Speaker 1: Welcome to zero. I am Kshatrati. This week old rocks,
Speaker 1: new politicians and another new climate bill. There's a famous
Speaker 1: clip from the Australian Parliament back in twenty seventeen. This
Speaker 1: is kaw type fright while treasure Annie the role of props.
Speaker 1: It's kyl. Scott Morrison, then the Treasurer and soon to
Speaker 1: be Prime Minister, brings a lump of coal into the
Speaker 1: room and taunts the opposition with it. It's no word
Speaker 1: for kaula fibia. Officially mister spike gap, but that's the
Speaker 1: malady that a flick stars opposite. Over the next few years,
Speaker 1: even while fires, droughts and floods devastated the country, Morrison
Speaker 1: was accused of ignoring the threat of climate change, but
Speaker 1: the electorate could not ignore those impacts. Fast forward to
Speaker 1: elections in May twenty twenty two and there was a
Speaker 1: seismic shift in Australian politics. Morrison's Liberal Party took a
Speaker 1: drubbing at the polls and he was replaced by Labors
Speaker 1: Anthony Albanesi. Even more surprising was the success of the
Speaker 1: Australian Greens and a group of independent candidates known as
Speaker 1: the Teals, who promised strong climate action, and now the
Speaker 1: Labor government has done what was not long ago unimaginable.
Speaker 1: It has passed a law that binds the country to
Speaker 1: a forty three percent emissions reduction by twenty thirty. Anthony
Speaker 1: Albanesi's Climate Change Bill is expected to pass through Parliament
Speaker 1: after Teale Independence and the Grains reportedly secured concessions to
Speaker 1: support Liba's forty three percent emissions reduction target. Although the
Speaker 1: bill is a historic first, many have criticized it for
Speaker 1: not aligning with what the country must do to help
Speaker 1: the world reach its climate goals, and Australia's ongoing love
Speaker 1: affair with fossil fuels raises questions about how it will
Speaker 1: meet the forty three percent target. The country is one
Speaker 1: of the top two X voters of coal and has
Speaker 1: the third high CEO two emissions per capita of any
Speaker 1: G twenty country, higher even than the US. This week
Speaker 1: on Zero we are joined by two politicians who were
Speaker 1: key to the passing of the emissions reduction target and
Speaker 1: are committed to strengthening the goal. Later we'll hear from
Speaker 1: international rugby captain turned senator David Pocock, but my first
Speaker 1: guest is Adam Bant, the leader of the Australian Greens.
Speaker 1: He sits in the House of Representatives and his party
Speaker 1: holds the balance of power in the country's Senate. We
Speaker 1: discuss Australia's new political landscape, the fight for better climate legislation,
Speaker 1: and the opportunities for a decarbonized Australia. Adam, Welcome to
Speaker 1: the show. Thanks for having me. Now. After the May
Speaker 1: twenty two elections, Australia has what Summer calling the climate supermajority,
Speaker 1: with Greens getting their biggest haul and a group of
Speaker 1: independents known as the Teals pouted in on a climate mandate.
Speaker 1: What's changed in the Australian political discourse that means these
Speaker 1: candidates succeeded. There's always been an appetite in Australia to
Speaker 1: take action on climate because people see it playing out.
Speaker 1: It has just been lacking the federal leadership to do it,
Speaker 1: especially over the last decade. But we've just come off
Speaker 1: the back of three years of droughts and bush fires
Speaker 1: that gained international attention and also then floods, and there
Speaker 1: was a real understanding that the federal government was not
Speaker 1: only unwilling to act, but was actually actively expanding coal
Speaker 1: and gas, and in fact, in response to the COVID pandemic,
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister Scott Morrison led what he called a
Speaker 1: gas led recovery to take public money to invest in
Speaker 1: opening up new gas fields, as if that would how
Speaker 1: be a solution to the economic and social wars facing
Speaker 1: us after the pandemic. Were this growing sense that the
Speaker 1: climate crisis was hitting us at home, but also seeing
Speaker 1: international movement, even from conservative governments from the United Kingdom
Speaker 1: for example, but also governments in the United States post
Speaker 1: Trump starting to act. It was a real sense that
Speaker 1: enough was enough and it was time for Australia to
Speaker 1: act on climate. And what we saw at the election
Speaker 1: was not only a change of government but a really
Speaker 1: interesting result where the then government, Scott Morrison's government and
Speaker 1: the now government Anthony Albernizi's Labor both saw their votes
Speaker 1: go backwards. They both promoted more coal and gas and
Speaker 1: both saw their votes go backwards, and the parties and
Speaker 1: the people who votes went up, which was the Greens
Speaker 1: getting our biggest ever representation in Parliament and our highest
Speaker 1: ever vote and a number of independents on strong climate
Speaker 1: platforms all tackled the question of climate and coal and
Speaker 1: gas and said it's time to get out of coal
Speaker 1: and gas and stop opening up coal and gas. And
Speaker 1: that's what the people rewarded as a result of the election.
Speaker 1: There's now a bill that enshrains and emissions reductions target
Speaker 1: in law and that's a forty three percent reduction over
Speaker 1: two thousand five levels by twenty thirty. Is that what
Speaker 1: the science says we need to keep global warming below
Speaker 1: one point five degrees celsius. It's definitely not, and the
Speaker 1: science says that Australia is for it to do its
Speaker 1: fair share to limit global warming to one and a
Speaker 1: half degrees, would have to be cutting pollution by seventy
Speaker 1: four percent by twenty thirty, which is of course close
Speaker 1: to the United kingdom sixty eight percent target. The independent
Speaker 1: analysis done in Australia of Australia's fair share also says
Speaker 1: that even if one were to give up on one
Speaker 1: and a half degrees and still aim for the well
Speaker 1: below two degree target of the Paris Agreement, Australia's domestic
Speaker 1: contribution would need to be fifty percent, So to be
Speaker 1: Paris Agreement compliant, Australia would need to be doing between
Speaker 1: fifty and seventy four percent, and it's not the forty
Speaker 1: three percent that the government wouldn't budge from that was
Speaker 1: in the bill. Is based on no qualified power stations
Speaker 1: closing earlier than anticipated, and they made that a big
Speaker 1: election promise. But what we were able to do is
Speaker 1: the Greens would secure some changes to the bill that
Speaker 1: would allow it to be ratcheted up quickly without obstacle.
Speaker 1: We ensured that the target couldn't be reduced if there
Speaker 1: was a change of government. And for the first time also,
Speaker 1: we're going to see it harder for government agencies to
Speaker 1: fund new coal and gas project because climate goals and
Speaker 1: temperature limits are now going to be included in the
Speaker 1: governing legislation for a lot of Australia's agencies, like the
Speaker 1: Export Finance Agency that in the past has been used
Speaker 1: to promote fossil fuels and to fund fossil fuel expansion.
Speaker 1: Now that is going to be a bit harder. So
Speaker 1: we as the Greens, pushed for some changes, secured some
Speaker 1: changes to a weak bill to the point where we
Speaker 1: were prepared to pass it. But doesn't do what the
Speaker 1: science requires. No, and I suspect not even the government
Speaker 1: says that it's a science based target, but the bill
Speaker 1: does not give any new funding or really, beyond the
Speaker 1: points you made, any concrete policy to be able to
Speaker 1: get to even the forty three percent target. So is
Speaker 1: the current law anything more than symbolic. Well, you're right
Speaker 1: that there's Apart from some of the things that I mentioned,
Speaker 1: it doesn't really have a lot of teeth. And the
Speaker 1: government was upfront about that. They said they wanted targets
Speaker 1: enshrined in law to give certainty to the country that
Speaker 1: there would be emissions reductions. But the government is still
Speaker 1: yet to detail how it's going to mate even this
Speaker 1: week target, and that work will be done overcoming months
Speaker 1: as the government lays out its mechanism for requiring existing
Speaker 1: polluters to start cutting their pollution and also critically how
Speaker 1: we'll deal with the question of proposed new coal and
Speaker 1: gas projects. That mechanism is going to need the support
Speaker 1: of the Senate, where the Government does not have the
Speaker 1: majority and where the Greens are sitting in balance of power.
Speaker 1: So over the coming months we'll be pushing very hard
Speaker 1: to say, having passed this legislation, now we need to
Speaker 1: give it some teeth and government needs to put some
Speaker 1: meat on the bones of its policy, and the country
Speaker 1: will be looking very very closely at that, not only
Speaker 1: because there is a very big question about how the
Speaker 1: government is going to meet even its weak targets, but
Speaker 1: also because there are some big new coal and gas
Speaker 1: projects that are in the pipeline that the government is backing,
Speaker 1: and the expert analysis locally is that there's no way
Speaker 1: that the government can approve those projects and still expect
Speaker 1: to meet even its weaky three percent target. Some of
Speaker 1: these projects are so big that if even just one
Speaker 1: of them goes ahead, it would blow that forty three
Speaker 1: percent target out of the water. So all eyes are
Speaker 1: now turning to what the government is actually going to
Speaker 1: do to cut pollution. So that's the science, and we
Speaker 1: need a lot more emissions reduction. But how much support
Speaker 1: is there from the public, from business and from major
Speaker 1: polluters to go beyond the forty three percent target. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of support from the public and indeed from
Speaker 1: business as well. Interestingly, in the lead up to the election,
Speaker 1: business was saying that a target even closer to fifty
Speaker 1: percent would be acceptable in Australia. So in many respects,
Speaker 1: the government was undercarting what sum even in the business
Speaker 1: community are saying there's a lot of support from the public,
Speaker 1: as I've said, for more ambitious action because we now
Speaker 1: have the situation where less than a third of the
Speaker 1: country voted for the party that is in government, the
Speaker 1: Labor Party, and there's a reference for the parties whose
Speaker 1: votes went up were the ones who said do more
Speaker 1: than this forty three percent target. The push, as I mentioned,
Speaker 1: through the business front, where there's going to be a
Speaker 1: real issue is how much work is government going to
Speaker 1: ask existing business to do to cut pollution and how
Speaker 1: much harder is that going to be for existing business
Speaker 1: to cut pollution if the government builds in space to
Speaker 1: open up new projects, so to take one of them,
Speaker 1: for example, the b to Loop basin in the Northern Territory,
Speaker 1: that project alone, if it goes ahead, would lift Australia's
Speaker 1: domestic commissions by up to thirteen percent and it's not
Speaker 1: included in the forty three percent modeling. That would in
Speaker 1: turn impose a lot more obligations on existing business to
Speaker 1: make a way for these big climate busting projects. And
Speaker 1: that's why I think you'll see you overcoming months a
Speaker 1: greater community push, including with business side by side, to
Speaker 1: say we can't keep addressing this problem at the same
Speaker 1: time as making the problem worse. You can't put the
Speaker 1: fire are out while you're pouring petrol on it. And
Speaker 1: I think one of the things that needs to be
Speaker 1: understood is just how central coal and gas are to
Speaker 1: the Australian political economy. And Australia is the world's third
Speaker 1: largest exporter of fossil fuel pollution and on track to be,
Speaker 1: if not already the largest exporter of gas, primarily in
Speaker 1: the form of LNG, and so all of this raises
Speaker 1: real questions as to how Australia is going to contribute
Speaker 1: to the climate challenge. And these big coal and gas
Speaker 1: corporations have a lot of sway over the government. We'll
Speaker 1: be pushing really, really hard as the government writes these
Speaker 1: new laws and regulations to actually now start cutting pollution,
Speaker 1: to say, look, we'll have the debate about how quickly
Speaker 1: to get out of coal and gas, but we've got
Speaker 1: to draw a line under existing projects and say no
Speaker 1: more new projects. And that's going to be one of
Speaker 1: the big battles overcoming months. Now. How politically feasible is
Speaker 1: it anyway? Given Let's consider Norway, which is an aisle
Speaker 1: exporting country that has both. It's major political party is
Speaker 1: completely in agreement that oil continues to be the source
Speaker 1: of revenue, that they will continue to support oil extraction.
Speaker 1: And yet it's done domestically pretty green things. You know,
Speaker 1: it's blessed with hydropower, it's been electrifying, it's transport very quickly,
Speaker 1: but it still hasn't been able to get rid of
Speaker 1: the addiction to oil. Why do you think Australia can
Speaker 1: do it? Because our big trading partners have all set
Speaker 1: themselves net zero targets. So the countries that are responsible
Speaker 1: for seventy five percent of our coal exports, our thermal
Speaker 1: coal exports, have all set themselves net zero by twenty
Speaker 1: fifty or twenty sixty targets. Now, if you work backwards
Speaker 1: from that, that means they're going to have to decarbonize
Speaker 1: their electricity sectors sometime around the twenty thirties if they're
Speaker 1: going to meet a twenty fifty net zero target across
Speaker 1: the economy. So, in other words, they've already given Australia
Speaker 1: deadline about getting out of coal. Similarly, with gas, the
Speaker 1: growing demand from trading partners in Asia in particular is
Speaker 1: for hydrogen and is that's going to be one of
Speaker 1: the key ways that those economies are going to be
Speaker 1: able to meet their own climate goals, in their own
Speaker 1: net zero emissions goals. So the outlook for these exports
Speaker 1: at the moment is bleak. But Australia itself, actually, when
Speaker 1: it comes to gas, for example, does not get a lot.
Speaker 1: It's primarily it's big multinationals that are extracting and often
Speaker 1: paying no tax and in many instances not even paying
Speaker 1: royalties on the gas itself. So for in Australia, twenty
Speaker 1: seven big gas corporations in one year brought in seventy
Speaker 1: seven billion dollars Australian of revenue in one year and
Speaker 1: paid zero dollars tax on it. So unlike Norway, where
Speaker 1: they have at least a tax system that enables them
Speaker 1: to gain some wealth from the fossil fuels that they're
Speaker 1: ding to help drive a domestic transformation, Australia is not
Speaker 1: even getting that. There's enormous, enormous state capture of the
Speaker 1: political parties in Australia by these big gas and coal corporations,
Speaker 1: but it actually doesn't deliver back to the economy what
Speaker 1: a lot of people might think it does, and so
Speaker 1: there's enormous opportunities economically for Australia to get off it.
Speaker 1: And also that's the way it's going because that's where
Speaker 1: our training partners are going. But look at what has
Speaker 1: happened to commodity braces because of the war that Russia
Speaker 1: is fighting in Ukraine. Isn't that going to be the
Speaker 1: exact argument for more digging off coal and more allergy
Speaker 1: projects and perhaps even more remaining of metals. Well, I
Speaker 1: don't think building an economy off the back of a
Speaker 1: dictator invading another country and hoping that somehow that will
Speaker 1: continue is a good model, either for foreign affairs or
Speaker 1: for or your domestic economic security. Like, we have to diversify.
Speaker 1: Australia economy absolutely has to diversify. And I think if
Speaker 1: there's one lesson that can be taken from this is
Speaker 1: that it is not a good idea to be reliant
Speaker 1: on fossil fuel imports from another country Like that is
Speaker 1: the object lesson that comes out of the Russian invasion
Speaker 1: of Ukraine. And this is where for Australia in particular,
Speaker 1: we have an enormous opportunity to be energy independent and
Speaker 1: to be selling the rest of the world our sun
Speaker 1: and our wind. The prospects of direct undersea cables Singapore
Speaker 1: or Indonesia, for example, where you generate the electricity from
Speaker 1: on the mainland Australia are actively being discussed and funded.
Speaker 1: At the moment, there is growing investment in grain hydrogen.
Speaker 1: I mean, we are pretty blessed here in this country
Speaker 1: with sun and wind and an advanced manufacturing capacity and
Speaker 1: intellectual capacity. We can sell things to other countries than
Speaker 1: coal and gas, and we know the sun and the
Speaker 1: wind will always be framed. Multiple labor politicians use the
Speaker 1: phrase as long as people want to buy our coal,
Speaker 1: will sell it to them. During the election. That is
Speaker 1: starkly different from your view. How can those two views
Speaker 1: meet up? Do you anticipate lengthy, fierce battles on climate ahead,
Speaker 1: what is your red line? Well, there's something that our
Speaker 1: former prime minister used to say, which is that Australia
Speaker 1: has got to sell its coal to other countries and
Speaker 1: can't stop selling it because otherwise they'll buy it from
Speaker 1: somewhere else and it won't be as good. And the
Speaker 1: new prime minister, from the different side of politics has
Speaker 1: started saying exactly the same things, started saying all Australia
Speaker 1: needs to sell coal, and in fact some of his
Speaker 1: ministers have said Australia will be still selling coal out
Speaker 1: past the twenty fifties. This idea that if we don't
Speaker 1: sell it to them, then someone else will. I call
Speaker 1: that the drug dealers defense. It's like, if you don't
Speaker 1: buy it from me, then you're going to get work
Speaker 1: quality stuff from someone around the corner. So I'm actually
Speaker 1: somehow performing a public service. Like coal wherever it is burnt,
Speaker 1: whether it's burnt here, whether it's burnt overseas, harms Australia
Speaker 1: and it harms the rest of the world. There is
Speaker 1: no such thing as clean coal, and I think people
Speaker 1: have seen through it, and some of the biggest public
Speaker 1: campaigns and on the ground mobilizations here have been against
Speaker 1: big new coal mines in Australia. The Adane coal mine
Speaker 1: that was here was the feature of the previous selection,
Speaker 1: the one before this. There is widespread support to say
Speaker 1: stop opening up these coal mines. And I think people
Speaker 1: just don't buy this idea anymore that Australia has got
Speaker 1: to sell it to them because otherwise they'll get it
Speaker 1: from somewhere else. I think Australia has such a large
Speaker 1: share of the global thermal coal market that any shift
Speaker 1: from Australia will have repercussions and ripples right around the world.
Speaker 1: And if Australia stopped doing it, then I reckon it
Speaker 1: wouldn't be that others would step in. It would send
Speaker 1: a really clear signal to the rest of the world
Speaker 1: that Cole's days were over. I think the second thing
Speaker 1: that we probably need to put on the table front
Speaker 1: and center is what is an economic diversification and support
Speaker 1: and transition plan for coal and gas workers and communities.
Speaker 1: What does that look like? And that hasn't really been
Speaker 1: thought through that well from governments in the past, and
Speaker 1: that has created the space for scare campaigns. I think
Speaker 1: part of what we've got to do in this parliament
Speaker 1: is to say we need a plan to support coal
Speaker 1: and gas workers through the transition. Specifically, though, what is
Speaker 1: your redline while you're in power and these discussions are
Speaker 1: going on. Look, the Australian grains have a policy of
Speaker 1: getting out of thermal coal by twenty thirty, both for
Speaker 1: domestic and export use and metallurgical coal by twenty forty.
Speaker 1: But what we're putting on the table at the moment
Speaker 1: in this term of parliament is a compromise position. Let's
Speaker 1: just stop opening up new coal and gas projects and
Speaker 1: we can then have a discussion about how we get
Speaker 1: out of it, whether we haven't managed exit by twenty thirty,
Speaker 1: whether the government's got some other idea. But what we're
Speaker 1: putting on the table in all the negotiations will be
Speaker 1: having with the government is stop opening up new projects.
Speaker 1: That should be something that everyone can agree on. Now.
Speaker 1: We weren't able to get their agreement to that during
Speaker 1: the climate legislation and negotiations and that was disappointing, but
Speaker 1: that was round one, right. The next round will come
Speaker 1: when the government introduces the regulations to explain how it's
Speaker 1: going to cut pollution, and we'll be looking very closely
Speaker 1: to see whether that allows new coal and gas projects, because,
Speaker 1: as I say, that is something that will need the
Speaker 1: support of the Senate where the Greens are in the
Speaker 1: balance of power. We're also going to push for our
Speaker 1: environment laws to include what's called a climate trigger, which
Speaker 1: is to say, when you give environmental assessment approval to
Speaker 1: new projects at the moment, you don't even have to
Speaker 1: take into account whether it's going to make climate change worse.
Speaker 1: We want that to change. And the last thing we
Speaker 1: will push for that we are saying very very strongly
Speaker 1: to this new government is stopped giving subsidies to coal
Speaker 1: and gas. There's about eleven billion dollars Australian of subsidies
Speaker 1: per year at the federal level that go effectively to
Speaker 1: the coal and gas industries. So we're saving stop funding them,
Speaker 1: put a climate trigger in our laws, stop opening up
Speaker 1: new coal and gas mines. They're the positions that we
Speaker 1: are putting on the table and that we are going
Speaker 1: to fight tooth and nail for in this term of parliament.
Speaker 1: Now in the elections, the Conservative Liberal Party, which might
Speaker 1: confuse some people listening to the podcast, but the Conservative
Speaker 1: Liberal Party like some of its safest seats to climate
Speaker 1: positive candidates. It's being anti climate action now a dead
Speaker 1: position in Australia. I think it's absolutely if not dead,
Speaker 1: it's on life support. And I think people shouldn't underestimate
Speaker 1: the significance of this. We saw Conservative seats switch to
Speaker 1: candidates that have a better climate policy than the new
Speaker 1: Labor government. But you saw Conservative seats prepared to vote
Speaker 1: for a candidate that says we need a transition plan
Speaker 1: out of coal and gas and I want you to
Speaker 1: stop opening up coal and gas mines. And forty three
Speaker 1: percent is far too weak. And we saw conservative seats
Speaker 1: go to the grains as well, so it's not just
Speaker 1: progressive labor seats that went to the grains, it was
Speaker 1: conservative liberal seats that switched to the grains. For the
Speaker 1: first time. You get rewarded in Australia politically now for
Speaker 1: having a better policy on climate. I don't think the
Speaker 1: penny's quite dropped with the new government yet, that there
Speaker 1: is now space for them to go further and faster.
Speaker 1: That was a fascinating conversation. Thanks Adam, Thanks very much.
Speaker 1: After the break, we'll hear from Senator David Pocock, one
Speaker 1: of the new crop of independent politicians Adam is talking about,
Speaker 1: and whose journey from rugby to politics has made him
Speaker 1: a deciding vote in Australia's Upper House. Welcome back. Joining
Speaker 1: me now is David Pocock, one of Australia's most celebrated
Speaker 1: rugby players, who captained the Wallabies and played for the
Speaker 1: team between two thousand and eight and twenty nineteen. In
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one, David moved into politics and beat a
Speaker 1: Conservative incumbent to become the first independent candidate to ever
Speaker 1: win the Senate seat for the Australian Capital Territory, which
Speaker 1: includes Canberra. Alongside the Greens. His vote was crucial for
Speaker 1: passing Australia's forty three percent emissions reduction target. David, Welcome
Speaker 1: to zero. Thanks good to be with you. You've had
Speaker 1: a fascinating career. You captain Australia's international rugby union team,
Speaker 1: You've campaigned on social issues like marriage quality, and now
Speaker 1: you're an independent senator in Australia's upper House with the
Speaker 1: deciding vote when it comes to climate legislation. Where did
Speaker 1: your climate journey begin? So? I grew up in Zimbabwe
Speaker 1: and moved to Australia as a teenager and in high
Speaker 1: school really enjoyed geography, so I started learning about climate change.
Speaker 1: It seemed like something we should be paying a bit
Speaker 1: more attention to back then, and I guess that urgency
Speaker 1: has just grown. And over the years, whilst I was
Speaker 1: playing rugby professionally, was involved in some community development work
Speaker 1: back in Zimbabwe and talking to rural subsistence communities and
Speaker 1: just hearing their concerns. About the changing climate and their
Speaker 1: inability to really adapt. They simply don't have the funds
Speaker 1: that wealthy countries have to actually adapt, and they've contributed
Speaker 1: almost nothing to the problem. That really heightened my interest
Speaker 1: in it, and I guess really spurred my advocacy and
Speaker 1: wanting to use whatever platform I had while I was
Speaker 1: playing rugby to get more people talking about it, particularly
Speaker 1: here in a We're a huge fossil fuel exporter and
Speaker 1: probably no surprise, we've been a climate lagguard. We've we've
Speaker 1: actually frustrated international talks. It's just it's not good enough
Speaker 1: for Australia to be doing that. We have to actually
Speaker 1: be part of the conversation, part of the solution to
Speaker 1: this global challenge. As part of your urgency and climate
Speaker 1: you got arrested in twenty fourteen changing yourself to a
Speaker 1: coal digger. What was that like? You know, what made
Speaker 1: you want to take that step? Like so many people,
Speaker 1: I'd been involved in a bunch of campaigns, marches, protests,
Speaker 1: writing letters, petitions, and then there was this this coal
Speaker 1: mine that was one in one of Australia's best agricultural areas,
Speaker 1: and two within that area in the middle of a
Speaker 1: critically endangered ecosystem made absolutely no sense to me in
Speaker 1: terms of the environmental impact, the impact on farmers, and
Speaker 1: obviously the climate impact of opening up a brand new
Speaker 1: coal mine. Got to know one of the farmers who
Speaker 1: now lives next door to this big coal mine, and
Speaker 1: having grown up on a farming family, I could sympathize
Speaker 1: and see just how helpless and unrepresented you feel. But
Speaker 1: then just decided that I needed to actually make that
Speaker 1: stand alongside him and hundreds of other people who were
Speaker 1: arrested on that mine site. And the mine went ahead,
Speaker 1: but a very similar project a few years later didn't
Speaker 1: go ahead. So whilst unsuccessful, I think it added to
Speaker 1: the conversation around opening up new coal mines given all
Speaker 1: we know about climate change. Yeah, and then why did
Speaker 1: you finally decide to make this jump from being a
Speaker 1: political activist to a politician? After Rugby, I was involved
Speaker 1: in an agriculture and conservation project in zimbab We spend
Speaker 1: most of last year there and halfway through the year
Speaker 1: was approached by a community group here in Canberra where
Speaker 1: I live, saying we think that there is a pathway
Speaker 1: for an independent to represent the ACT with the Australian
Speaker 1: Capital Territory in the Federal Parliament. If we can get
Speaker 1: the right candidate. We've been having all these kitchen table conversations.
Speaker 1: Your name keeps coming up. Would you consider it? And
Speaker 1: initially didn't think it was for me, But the more,
Speaker 1: you know, the more I thought about it, and what
Speaker 1: I thought this is, this is an amazing opportunity to
Speaker 1: potentially represent our community. I love on all these issues
Speaker 1: that are important to me, are important to the people
Speaker 1: that i'd be representing. But we're not seeing the kind
Speaker 1: of ambition that we need. We're not seeing politicians actually
Speaker 1: deal with these big challenges we face in a way
Speaker 1: that turns them into opportunities for all of us. So
Speaker 1: I thought, well, if I don't do this, I'll probably
Speaker 1: regret it. I don't want to sit around after the
Speaker 1: election on a few years time thinking what could have happened,
Speaker 1: And so I put my hand up, and having never
Speaker 1: been part of a political party or being formally involved
Speaker 1: in politics, it was. It was a wild ride, really
Speaker 1: enjoyable and energizing just seeing the amount of community support
Speaker 1: and building a campaign that was really crowdsourcing, a policy
Speaker 1: platform that resonated with people and we've seen across the
Speaker 1: country a record number of independents voted into the Low
Speaker 1: House and then also the Senate. Now let's just sit
Speaker 1: with that for a moment, because it is hard. Many
Speaker 1: countries have two major political parties. That's the case here
Speaker 1: in the UK where I live. You have the Conservative
Speaker 1: Party and you have the Labor Party. That's the case
Speaker 1: in the US, which is essentially a two party system
Speaker 1: with the Democrats and the Republicans. And that was the
Speaker 1: case in Australia for a long time. Of course, there
Speaker 1: were other parties, but those two parties, the Liberal and
Speaker 1: National Coalition and Labor were really the two major forces.
Speaker 1: What happened in the last few years, you think that's
Speaker 1: changed Australia's landscape so drastically, allowing independence to make it
Speaker 1: in the parliament. I think that a number of factors. One,
Speaker 1: just the underlying dissatisfaction with politics as usual, and then
Speaker 1: on top of that, having it in the last parliament,
Speaker 1: a few independents who are actually talking about the issues
Speaker 1: that people are concerned about, talking about more ambitious climate action,
Speaker 1: talking about integrity in politics. And then a number of
Speaker 1: candidates decided to actually run and there was a group
Speaker 1: set up to actually help fundraise for these independent candidates.
Speaker 1: The group David is talking about is Climate two hundred,
Speaker 1: a crowdfunded organization that raised millions of dollars to support
Speaker 1: the campaigns of twenty three candidates running as independents or
Speaker 1: for minor parties in this year's election. We see money
Speaker 1: in politics, the sad realities that you need money to
Speaker 1: actually be able to win, to run a good campaign,
Speaker 1: and for the first time that wasn't a problem for
Speaker 1: many of these independent candidates. They were well resourced, they
Speaker 1: were talking about things that that mattered, and on the
Speaker 1: back of that, we saw tens of thousands of Australians
Speaker 1: who hadn't previously got involved in politics volunteering campaigning. You know,
Speaker 1: here in Canaerra, a city of four hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: thousand people, I had over two thousand, two hundred volunteers.
Speaker 1: It was really energizing and I think you left everyone
Speaker 1: feeling a little bit more hopeful about the future. Now,
Speaker 1: the bill enshrines emissions reductions in law, which is forty
Speaker 1: three percent from two thousand five levels by twenty thirty.
Speaker 1: What do you see as the priority legislation to pass
Speaker 1: to ensure Australia meets this target. Well, it's it's historic
Speaker 1: in Australia just to actually legislate the target. Having forty
Speaker 1: three percent by twenty thirty and metzera by twenty fifty
Speaker 1: in law is a step four. But this is nothing
Speaker 1: to sit around patting ourselves on the back about, and
Speaker 1: even the business community here in Australia has been pushing
Speaker 1: fifty by twenty thirty. So clearly we have to ensure
Speaker 1: that this forty three is just a starting point. It's
Speaker 1: largely symbolic, and now we've got to get on with
Speaker 1: the business of transforming our entire economy, working on the
Speaker 1: generation side of things and then beginning to work on
Speaker 1: the demand side, working with households to actually ensure that
Speaker 1: they can reap the significant benefits of electrifying their households.
Speaker 1: You know, that's the challenge. This has never been done before,
Speaker 1: but that's the opportunity. So for me, it's about ensuring
Speaker 1: that we have a target locked in. I'd like to
Speaker 1: see that ramp up over time, but then to actually
Speaker 1: be focusing on the integrity of it, So the integrity
Speaker 1: of the offsets that we're allowing companies to use for
Speaker 1: they're hard to abate emissions. The focus on communities that
Speaker 1: for generations have had jobs in fossil fuels. We need
Speaker 1: to be investing in those areas, ensuring that those communities
Speaker 1: have secure, well paid jobs into the future. Australia is
Speaker 1: the third largest export or fossil fields call gas are
Speaker 1: major parts of the economy, and fossil fields continue to
Speaker 1: make the country a vast amount of money. How do
Speaker 1: you ensure that this continued prosperity can happen while you
Speaker 1: move away from the extraction and export of coal and gas.
Speaker 1: You know, Australia is the developed country that stands to
Speaker 1: lose the most from climate and action. We're seeing huge
Speaker 1: warming already and we're seeing the effects of that. But
Speaker 1: given our renewable resources, we also potentially stand to gain
Speaker 1: the most from actually having the political courage to act
Speaker 1: and to act decisively and to become a renewable superpower.
Speaker 1: We've got huge deposits of things like lithium, which we
Speaker 1: need for batteries, and we've got huge renewable resources that
Speaker 1: we could potentially be exporting to our our neighbors. All
Speaker 1: of these take time to develop, so we've got to
Speaker 1: get cracking. Do you support the calls to end all
Speaker 1: fossil fuel projects and do you believe there's any chance
Speaker 1: that the incumbent labor government will ever agree to such
Speaker 1: a proposal. Well, if you're gonna listen to scientists, we
Speaker 1: can't have any new call and gas projects, that's clear.
Speaker 1: IPCC was so clear about that. I support that. We
Speaker 1: simply cannot afford in the long term to be opening
Speaker 1: up new reserves of fossil fuels. The challenge for Australia
Speaker 1: is to be building these industries for the future at
Speaker 1: the same time as we're phasing out fossil fuels. Politically,
Speaker 1: to be blunt, no, I can't see the government going
Speaker 1: for it in the current political climate. But I think societals,
Speaker 1: societal attitudes towards climate change, towards the social license that
Speaker 1: fossil fuel companies have is changing so fast. Hopefully it'll
Speaker 1: be possible very soon. So now, I don't know if
Speaker 1: anybody has made this comparison before, but your vote in
Speaker 1: the Senate is like your mansion's vote in the US Senate.
Speaker 1: You'll be deciding whether to let a legislation go through
Speaker 1: or not. Many other times, your mansion, of course, had
Speaker 1: to play both sides and had to make compromises on
Speaker 1: the climate side, you could be playing the opposite role
Speaker 1: of pushing it even higher and higher in ambition. Is
Speaker 1: that a fair comparison. So in the Australian Senate at
Speaker 1: the moment, there's probably three people that the Government could
Speaker 1: get a vote from terms of climate. So yeah, there's
Speaker 1: there's real opportunity there to actually be pushing the ambition
Speaker 1: and to be shaping policy to ensure that it is
Speaker 1: working for everyday Australians, that climate action is actually starting
Speaker 1: to address some of the cost of living issues that
Speaker 1: we're seeing. The thing I said to people in Canberra
Speaker 1: during the election campaign was my commitment to people is
Speaker 1: on every piece of legislation, I'm going to hold it
Speaker 1: up and say how does it affect the people of
Speaker 1: the Australian Capital territory that I represent, How does this
Speaker 1: square with the kind of future that we want to create,
Speaker 1: and then use whatever power I have on the cross
Speaker 1: bench with that potential balance of power vote to ramp
Speaker 1: up the ambition and to suggest amendments that make it better,
Speaker 1: that improve the legislation coming through the Center. At the
Speaker 1: last COP conference which was held here in the UK
Speaker 1: in Glasgow in twenty twenty one, Australia was awarded the
Speaker 1: Colossal Fossil Award for its ongoing support for fossil fields.
Speaker 1: As we approach a COP in November, which will be
Speaker 1: in Egypt this year, where do you think this climate
Speaker 1: believes Australia. I was at COP in Glasgow and as
Speaker 1: an Australian it was embarrassing to see the way we
Speaker 1: were acting on the world stage. Even our Australian pavilion,
Speaker 1: we had a gas company front and center of our display.
Speaker 1: So I think this legislation is an announcement that we're
Speaker 1: back at the table. We're there to be constructive. I
Speaker 1: expect there'll be a big focus on support for developing
Speaker 1: countries given it in Africa, and that's what Australia needs
Speaker 1: to be doing here in the Pacific. We have to
Speaker 1: be stepping up our engagement and our support of our
Speaker 1: Pacific neighbors to deal with what is for them and
Speaker 1: many of them in existential threat. And so I don't
Speaker 1: I don't think forty does that, but it's it's certainly
Speaker 1: signals to the world that we're no longer hopefully not
Speaker 1: going to the obstructionist and try and water down future agreements. David,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining me so yes, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Given Australia status as one of the largest exporters of
Speaker 1: fossil fields. What happens there affects the world as it
Speaker 1: impacts have piled on. It's forced to change in the
Speaker 1: politics of the country, with independence becoming a force to
Speaker 1: reckon with. But it couldn't have happened without concerted effort
Speaker 1: of those organizing around a cause. Thanks so much for
Speaker 1: listening to Zero. If you like the show, please rate,
Speaker 1: review and subscribe, Tell a friend or tell an undecided voter.
Speaker 1: If you've got a suggestion for a guest or topic
Speaker 1: or something you just want us to look into, get
Speaker 1: in touch at zeropod at Bloomberg dot net. Zero's producer
Speaker 1: is Oscar Boyd and senior producer is Christine driscoll. Our
Speaker 1: theme music is composed by Wonderlely. Many people help make
Speaker 1: the show a success this week thanks to my Bloomberg
Speaker 1: News colleague in Australia, Ben Wescott, who cannot be stopped
Speaker 1: when he has a school I'm Akshatrati back next week.