Legislative Council, Thursday 29 September 2022

Ms FORREST (Murchison) – Mr President, I am very aware of the real challenges we face and the amount of time lost, particularly under our previous federal governments, to take a decisive and meaningful action on the very real threat we in Tasmania, Australia and the world face in terms of our climate. We are facing a climate emergency that demands urgent global and local action. We are seeing many more so-called climate refugees seeking refuge in safer parts of our world, including here in Tasmania.

Many people are facing immediate risks, including complete loss of their homes and lands, whether through rising sea levels or extreme weather events that see much of their land washed away. Every night on the news there is another weather event. We cannot continue to ignore this with comments such as 'it is cyclical', 'we saw these floods in 19-whatever'. It is clearly not a cyclical change. The challenge is real and it is now and it needs urgent and effective action.

This bill is definitely an improvement on what we currently have. However, it may not go far enough in its current form and I will be keeping my mind open to all amendments that are proposed during the passage through this House.

I acknowledge the work of Climate Tasmania, the Tasmanian Independent Science Council and the Tasmanian Policy Exchange at the University of Tasmania, led by Professor Richard Eccleston, for their ongoing work in this area as well as the large number of Tasmanians who are genuinely committed to real action. This includes an active group of north-west coasters who go by the name of North Tasmania, Australian Parents for Climate Action led by Jasione Hull-Styles of Ulverstone and Hannah Sadler from Wynyard. AP4CA, as they are known, is a climate action group made up of parents - mostly mums - from right across the north-west coast. They are farmers, speech pathologists, teachers, natural resource managers, artists, planning consultants, occupational therapists and community volunteers and they all share the real and consistent concerns I have stated in my contribution thus far.

In a recent email to me and some other members received it, I am not sure if all members did and I quote from this email:

The thing we have in common and that brought us together is our fear for the future of the planet and therefore our children's future. We have read the reports. We know the science and the evidence. We are witnessing the impacts of climate change already. What we need to see now is action from our government. We are concerned that Tasmania is about to waste a once in-a-generation opportunity to create climate legislation that will help to shape a livable and safe climate for our children and grandchildren.

While it is noted that the State Government's Climate Change (State Action) Amendment Bill is a modest improvement on the initial 2008 legislation, we strongly believe the legislation must be strengthened to reflect the scope, scale and urgency of the planetary emergency we face. North Tasmania AP4CA strongly recommends the recommendations made by the climate and policy experts, Climate Tasmania and the Tasmanian Independent Science Council, in their Brief for Proposed Amendments to the Climate Change (State Action) Bill (8 August 2022).

These amendments include ambitious 2030 targets for emissions reduction and resilience plans for each sector - waste, energy, industry, agriculture, and land based sectors - to ensure a rapid transition to a low carbon economy.

Also crucial is the establishment of the independent Climate Change Commission to ensure this process stays on track, regardless of who is in government.

North Tasmania AP4CA would particularly like to draw your attention to the proposed amendment in section 1 of this document (p. 3) which states:

The Bill should amend the relevant mineral resources legislation to
prevent the issuing of any new permits to explore for any fossil fuels.

This is in line with the recent International Energy Agency (of which Australia is a member country) special report Net Zero by 2050. It states:

Beyond projects already committed as of 2021, there are no new oil or
gas fields approved for development … and no new coal mines or
mine extensions are required.

That is from page 11, Summary for Policy Makers.

The importance of this amendment is also reflected in the data recently published by the Global Registry of Fossil Fuels, at carbontracker.org, which shows that if governments allow identified reserves of coal, oil and gas to be extracted and used, an enormous and catastrophic 3.5 trillion tonnes of greenhouse emissions will be created.

This would exceed the 500 billion tonne carbon budget required to keep the planet at or below 1.5℃ of warming, by more than seven times.

As António Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations, said recently:

Our world is in big trouble. … A winter of global discontent is on the horizon. A cost-of-living crisis is raging. Trust is crumbling. Inequalities are exploding. Our planet is burning.

Here in Tasmania right now, we have an historic opportunity to do the right thing, to take heed of the evidence, to protect the wild spaces that remain on our beautiful island home and in its oceans, to safeguard the futures of our children and grandchildren, to ensure the livability of our one and only planet Earth.

Passing all of the amendments proposed by Climate Tasmania and the Tasmanian Independent Science Council could move us all a long way toward a spring of recovery and safety, health and hope.

Mr President, I have met with members of this group some time ago, including some of their very young members, who are very passionate and very concerned about their future.
I acknowledge the Government's acceptance of a number of amendments in the other place - including one they brought in themselves - which begs the question as to why these recommendations that were given effect to in these agreed amendments were not already in the bill when it was tabled and presented.

I particularly ask this, as the Leader clearly acknowledged the urgency of action, and in her second reading speech, she said:

Recognising the urgency to reduce emissions, the Government agreed to amend the bill in the House of Assembly to legislate time frames for the first plans to be completed.

The bill now includes provisions for the first plans to be developed within two years of the commencement of the act, and the first plan for the transport sector to be developed within 12 months.

Furthermore, the plans will consider both the targets and the objects of the act and, responding to consultation feedback will be tabled in parliament, ensuring accountability and transparency in the Government's response to climate change.

The Leader also made comments about including our future generations, the voices of children and young people. I was absolutely gobsmacked that some of these things were not in the bill after the consultation period, when it was tabled in the other place. The inclusion of the requirement to consult and engage with children and young people was an imperative in my mind, and as I said, I was quite surprised this was not in the bill when it was presented. Children and young people care deeply about this matter, and have the most to lose if we, the adults in the room, do not get it right.

The Leader went on to explain other amendments that were accepted and that strengthen the bill. I will not go into all those comments, as they are on the record. However, we do have further amendments that I know will be proposed to be considered in this place, some that were tested downstairs and not supported by the Government, and some that were not.

I appreciate there may be some valid reasons to potentially reject some amendments that have been suggested in the submissions that have been received during the consultation period. However, overall, I absolutely agree with the sentiment of the email from the AP4CA group, and the submissions that have been made by Climate Tasmania, Tasmanian Policy Exchange and other key stakeholders that have a very long and vested interest in climate change generally, the future of our planet and this legislation. I will consider each amendment put in this place on its merit, and believe there are important measures that can still be taken to further ensure this bill is future-focused and provides urgent action.

Mr President, climate change and the need for urgent action were also key topics of consideration at the recent ACPAC Conference (Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees Conference), which was held in Wellington, New Zealand this year. The conference had a strong and very clear focus on the real risk and emergency that climate change is. Many of the speakers spoke of the need for urgent action and pleaded with MPs to take it seriously. One older gentleman who presented a paper was literally jumping up and down urging us to it seriously and to take action - I have heard him speak at other conferences, and although he does not have children of his own, he does have nieces and nephews. Public accounts committees, for example, are alert to the need to monitor and hold government to account. It is not just public accounts committees; it is all aspects of parliaments, parliamentary committees across the board, government administration committees, and the parliament itself.

I acknowledge some of the other amendments that have enhanced the transparency and reporting of some of the plans and other reporting structures that are put in place. It is very important that we do have transparency about what is happening, and accountability. That means any of us in this place, or the other place, can pick up any of those tabled reports and bring them on for noting. I am hoping we will see that occur to ensure they are debated and that there is the opportunity for us to ask questions in the Chamber here and, potentially, in committees as well.

At the ACPAC Conference, many in the room were from Pacific nations who are facing the very real threat and the evident impact of these changes on their homes and their people. Their homes and lands are going under water as we speak, so we simply cannot be complacent on this matter.

I do not think there are many people in this place, if any, who do not appreciate the need for aggressive climate action. The need is clear and it is compelling. I know many of the young people who I have spoken to about this are really quite anxious. I worry about their mental health and wellbeing because of the level of anxiety that some of our young people are experiencing. They are very concerned and quite frightened for their future. They need us to be the responsible adults and listen to them and take real action. We owe it to them.

Mr President, it is important to note that Tasmania does currently have a negative emissions profile and predominantly renewable energy generation assets. However, this does not mean that we can rest on our successes. Many of them are natural successes, and we need to ensure that more is done, particularly as our population grows.

As we discussed in the briefings, and it is obvious to everyone, our forests provide a wonderful carbon sink and storage of carbon but that can be lost overnight in a devastating bushfire. There is the rub - the reality of climate change with rising temperatures and altered rainfall patterns - particularly less rainfall in some Tasmanian world heritage areas - means that the risk of bushfires increases, and so the risk of us losing that benefit is very real. I am not sure of the year, although I know it was before COVID-19, but we had that significant bushfire in the TWWHA. It was in a very inaccessible area. I cannot recall the number of hectares that were burnt out, but it is frightening to think that that can occur. Those trees and forests do not grow back quickly. So, it is important that we are very vigilant and take action to prevent some of this. There are people who have a genuine fear that we have gone too far already. I hope we have not, but the very real risk is there. I talk to people on the west coast who tell me how dry it is again, in parts of these areas. The reality of climate change actually increases the risk of bushfires so we cannot rely on this to keep Tasmania as a net negative emitter. We have to take other specific and targeted action. Part of that is risk mitigation, but it is also direct action.

Climate change is also a gendered issue. Women are disproportionately negatively impacted by climate change around the world. In addition, people living in poverty also suffer the negative impacts of climate change more directly. It is also an equity and equality issue.

This is the greatest current challenge facing humanity. It demands a concerted and comprehensive response. Many who are climate change sceptics - and they are still out there express concern for our high energy users. I can assure members that many in the resources and high-energy use sectors are already responding to this. The Leader mentioned a couple. They have been actively working towards decarbonising their work places. They have seen the writing on the wall. They know if they want to raise funds and raise capital, they have to demonstrate that they are operating in a socially and environmentally responsible manner.

We heard from Andrew Radonjic this morning, from Venture Minerals, who has actually made significant changes to their plans for Venture Minerals and the Mount Lindsay project to go underground to significantly reduce their footprint and to use electric mining equipment. Electric mining equipment has been developed and built in my electorate by Elphinstone.

There is a lot of work being done by this sector already. They are actually ahead of the game. They are investing in batteries and electric underground vehicles and above-ground mining vehicles as well. They are also looking at renewable energy sources to use to power their operations.

I was recently speaking to the Chief Operating Officer of Grange Resources, Ben Maynard, prior to a recent media announcement regarding the plans of Grange Resources to decarbonise its operations and cut its carbon emissions to net zero by 2035. Grange Resources is a very long-established mining operation. It has an enormously energy-intensive pelletising plant at Port Latta. It also has a very large open pit in Savage River. This was a very big and brave step to have net zero emissions by 2035. I commend Ben Maynard. I know it was not an easy thing to convince his owners of, even the CEO.

It was reported in The Advocate newspaper, which confirmed the conversation I have had with him. I quote from The Advocate newspaper:

The iron ore outfit is also targeting a net 50 per cent carbon dioxide emissions drop by 2030 -

So half way by 2030, net zero by 2035.

and to eliminate non-renewable energy coal sources like anthracite by 2025.

They have a very clear, stepped process to do this.

'It's an exciting time for the business,' chief operating officer Ben Maynard said on Thursday.

It's a transition for us as we seek to align ourselves with those core metrics of good governance, people, prosperity and looking after our planet.'

The company's board has endorsed the targets under Grange's commitment to ESG (environmental, social and governance) metrics as supported by the World Economic Forum.

'This new global environment is challenging the traditional expectations of corporations and redirecting investment capital,' Grange said in its ESG report released on Wednesday.

Further,

The company said it had developed a roadmap to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

'This will involve the reduction of energy used per tonne of product, upgrades to furnaces, recovery of heat in the pellet plant, application of technology and electric vehicles in the mining operation and alternative fuel sources,' Grange said.

Hydrogen power is one potential emissions cutter for Grange, which currently relies on diesel and natural gas.

Switching from open pit to underground mining, which is being investigated, could also help, and potentially be accompanied by electrification of underground mine works.

We should recognise the very real and genuine efforts being made in our resources sector. We need these minerals to decarbonise our future, as we heard from Andrew Radonjic this morning. Tin and tungsten are vital to enable the decarbonisation of our planet. We need them for electric vehicles, we need them for our mobile phones, we need them in a battery charging station for our electric vehicles. We also heard of the discovery of rare earth minerals there too, which is an exciting development. These are critical minerals. Members might have received an email from John Lamb, who is the Managing Director at Avebury Nickel Mine, Mallee Resources, who are seeking the support of the government to have nickel listed as an essential mineral because of the nature of that mineral and its requirement in these decarbonising products as well.

At the recent Tasmanian Minerals, Manufacturing and Energy Council conference, I also spoke to a number of other mining and manufacturing business leaders who stated similar goals to what we heard this morning from Andrew Radonjic and also from the media release from Grange Resources and Ben Maynard. They stated similar goals and actions. Some presentations that were provided at that conference clearly demonstrated that work is already being done. We have companies such as Elphinstone, as I have already mentioned, and Epiroc. Both are based in my electorate on the north-west coast, and are actively developing this technology. In many ways, they are ahead of our former federal government by 100 miles and others who choose, I suggest, to only see negative outcomes rather than positive outcomes for these businesses.

We should be proud of the work of many of these businesses who have recognised the need to act and have done so without actually being forced to. It is a commercial decision, in many respects, I agree absolutely, but they have got on and got started on it. We should support and assist them and do our bit to provide the framework to assist.

COVID-19 has shown us that we can work together to address the very real and serious threat to our health and welfare that COVID-19 presented and we need a similar approach to the climate change emissions reduction, which is also a serious threat to our health and wellbeing. We have the opportunity to consolidate and capitalise on the world-leading carbon emissions profile that we currently have and the renewable energy generation assets that we have. I commend the Government for their commitment to address this through legislative change. I will consider the other amendments that were put to this place.

I do not wish to comment more fully on all the provisions in the bill because they have been well outlined by the Leader in her second reading speech. I will make a couple of comments on some of the points the Leader made. She commented on the Tasmanian Emissions Pathway Review, identifying six economy-wide emissions reduction opportunities, that, if implemented, are projected to not only achieve our target but to improve our net zero emissions profile over time. We have to make that the goal, particularly with the risk to our forests and of forest fire. I acknowledge some of these actions will have a longer lead time and/or a longer time to demonstrate a reduction in emissions. It has to be doing everything we can, not picking one thing and choosing that and going on to the next. We need to walk and chew gum at the same time.

A lot of these identified actions include increasing the uptake of electric vehicles. We are starting to see a few more electric vehicles on the road. One of my sons was over visiting recently and he actually hired an electric vehicle, a Polestar, which is like the Volvo off-to-the-side electric vehicle. He had to do very much a planned trip. He was going to the north-west to see other members of the family; he landed in Hobart where we were at the time. He is the sort of kid who likes to try new things, he likes shiny new things, he is always the first in line to get a new Apple iPhone when it is released. He had to particularly plan to make sure he would not be caught short anywhere without charge. Even when he plugged it in at his father's house to charge it that night, it did not fully charge overnight. He still had enough power to get back, but this is an ongoing issue. I will come more to that.

It is important to see that occurring and we do see more around but it is not something that is going to be rolled out within a very short space of time throughout the whole of our state.

Developing a renewable hydrogen industry - in that regard it is one aspect, but as was pointed out at the TMEC conference, that is not an answer for every application. The use of innovative feed supplements to reduce livestock emissions, I will speak to that in a moment. Fuel switching by replacing fossil fuel burners with alternatives powered by renewable energy, including bioenergy technology. The Smithton Wellbeing Indoor Recreation and Leisure centre, which is the new pool complex, that pool is heated by pellets from the waste wood from Ta Ann and Britton Timbers down the road. I am not sure how many years that has been operating now, but it began before COVID-19. It is a few years and has been successful. These things are already happening but I am glad to see they are being focused on more.

Reducing agriculture and soil emission through precision agriculture: it has taken some of our older members of our farming community a while to appreciate that. It was always spread your fertiliser whenever and spread it everywhere pretty much rather than taking a more targeted approach. There are lots of reasons why it is good to take a targeted approach, not just cost alone. You do not want it all washing into the creek either if it rains at the wrong time.

Those sorts of things are the future for farming and we are seeing a lot of our younger farmers absolutely embracing this new technology and improving their productivity, as well as reducing carbon emissions on their farms.

The use of wood in construction in place of emissions intensive building products: I notice a couple of us would have been to the Forest and Forest Industry Council conference and dinner recently. I was at both. There were a number of interesting presentations on the importance of timber in our buildings, but supply can be the issue and we do not want to be buying it from countries where they do not have such high ESG requirements or even capacity. Planting trees to improve agricultural productivity and on-island timber processing - this is a bit of a constant challenge for some farmers who feel the need to clear land to make sure it is all accessible for whatever they are doing with their sheep, cattle, cropping. There have been problems in many parts of my electorate with people wanting to clear land and being told no, you cannot, because of the amount already been cleared or it is not a good area to clear it.

The Government needs to take a lead on this in helping our broader community, our older members of our community who have always managed their land a certain way, if there are other ways of doing it and the importance of planting trees on your farms for many reasons. It can increase their productivity in terms of shelter belts and things like that. It is a challenging thing for some farmers to fully appreciate.

Ms Rattray - I did say yesterday in the briefing there is that generation of farmers who still do things the way they have always done them. Perhaps, their fathers and mothers have done things so it is a challenge. On Landline on Sunday there was a good segment that showed shelter belts and they were planted in arcs. It was interesting.

Ms FORREST - These are the things that science teaches too. In fairness to some of our older farmers, some of the science was not done then. We did not understand and we did not know, so I am not criticising. I am saying we need to be willing to change when the science dictates we should.

Mrs Hiscutt - It has started to change a bit because I am aware of a time when they used to use TNT and dynamite to blow trees out of the ground.

Ms FORREST - In fairness, I think about my father who died just over a year ago. He cleared the land with bullock and dray. It was soldier settlement land. He might have used a bit of dynamite. I would not be surprised if he did. He lived to 93 to tell the tale.

Mr Valentine - Often it is the older farmers on the land who actually can see the change in climate.

Ms FORREST - They can. They are the ones we should also need to listen to. My dad also said he saw how the Aboriginal people managed the land, they managed it effectively. They did not have high intensity burns. When they did burn, they did low intensity burns and things like that. We have a lot to learn from the older people, but we also need to ensure we do not ignore science when science tells us to do things a little bit differently.

Ms Rattray - It is a compromise position.

Ms FORREST - It is actually listening to what science is telling us now. Diverting organic waste from landfill is an important thing too. It is not that hard to do in many respects, but you do need the facilities to process the waste et cetera.

I note another opportunity that was not on this list - I know it is not an exhaustive list - is that of battery storage. We have battery storage on our property here and the one in Wynyard. We were one of the first sites to put in the flow batteries. It has been interesting to be able to monitor and watch. We now have two, they are quite big flow batteries and solar on the roof. We had a bit of a hiccup to start with because we were basically a beta site from the South Australian company that put them in. The guy who came to install them brought his own Tesla. We did not even hear him coming up the drive. Anyway, he came from South Australia.

Getting back to the mining and manufacturing sectors, they have already identified the superior power source efficiency of lithium batteries plus electric motor over hydrogen fuel cell plus electric motor. We think hydrogen is the answer. It is not in all applications. The work has been done. At the conference there was a presenter from Elphinstone to provide this information, showing the power source efficiency that was superior with lithium battery plus electric motor over hydrogen fuel cell with electric motor. We need to look at all these options.

Mr Duigan - Did he look at the life time of the lithium battery, the eight-year life of that battery?

Ms FORREST - We did not really, I was looking at the power efficiency of it. We need to look at all these things. We are not saying one is going to be the answer for everything, we need to look at different applications.

Mr Duigan - Indeed, you throw away your electric cars every eight years, that is the problem.

Ms FORREST - Can you recycle lithium at the end of it?

Mr Valentine - They can make power walls out of them after they are used in cars.

Mr Duigan - However, they cannot do anything with the cars.

Ms FORREST - I will get onto this, I am astounded by some of the ideas that come forward. You think, who is going to actually think of that? Some people are very clever. I appreciate that hydrogen energy has a broader application than vehicles and no doubt will play an important part in our future.

I also note the Leader's comments that economic analysis demonstrates these 16 listed actions will not only reduce emissions, they can also improve productivity and increase demand for Tasmania's renewable energy and products, generating higher economic growth and employment. By 2050, the Leader said, our economy could be $475 million larger, employing 1200 more Tasmanians as a result of these actions. We expect the population to increase. We need to be on the forefront to ensure we do not end up going backwards.

In many respects, some of these realities should put some of the fearmongering we have seen from some quarters related to the transition to renewable energy to bed. The evidence is becoming more compelling that this is not a detriment, there are benefits for everyone, including to the planet. I also note the Government is working to reduce emissions across our economy through new investment in waste, transport, energy and the agriculture sectors, some of them I have mentioned.

I will comment more on the commitment to the $6 million to fund two industrial-scale organic composting facilities in northern and southern Tasmania that will divert organic waste from landfill and thus reduce the association emissions. This is a very important part of our emissions reduction approach as we have much organic waste that can and should be returned to the ground in a more effective way, not just buried under it, with a risk of harmful emissions.

On an individual level, we can also contribute in our homes to this process and ensure all organic waste is re-used in ways that benefit the land and the planet, not just tossed out in the general rubbish. So, it will require a little bit of a change of behaviour. That is always a difficult thing for a lot of people, but slowly and surely. We do need to do our own from an individual level right up to the government and others.

Mr PRESIDENT - We should all get chooks.

Ms FORREST - Yes, I have chooks and they get a lot of the food scraps and the worms get the rest of them.

Transitioning the government fleet to electric vehicles by 2030: that is not that far away. Reducing emissions associated with imported liquid fossil fuels and increasing the supply of used EVs in Tasmania; clearly, new EVs are expensive, outside the reach of many ordinary Tasmanians. So, this is a way of getting more second-hand electric vehicles into the market and thus into circulation around Tasmania. Also, supporting the wider adoption of electric vehicles to reduce transport emissions with an investment of $1.4 million into the statewide charging network.

Personally, I look forward to the time when my next vehicle can be and actually is fully electric. Coming from a large and rural electorate, this remains problematic until we have adequate numbers of fast charging stations around all parts of the state.

I appreciate it is getting better, and the Government has made this commitment and that is great, but at this moment I lack the confidence that I would not be stranded in a remote part of the state with no battery power and no phone coverage.

Ms Rattray - At Bracknell on a Saturday night at 11 o'clock, trying to get home, I am not sure how I am going to cope with that.

Ms FORREST - Or anywhere on the west coast too, let me tell you.

Mr Valentine - It is called a hybrid vehicle.

Ms FORREST - There is no phone coverage either. So, if you get in trouble, you are stuck.

Ms Rattray - At least at Bracknell I have a phone.

Ms FORREST - There is no phone, that is what I am saying. Without battery, you might have some hope if you can call for help but if you cannot even call for help, it is a hell of a long way to walk for reception in lots of those parts that I travel, not to mention on a dangerous road where you cannot actually get off it.

Ms Rattray - There is a way to go.

Ms FORREST - Small steps. I appreciate this change will occur, the rollout of the fast charging stations and there are challenges in ensuring that recharging our vehicles at home can occur in a way that does not negatively impact the electricity grid and also enables us to fully charge them overnight. More homes are going to have to get three-phase power. I am not sure if there is another answer, but I am not the expert in this.

I will speak briefly on the government support for Sea Forest with its investment of over $500 000 to further research the use of asparagopsis seaweed that is a livestock feed supplement. How did someone actually think of this? There are many smart people, I have watched this with great interest.

Mr Valentine - It is probably those at Marrawah who used to harvest seaweed.

Ms FORREST - Or King Island. King Island has a very active kelp industry. They only take the kelp off the beaches, of course. They harvest it.

Mr Valentine - It is probably where it started.

Ms FORREST - It may have been. It is interesting that this is a real potential game changer in the agricultural sector. There is very little you can do to stop cows burping and farting, when they eat and chew their cud, particularly.

Mr PRESIDENT - The parliamentary term is flatulence.

Ms FORREST - I am a farm girl at heart, you know. There is more burping that they do that releases the emissions because they chew their cud, they are cud-chewing animals.

Ms Rattray - You can take the girl out of the country, Mr President, but you cannot take the country out of the girl.

Ms FORREST – That is right. I find this absolutely fascinating. I was very attached to the cows when I was growing up. They all had names and I used to love them dearly and I would get amongst them in the cowyard. When they did burp, you could smell it. A happy cow chews their cud and an unhappy cow does not. They were always happy cows, which is lovely.

I am amazed by the work of scientists in this space and we are all proud of them. It has started very small and there is quite a long way to go until it is fully commercialised, but this, and potentially other great ideas, will also add to our capacity to remain net zero and get below, better than net zero.

It is for some of these reasons that we can have a sense of optimism and hope. Yes, some will take time and we need to move on these and many other measures. The need to do so is critical. As I said previously, we cannot just focus on one. We have to focus on many.

There is much that could be said with regard to this bill. However, I believe my comments have captured the key issues, and reiterated the need that I see, as shared by many others, for real and urgent action. We need to avoid any further delay in decarbonising our homes, workplaces, business and industries, to ensure the future of our planet, more so for our children and grandchildren.

The key point is this legislation must be future-focused in order to achieve our climate action strategy. I agree with the UTAS submissions and others of the need to include ambitious central emissions reduction targets and comprehensive sector-specific climate reduction strategies to build our reputation as a resilient, competitive and prosperous climate positive economy.

I acknowledge the work done in Renewables, Climate and Future Industries Tasmania (ReCFIT). I still wonder why it sits in Treasury. Anyway, maybe the Leader can tell me why it still sits in Treasury. I am going to ask Anton Voss. Also, the passion of the experts who work in this space. I note Dr Russell as one of the advisers and her very clear passion for the work in this area. I know there are many others but I acknowledge her work.

It is clear to all that our current action is inadequate and is not future-focused to the degree it certainly needs to be.

I commend the Government for bringing forward legislation to address this, and for agreeing to amendments in the other place that have strengthened the bill. I will keep my mind open to all the other amendments that are proposed during the Committee stage.

I am happy to support the bill into the Committee stage.

Mrs HISCUTT (Montgomery) - While the member is on her feet, the minister is coming to brief us very soon. I wonder whether the member could adjourn the debate?

Ms FORREST - I move -

That the debate stands adjourned.

Debate adjourned.

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, I have pretty much completed my contribution, but I did want to acknowledge the briefing from the minister who was listening to my contribution in another place, which is very gratifying. I will cover the points I raised in my speech and then subsequently in the briefing to make a couple of points about those.

Most of the points the minister was talking about in the briefing, in my view, will be debated more fully in the Committee stage and I am not going to go to that now.

I am grateful we are going to have another couple of weeks to look more closely at the amendments and engage more with those key stakeholders on some of the information we have from the administrator of the departmental offices on this matter, because that will give us time to make sure we make informed decisions on the amendments that could or should be supported or not.

I note the minister also heard my comments around the location of ReCFIT, which has now been moved to State Growth. I did ask them a while ago why it was there, in general conversation not a formal question for the Leader. I am sure that was not the reason it moved, but it was a concern to me that it was in Treasury, because Treasury to me is about holding the purse strings. It is not about ensuring such an important part of government business or government activity sits in Treasury when it really does not belong there. I appreciate the minister passing that information through. I have not checked the Treasury website to see if it has updated but if not, maybe it will be. When I last checked, it was still listed on the Treasury website.

Mrs Hiscutt - The minister is probably listening and taking notice.

Ms FORREST - I am sure he is. Nothing better to do. The minister talked about some of the challenges with hydrogen energy and the regulations that currently prevent progress in some of those areas. I sit on the Subordinate Legislation Committee with the Leader and the Chair, the member for McIntyre, and we have not seen any of the regulations come through yet. When these problems are identified, one would expect a fairly prompt response, particularly if these are the things we are focusing on to make a difference in our emissions reduction. I expect that the Subordinate Legislation Committee will see them pretty promptly. I know there is a degree of consultation that needs to go on and to make sure that there are no other areas that need to be addressed. This has been identified, and we would not expect to have to wait too long if this really is a key focus of the Government, in seeking to reduce our emissions and to keep our emissions below net zero. I acknowledge that there is a risk, as I said in my second reading contribution earlier, that without immediate and ongoing action, we could rise back to either a zero or a net positive which would not be good for many reasons. It would not be good for the state and the state's image in terms of being recognised and known as being a world leader in this, as being net negative emissions.

I note the minister's comments about not regulating business out of existence. I am not sure that is what is being suggested here. I consider there is absolute value in reporting against the emissions of each sector, even though sectors will have trouble reducing their emissions quickly and I know that is what is being done. We all recognise there are some sectors that have a much bigger task and some have a task where there is no clear solution yet but they are vital to the health and wellbeing of our population - like being fed, for a start. Vegetarians may disagree on some of that, in terms of talking about beef and dairy farming. The minister did talk a bit about the differences between beef and dairy in terms of feeding both categories of cattle, and the asparagopsis pellets. As most farmers would know, even beef cattle get fed, they might graze but they are often fed silage and hay in the winter. It may be that it needs to be given more regularly than that. Anyway, I consider these are problems that will be sorted out. We have some examples where we can have some hope, but we cannot afford to take our foot off the pedal.

Mr President, I support the bill into the Committee stage and I look forward to continuing with it in two or three weeks, whenever it is we are back.

 

Go Back