Climate Change Authority to review Australia’s 2030 target and provide advice on the adequate long-term target to limit warming to as close to 1.5°C as possible.
Recommendation 3: That the Minister request that the Climate Change Authority review Australia’s 2030 target and provide advice on the adequate long-term target to limit warming to as close to 1.5°C as possible.
Many inquiry participants highlighted the value of a full costing of climate impacts. However, the evidence received from the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment (DAWE) was that no costing of national climate impacts has been undertaken. It is understood that DAWE will update the 2015 National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy. It is therefore requested as part of the works on the update to the Strategy, DAWE undertake a costing of climate impacts across sectors, including but not limited to tourism, agriculture, mining and, health.
Recommendation 4: That as part of the update to the National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy DAWE undertake a full assessment of the costs of climate impacts across sectors.
Much of the discussion in the inquiry was centred on Australia’s long-term emissions reduction ambition and what that meant for the setting of emissions reduction targets. As part of that discussion, many submissions and witnesses called on the Government to commit to net zero by 2050. The Prime Minister has also committed to net zero ‘as soon as possible’ and ‘preferably by 2050’. Yet, from the evidence it was not clear on whether work was underway on modelling the implications of that target. Noting that the current position of the Government is to undertake modelling on long term emissions pathways as part of the Long-term Emissions Reduction Strategy to be taken to the Conference of the Parties 26 in Glasgow, the Government should request that the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, as part of that analysis, model pathways to net zero by 2050.
Recommendation 5: That the Government instruct the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources to model a pathway to net zero emissions by 2050.
Substantial evidence was received by the Committee calling for the Bills to be debated in Parliament and allowed a conscience vote. A conscience vote is 'a rare vote in parliament, in which members are not obliged by the parties to follow a party line, but vote according to their own moral, political, religious, or social beliefs’. Previous conscience votes have happened on other contentious issues such as marriage equality, euthanasia, and sex discrimination. Climate change is an issue of such stature that should be debated on the floor of parliament and be allowed by both parties as a free vote. It is therefore recommended that the Government consider allowing the Bills to be debated and voted on as a matter of conscience.
Recommendation 6: That the Bills be allowed to be debated in Parliament.
Of the more than 6500 submissions and 49 witnesses that presented to the inquiry, over 99% were in support of the Bills. Given the evidence received in support, there is no doubt that passing the Bills would have a substantial positive effect on Australia’s policy suite and international standing. It is therefore recommended that the Bills be passed.
Recommendation 7: That the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020 and Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020 be passed.
Zali Steggall OAM MP
Member for Warringah