Motion
HON TIM CLIFFORD (East Metropolitan) [11.27 am] — without notice: I move —
That this house —
(a) acknowledges the letter from 54 scientists, doctors and academics urging the Parliament of Western Australia to enact a zero carbon act to establish a binding target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions in Western Australia by 2050 and to implement shorter term “carbon budgets” for the state; and
(b) calls on the McGowan government to enshrine in legislation its own “net zero emissions by 2050 aspiration”, including setting interim targets and providing a clear pathway for how the target will be reached.
Comments and speeches from various members
HON ALISON XAMON (North Metropolitan) [12.09 pm]: I am just going to say a few words in support of the motion of my colleague Hon Tim Clifford. It is important that this issue keeps being raised, because we have to address this as a matter of absolute urgency. We can achieve legislative targets at the state level. Other states have already done it, and I think we can do it here. We know that the federal government is failing to act on this, and I am concerned that it is likely, under the current leadership, to continue to fail to act. I remind members that the current Prime Minister thought it was appropriate to bring a lump of coal into the Parliament. I think that that was an appalling lack of judgement on his part.
However, we are seeing that many other nations, states and local governments are responding to a clear and urgent need for reform by legislating for their own targets; other states and territories in Australia, as I said, have even legislated for net zero emissions. If we wanted to, we could do that in Western Australia; I hope it is something that we do sooner rather than later. If any state in Australia needed to do it, it would be Western Australia, because we have had continued growth in emissions and, apparently, have an unmitigated commitment to the expansion of the LNG industry. Australian states have been legislating for targets from as far as back as 2007, so I have to say that announcing an aspirational target in 2019 is not exactly at the cutting edge of a response to climate change. Seventeen nations have set, or are in the process of setting, net zero targets by 2050 or earlier; 22 major cities have set net zero targets; 34 companies with annual turnovers above $US1 billion have set or met net zero targets—I am talking about companies like Google and Microsoft—and around 16 per cent of global gross domestic product is covered by net zero targets of other nations, regions and cities. The UK estimates that it will cost one to two per cent of its GDP to meet its net zero targets by 2050. It also believes that that figure seriously undervalues the benefits to the economy from savings in the national health system. We are not talking about an unreasonable figure.
The obvious question is: why not look at a legislated target as well as at policies or strategies or frameworks, all of which are needed? A legislated target will demonstrate that we are serious about addressing climate change. It will provide clarity around which gases and which industries will be counted. It provides clarity around whether international offsets will be permitted. It will set interim emissions targets. I remind members that the task is to cut emissions in half by 2030—that is only 11 years away—with net zero emissions by 2050. If we look at steep cuts now and shallow cuts later, that will lead to lower temperature rises; it is better than shallow cuts now and what I think will inevitably be steep cuts later. We know that the economy needs it. It is good to provide that level of certainty.
Business obviously sees that this needs to be done. In every strategic document, particularly those of corporations and companies in high-emitting industries, we repeatedly see calls for targets to be set. I acknowledge that many businesses want to do the right thing; they want to be seen to be responsible corporations. But the cost of doing the right thing needs to be shared equally across their industries, and that is the problem. Some industries are prepared to try to get away with whatever they can, while other industries want to do the right thing. It is unreasonable to expect that they should suffer a financial disadvantage because of a lack of action by government. Only the very largest companies, like the ones I mentioned before, are currently in a position to be able to afford to do it alone. Both our economy and our future cannot afford to be caught in this lack of firm action around climate change. Legislation is the way to do it. It will provide clarity for everybody. I really hope that it is something that this government seriously contemplates, just like so many other state governments have done.
Comments and speeches from various members
Motion lapsed, pursuant to standing orders.