Mr GAFFNEY (Mersey) - Madam Deputy President, I am not sure whether Madam is the right honorific now because it should just be Deputy President, I suppose, if we are getting away from the his and hers.

Madam DEPUTY PRESIDENT - I quite like the sound of Madam, but whatever.

Mr GAFFNEY - So do I. Okay. I will leave that alone, Madam Deputy President.

The one thing that we are going to find out of this is that everybody's contribution will be a little bit different.

There is so much information and material out there, it is what to bring to this Chamber to add to the conversation and the debate. I appreciate the briefings we have received from the Government. I appreciate the amount of information we have received and the openness from the minister to be available at any time. That has been good, because if we think about what this is all about, it is about what is good for us as a community, as a state, into the next generations and that is a difficult one.

I am not going to take that long, but I will roll around a few different places, trying not to repeat some of the stuff that has already been said.

I appreciate the contribution of each member and think there is a difference here between Independents and party members. Do not get me wrong here. I am not making a judgment about those. The parties - Labor, Liberal and Greens - have a policy position regarding certain things, for example, climate.

As an Independent, we do not so much. We sort of pick pieces or we like that from that party, I like that from that policy, how is that going to fit together.

We are very much aware there is a huge amount of information. There is a huge amount of scientific evidence in the community and there is a huge amount of community angst. It is impossible and not beneficial to provide hours and hours of documentation, analysis and papers and commentary on this topic in this place.

Saying that, it is acknowledged climate change is the greatest threat in current times and we as a parliament, and the community representatives, get very few opportunities to have an impact and improve the legislation. This is our time to be able to do what we can for the future generations and this is one of those chances.

It is interesting. I am not sure how other people organise their bills, but I have a folder, and I have the bills in line and then every now and then you will get a bill that comes up and you get two separate folders just for that legislation. It could have been more. There has been so much information come to us and it is sifting through that, what to bring to this place.

I acknowledge that because that bulk of information means that in 14 or 15 of us speaking, we can cover a lot of that and come up with, perhaps something that will encourage us when we get into Committee, to listen to other people's points of view and what they are saying and what is the intent behind that comment.

We all want the best thing. Even this morning, we would have received an email. It is important and not very long, but it highlights the concern from the community, what people want to do.

It said:

Dear Mr Gaffney,

I am concerned about the lack of ambition and urgency in the Tasmanian Government's proposed Climate Change Bill. Given that Tasmania has already been boasting about being carbon neutral for several years, legislating for net zero emissions by 2030 is meaningless. Tasmania should be aiming for ambitious emissions reduction targets rather than relying on offsets and reductions in native forest logging.

The only way to curb climate change is to stop burning fossil fuels, stop land clearing and change agricultural practices. Thus, we should be legislating for no new fossil fuel exploration or mining in and around Tasmania. We need ambitious emission reduction targets and plans for industry, energy and waste sectors. We need legislation to support electrification of the transport sector. We need to stop clearing land, start ecological restoration and support farmers to find better ways to manage their land. We need to legislate for ambitious emission reduction targets so we can become carbon negative by 2030 and set a shining example to the rest of Australia.


This is a climate emergency. Which part of the word 'emergency' does the Government not understand?

When I received this I spoke to the person and said, do you mind if I read that in? It is typical of what we are hearing and seeing. I suppose people are so passionate about climate change, as we have heard from the mobs around the world and schools going on, that when I think back to the protest laws we just passed, the climate is one of those issues those laws are going to be tested on.

Then you hear logos and slogans about net emissions, getting it right by 2050, then I go back to the healthiest state by 2025, I go back to target the 10 000 houses by 2032. All that target stuff is good, but if the target stuff does not come to reality, it is meaningless. We have to be aware of that. If we think about the rallies and catchcries, there are too many variables. If we think about rallies and catchcries we hear from the community, we want change and we want it now. You hear that when you go to the rallies, but what that change looks like and what that change will be is hard to put a finger on, because what that change means is what is going to change to make this better?

I have some concerns about what we are doing here. The Leader's speech appears to focus heavily on the economy and perhaps does not go far enough to address the real needs of this emergency. The Government is in an interesting place, because whilst they have to contend with the climate emergency, they also have to say well, how can we also keep the economy rolling on? That is a bit of a balancing act.

It also worries me some information we have received has long-term predictions out to 2050, 30 years from now and as we get older, we realise that goes quite quickly. I can remember, I heard a radio commentator say one day that life is like a roll of toilet paper, the first half goes really slowly. I found some synergy to that. However, if you think about 2050, 30 years from now, that means 1990. Most of us were well into our profession there. What was it like in 1990? What happened there?

The total warming effect from greenhouse gases from 1990 to now, earth's atmosphere has increased by 45 per cent. Earth's temperature classically has risen by 0.8 per cent Celsius per decade since 1880. However, since 1980, 40 years ago, the rate of warming is more than twice that, 0.18 per cent. 2021 was the sixth warmest year on record. In the last 12 years we have had 10 of the hottest years on record. It is an emergency. That is what we need to focus on. In what we are planning now, in our opportunity to change legislation, are we saying to the Government, we want you to do this, we do not really care about the economics of this over here so much, because this is what is happening?

That is the conundrum. Not only are we getting hotter temperatures, more severe storms, increased drought, a rising ocean, sea levels have risen by eight centimetres in the last 20 years. No wonder some of the islands that we heard about before are worried about it. Loss of species, not enough food, more health risks and poverty and displacement. The funny thing about - not the funny thing - a thing about climate change, once the vortex starts, exponentially these things will happen. Once the degrees of temperature go up a bit more, we lose so many more species that cannot adapt.


From that point of view, are we doing enough by 2050? It is difficult, as we heard from our briefings. It is hard to know. It is best guestimates, I suppose, of what is going to happen. What we know is, what energies do we need to put into the legislation today, that can create change? It is not going to happen overnight. With all due respect, I taught people for 25 to 30 years, and they want things to happen right away, they want to see things happen.

Ms Rattray - Yesterday.

Mr GAFFNEY - Exactly. What we need to do is be able to say 'we have listened to what you have been saying and, in our capacity, this is what we are going to do in legislation. This is what we can do to make sure those targets get hit quicker, make sure we put more energy, more finance, more money, more backing, more whatever, expertise, into the things that are going to happen and matter in 2050.' That is where the conundrum is.

The evidence is clear and this comes from many different sources: the main cause of climate change is burning fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and coal. No matter how we try to massage it, and no matter how we try to protect our businesses, that is the main thing. When burned, fossil fuels release carbon dioxide into the air, causing the planet to heat up. With that for an opening, I will focus on parts of one submission that we received because it highlights across the board. A young man from the University of Tasmania came to see me, with a group, about their concerns. It was an articulate group of people, and he sent an email:

I am contacting you today on behalf of the Climate Collective, the former School Strike for Climate in Hobart, an organisation fighting for climate action on behalf of young people in Southern lutruwita/Tasmania. As you would be aware, the Gutwein government has recently introduced the Climate Change (State Action) Amendment Bill of 2021 to the Tasmanian Parliament. Young people in our state believe that the bill as written fails to deliver both on the promises made to the young people by Premier Gutwein during the last State election, and the expectations of the Tasmanian community. Over the past 3 years, over 50 000 Tasmanians, overwhelmingly young Tasmanians, have attended our events to demand immediate effective climate action.

To the Government's credit, they have taken on some of those and amendments have been introduced. It is about, have there been enough? Can we do more? That is the debate that we will have in a couple of weeks time when we come back. They went on to say:

We are eager to meet with you, directly to discuss the bill and proposed amendments as well as its effect on climate change.

I was quite pleased to be able to meet with them. When I looked at their submission, which was 76 pages - so here we go, page 1. No, I am kidding. I will take a few points out of it though -

Ms Webb - Trying to beat me.

Mr GAFFNEY - I hope not. I do not think I have ever been able to beat either of the two previous -

However, I will highlight some points and then I will finish my contribution.

Mr Valentine - It is making my speech a lot less.

Mr GAFFNEY - Good. This submission has been prepared by the Tasmanian Policy Exchange, the TPE at the University of Tasmania. It was established to enable the University of Tasmania to make timely and informed contributions to key policy debates occurring in Tasmania, thus making a positive contribution to the future of our state and its people. This submission provides a blueprint for climate action to maximise the long-term benefits for the Tasmanian community. I remember the member for Nelson and the member for Murchison saying it is all very good to have different representatives trying to fix things, but over the course of this journey we need different ideas and representatives of groups at that discussion point, so that they can say, this is what you have to fix now. Do not just leave it up to industry or the government. We have a scientific community there, we have a university community there that have expertise in other areas. They have their fingers on the pulse that sometimes people in industry may not, because they are working so hard in their space. A few of the things from their submission, and they write:

Climate change is the greatest contemporary challenge facing humanity and demands a concerted and comprehensive response, encompassing individual, community, business and Government action.

In that paper, they are saying, we need everybody working together.

As of April 2021, more than 110 countries accounting for more than 85 per cent of global economic output have made net zero pledges. Much of the attention focuses on international agreements and national emission targets but there is also growing recognition that state and regional governments have a critical role to play in promoting climate action. Indeed, some of the most significant initiatives aimed at reducing emissions and preparing for the impacts of climate change, have been at the sub-national level.

In Tasmania, that is important, because we know we are lucky we have a close relationship between local, state and federal governments and representatives in this state. We know that on the ground, our local communities are prepared to work and are prepared to get in and have a go, and we just have to look at the different sectors.

The current review of the Tasmanian Climate Change Act and the associated Climate Change Action Plan is timely, given this critical juncture in global climate action provides Tasmania with an important opportunity to consolidate and capitalise on its world-leading carbon emissions profile and renewable electricity assets. However, Tasmania cannot be complacent.

This submission argues that Tasmania's Climate Action Strategy must include more ambitious sectorial emissions reduction targets and comprehensive sector-specific climate adaptation strategies to build our reputation as a resilient, competitive and prosperous climate positive economy.

A commitment to a climate positive Tasmania will not only ensure that Tasmanians are making an important contribution to addressing climate change, but a more systemic focus on adaptation laws, and so help reduce the impacts of unavoidable climate change on Tasmanians, communities and environment.

I listened to the minister this morning and I appreciated his thoughts. I am not verballing him for what he said, but the idea of having a total emissions reduction target against a sectoral one because he did not want sectors to get penalties if they could not get to this. I made the comment that Tasmanians are smarter than that. They understand that if one sector cannot get the emissions down in a certain amount of time or by a certain year, that is understandable. Hopefully, a group over here will be able to get it down. However, do not cover it over. I am not saying cover it over in a bad way; but do not say we are winning because it has dropped a little bit over here. We need to be able to be honest, because it is the people out there that need that honesty.

Despite the clear costs and risks of global warming, being a leader on climate change also provides opportunities - given the accelerating global transition to low carbon technologies and processes. Tasmania has the potential to capitalise on its climate positive status to attract investment industries and people seeking to contribute to a more sustainable, low carbon world.

This submission has been informed by the research analysis of experts from a range of academic disciplines across the University of Tasmania, who share a commitment to practical, evidence-based climate action in the long-term interests of all Tasmanians.

Going back to Venture Minerals that we heard from this morning, that you helped facilitate, Madam Deputy President, I found it interesting that that group was acknowledging the role that they could play in trying to decrease, by accessing the right sort of minerals. This submission had two broad aims. Firstly, the submission was to present the most recent scientific evidence on the likely climate challenge facing Tasmania and secondly, to inform the development of the next Tasmanian climate change act and associated climate action plan to ensure Tasmania retains climate-positive status and can continue to credibly claim to be an international leader on climate action.

It is not just being about being a leader; it is about being a prototype or a template for other communities to look at. I was interested in 2016, there was the City of Darebin in Melbourne that came out. If Tasmania can come out there and show the different things and show the areas and what they are trying to do, that helps other places. You do not want to reinvent the wheel, you just want to pick up from it. That is why it makes sense having climatologists on board, because they have a different network of friends and a different network of backgrounds and information that they can access and they can contribute to the conversation.

Mr Valentine - It is what they can add to solutions, is it not?

Mr GAFFNEY - Exactly. That is important. I am not going to read much of this one, I will just do the headings under the recommendations in the UTAS submission. They identified the recommendations. If people are listening - and my Mum will be - go to these pages and look at this: Part 1 - the climate challenge; Part 2 - sectoral emissions targets; Part 3 - sectoral mitigation strategies. Under their mitigation strategies they include energy, transport, agriculture and industry. In Part 4 they have adaptation strategies, and under that heading they have health and emergency management, ecosystems and habitat, agriculture and aquaculture, infrastructure in the built environment, communities and climate education and literacy.

What I like about that submission is they had the bigger picture and then they broke it down into sectors, and then under these sectors there were the recommendations. I do not know enough about this to say whether those recommendations are right. That is not my job, that will be for other people; but they had it worked out so that if you were reading this you would go, 'yes; now what is the government going to do?'. 'Okay, they do not agree with that one', and let's target those and see what we can do.

In conclusion, Madam Deputy President, there were many pragmatic, rational and achievable recommendations made by the Tasmanian Policy Exchange. I will be supporting every amendment that improves and endeavours to strengthen the legislation to address the significant, detrimental and damaging impacts of climate change. This legislation will go to the Committee stage. I have no doubt about that, none of us do. However, when it comes out of that Committee stage we want to make certain that we have taken this opportunity to ensure that the legislation is going to be in the very best interests of Tasmania - not for now, but for the future, and also for those young people to see today that this parliament has listened to their concerns and has acted accordingly and strengthened the legislation to provide a blueprint on the way forward not just for this government, but the next government and the people of Tasmania. I will be supporting this into the Committee stage.