PMT: Climate Change
[4.35 p.m.]
Ms BURNET (Clark) - Honourable Speaker, a vote will be required. I move -
That the House:
Acknowledges the Climate Change (State Action) Act 2008 is Tasmania's primary legislative framework for addressing climate change.
(2) Notes that:
excluding the land-use, land-use change and forestry there was a 0.06 mega tonne CO2 emission increase in Tasmania's emissions between 1990 and 2023;
since 2024 the Liberal Government has failed to appoint a Minister for Climate Change; and
the Climate Change Action Plan has expired and will not be replaced until 2028.
(3) Recognises the urgent need, identified in the 2024 Deloitte Climate Change Risk Assessment for Tasmania, to strengthen both mitigation and adaptation efforts to protect Tasmania's communities, environment, economy and future generations from escalating climate risks.
Further acknowledges the 2024–25 Independent Review of the Climate Change (State Action) Act 2008 tabled in March 2026, which found weak and fragmented adaptation planning with no comprehensive statewide framework or clear accountability, and limited real emissions reduction outside the land use sector, leaving our net zero status heavily reliant on sequestration rather than sustained decarbonisation across transport, agriculture and industry.
(5) Further notes the Review's seven recommendations, five of which strengthen the Act.
(6) Calls on the Tasmanian Government to show it takes climate change seriously by formally appointing a Minister for Climate Change and tabling a response, no later than 13 August 2026, outlining how they plan to implement or respond to the recommendations of the Review.
Before I start, I acknowledge a group of young science communicators from Science Communicators Network and inspiring Tasmanians who are gathered to hear from the Australian of the Year, astronaut Katherine Bennell-Pegg and Order of Australia member, Zoe Kean. They're possibly watching this online. There's almost 100 there, so hello and thank you. No pressure. They are the future and this is for them. I'd like also to thank the stakeholders who have briefed me and various other members from the Tasmanian Conservation Trust (TCT), the Tasmanian Climate Collective, and Doctors for the Environment members to whom I have spoken to as well. Unfortunately, people who came from the TCT couldn't stay.
Since taking my place in this parliament two years ago, I have come to the conclusion that this government does not take action on climate change seriously, or seriously enough, and I'll explain why. In 2020, then-premier, Peter Gutwein, created the climate change portfolio and appointed himself Minister for Climate Change. Those were the heady days when the Liberal government took climate change seriously.
In June 2021, the government received the last independent review on the Climate Change Act 2008 and provided its response to the report within four months and acted on all seven recommendations.
Unfortunately, after premier, Peter Gutwein, resigned from government and parliament in 2022, it would appear he took with him the government's ambition to act for action on climate change.
In 2023, the government established the Climate Change Reference Group to provide strategic advice and feedback to the minister about action on climate change, but prior to this month, the group had only met three times in three years, and its last meeting was almost 18 months ago, causing some members to question if it still existed.
Ms Finlay - Not true.
Ms BURNET - No, before this month.
In 2024, the government quietly abolished the ministerial portfolio of climate change and I acknowledge the Greens consistent reminder that that portfolio has been removed, and at the end of 2025 the Government Climate Change Action Plan expired and there is no plan to replace it until 2028.
The current independent review, which is required to be done every four years, was apparently given to the government in December 2025, overdue by six months. The government did not table the report until the end of last month and there is no sign of any response from the government to that report.
It's also telling that the Premier announced at the end of last week on a Friday, I believe, the dismantling of the Department of State Growth. He mentioned that at the start of last month. State growth currently houses the Climate Change Office and yet when the Premier announced this abrupt change, he made no mention of the future of the Climate Change Office. In response to public pressure, he provided a further update last week on the future of state growth but still crickets in relation to the Climate Change Office. Will Treasurer, Eric Abetz, even fund it in the next budget, or will it go the same way as the former secretary for state growth? Hopefully the Environment minister can reassure us.
To the Treasurer and the rest of Cabinet, I say this: climate policy is not just an environmental issue, it is increasingly an economic one. It intersects with transport, energy, agriculture, planning, infrastructure, health, housing, emergency management and economic development. That reality is reflected in the emissions reduction and resilience plans and in the now expired Climate Change Action Plan. It is also reflected in the recommendations of the last two Climate Change (State Action) Act 2008 reviews, which have called for a whole‑of‑government response. It is writ large in the global shock we are in the midst of.
The government must not seek to quietly cut the funding of the Office of Climate Change or consign it to somewhere like the NRE, a department that, quite frankly, has been starved of funding over recent years. If this government is serious, even remotely serious, about climate action, then the Office of Climate Change must sit within DPAC, at the very centre of government decision-making, where whole‑of‑government policy is shaped. Anything less is a tacit admission that climate change has not been treated as a core strategic risk.
There are other examples in other states where the climate change office sits with the Energy minister and that, in some ways, is a good fit. It's given the respect it deserves in that position.
Tasmania's net‑zero claim is around geography and not policy. This government likes to proudly claim a mantle of national leadership on climate change, pointing repeatedly to Tasmania's net‑zero status. But that claim does not withstand scrutiny. Our achievement of net‑zero emissions has nothing to do with deliberate or effective policy from this government and everything to do with geography and historical land use and decisions made decades ago. Hydroelectricity and forest sequestration did not materialise because of the government's leadership. They exist despite it.
The government is happy to talk about its progress on renewable energy, but energy is responsible for only one fifth of our emissions. It is the other areas of major emissions that very little progress is being made. In fact, emissions from agriculture are rising substantially. Tasmania's net‑zero status has become a convenient excuse, a shield deployed to justify inaction across transport, agriculture, industry and the built environment.
The independent review makes the reality starkly clear: excluding land use, land use clearing and forestry sector, Tasmania's emissions actually increased by 67,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent between 1990 and 2023. For more than three decades we have made no genuine progress in reducing emissions from the sectors the government actually controls. The review makes clear that Tasmania's reliance on land use, land use clearing and forestry is a major and growing risk. That sector is vulnerable to climate impacts itself - bushfire, droughts, disease and changing rainfall patterns. There is a very real risk that land use, land use clearance and forestry could fail to offset emissions in the future, or even become a net source of emissions before 2030. Dr Bowman's recent report illustrates this starkly. If that happens, the illusion of net zero collapses overnight.
Climate resilience is local and unavoidable. While the drivers of climate change are global, the impacts are intensely local. Climate resilience is not an abstract concept; it manifests its real and immediate ways in damaged roads and bridges, in electricity outages, in flood‑ravaged towns, in heat stress, in hospitals and in homes, in rising insurance premiums, and in the cost of food and energy. These are problems that increasingly fall to local government and ordinary Tasmanians to bear the brunt of, sometimes repeatedly.
The argument has moved well beyond moral responsibility. We are now dealing with risk management. Preparing Tasmania to withstand the inevitable shocks, both global and local, is one of the core responsibilities of any government seriously wanting to act on climate change. Frankly, it is unforgivable that this government has failed to act with any seriousness in the face of warning after warning ‑ warnings that have grown more dire with each passing report.
The warnings are unambiguous. We saw this clearly in the 2024 Deloitte climate Change Risk Assessment for Tasmania commissioned by the state government, which identified escalating physical, economic and social risks to Tasmania that required urgent action, and the National Climate Risk Assessment released by the Commonwealth in 2025, which reinforces that climate impacts will increasingly compound existing disadvantage. It talks about how we are currently experiencing compounding and cascading hazards, and this is only going to increase. It highlights the risks to communities, defence and national security, the economy, trade, finance, health and social support, infrastructure, the built environment, the natural environment and, minister Pearce, to primary industries, as well as to our food production. Farmers know that, of course.
Climate change is not a theoretical future problem; we are living it now. We now stand at a point where it is undeniable that climate mitigation and adaptation are cost-of-living issues. There is arguably no more urgent issue, but the government's actions to date are largely about giving the appearance of action and not actually acting. For example, the independent reviewer found that the climate change action plan and annual report focus on activities completed rather than outcomes achieved. Much like the Premier's 100-day plans, they give the appearance of action, but are not necessarily backed up with substance.
One of the key issues identified in this review was the inability for the government to demonstrate whether proposed actions are making a measurable difference towards achieving the act's overarching objectives. Not only is the government failing to do much on climate change, there is no evidence that what little it's doing is having any effect. There were many things in that review, and I have high praise for this document, which is the 2024 independent review of the Climate Change (State Action) Act 2008. It's a very good report, and it says that it's a very good act as well.
I want to give you an example of the ineffectiveness of some of the climate actions. In the energy emissions reduction plan in the energy sector, the government has set itself five goals. One of them was to support Tasmanians to transition their energy use to renewables and improve energy efficiency. Yet since then, the only policy incentive the government had to assist Tasmanians to fund energy efficiency upgrades in their homes ‑ the Energy Saver Loan Scheme ‑ has finished, with no suggestion of it being extended. I really do hope that that Energy Saver Loan Scheme will be replaced or extended in the budget.
Now, the government is legislating to stop the National Construction Code updates which seek to improve energy efficiency in houses and commercial buildings.
As another example, the government has set no targets to reduce transport emissions, despite advice from the University of Tasmania's policy experts to do so back in 2023. Other than agriculture and, of course, forestry, transport is the highest contributor to our emissions. Yet the government has set no targets for zero-emissions vehicles despite advice to do so, which leaves us as the only state, except Western Australia, to not have a zero-emissions vehicle target. I know my colleague Mr George will have more to say on this today with his motion, so I'll leave it there, but I find it very interesting that the government is happy to set a renewable energy target, but not for transport emissions reduction, despite most other states having them.
When there's credible scenario planning, and the scenario planning undertaken by the Tasmanian Policy Exchange alongside several government business enterprises, published last month, made one thing abundantly clear: Tasmania cannot control the scale of global climate change, but we can control whether our policy choices, investments and planning to make us resilient, or leave us dangerously exposed. With foresight, adaptation planning and coordinated investment, Tasmania could be well positioned to navigate future shocks, but without it, we will drift, reacting late, paying more and suffering greater harm.
I want to talk about the findings of the independent review. There were seven components to this: five looked at the act and two looked at improving meaningful engagement and transparency - parts 6 and 7.
The reviewer made seven recommendations. One was to establish an independent statutory body. This is the most important recommendation. It's the establishment of an independent statutory body to oversee implementation of the act. This is essential to restore public trust, improve transparency, ensure accountability and avoid failure to meet the 2030 target.
The report suggests that the review cycle go to 10 years, so that once independent oversight exists, continual reviews should stop being an excuse for delay - that's what's come out of this review. A 10‑year review cycle would encourage delivery, not perpetual reassessment.
The third recommendation is to establish a standalone adaptation framework. This government has treated climate change adaptation as an afterthought. It's got to be embedded and an important part of action plans and emission plans. This recommendation complements the first recommendation, with the independent body overseeing adaptation progress reporting and coordination between state and local levels. That coordination between local government and state government is key, and it's critical.
While the adaptation measures will require additional funding, a 2022 Insurance Council of Australia report calculated that every $1 invested through resilience initiatives could result in an estimated $9.60 return on investment. Like preventative health measures, this is money well spent that will save the government money in the long term.
The fourth point is to require sectoral emissions reporting. The reviewer observed that while the plans represent a strong procedural foundation, they are limited in accountability. They do not yet include sector‑specific emissions targets, nor do they clearly identify responsibilities or mechanisms for tracking progress against mitigation outcomes.
The fifth recommendation is to amend the act to require climate change considerations to be included in major government decisions, particularly those with significant investment value and/or emissions impact. I've already spoken about points 6 and 7.
This government is in minority. It must heed the will of the parliament, because the will of the parliament is the will of the people, and the people of Tasmania want real and urgent action. Like those people watching in with the Australian of the Year, they want urgent action on climate change. We owe it to them.
Already in this term, a motion has been passed in the other place which agrees that the Climate Change (State Action) Act needs a substantial overhaul to deliver emissions reduction and prepare Tasmanians to adapt to the intensifying impacts of climate change, and calls on the government to work with scientists, the community, farmers, businesses and industry leaders, and the parliament to ensure the act is strengthened to reflect the urgency of the times.
This motion does not demand the impossible. It asks the government to get serious about climate change by reestablishing the Climate Change portfolio and establishing a minister for Climate Change, and to respond to the review of the Climate Change (State Action) Act by mid‑August. It gives them plenty of time to do that ‑ it's the first week back from the winter break. This is not radical, and in the face of intensifying climate risk, it is the least Tasmanians expect.
I commend this motion to the House.
[6.06 p.m.]
Ms BURNET (Clark) - Honourable Speaker, I want to say that I think the gulf between fantasy and reality is deeper than the Strait of Hormuz sometimes. If the minister really thinks that the findings of the review is nothing to see, I'm just quite baffled, to be honest. Anyway, I'm very pleased that the amendments weren't accepted by this House.
I thank Ms Finlay for the work that we did to get this across the line and, of course, members of the crossbench. I acknowledge the Greens' contribution today and their ongoing commitment to action on climate change.
I acknowledge that the minister has said today that there is now a small reduction in emissions in 2024, but I haven't seen this information, and apparently it was published today. The minister's contribution, sadly, would suggest she hasn't read the independent review. The concerns I have raised in my motion are extracted directly from -
Ms Ogilvie - That's a little bit -
Ms BURNET - Well, that's what it seems like, minister, extracted directly from the climate act review report. The reviewer clearly warned against relying on the reductions in emissions achieved through our forest and land use practices because of the risks posed to forests by climate change. It's a fact. From page 30 of the report:
Emissions from the waste and energy sectors, as well as the electricity generation subsector of the energy sector, have reduced since 1990. Emissions in terms of Mt CO2-e from all other sectors and energy subsectors have increased.
While Tasmania has maintained net zero emissions for the past 10 reported years, this status -
This is the most important thing:
… may not be maintained, particularly if there are large changes to carbon sequestration and storage in the LULUCF sector.
...
... Vulnerability to climate change means there are significant risks [in that sector and that] could fail to continue to offset emissions from other sectors, or the sector could become net positive before 2030.
These are concerns raised by the independent reviewer who was commissioned based on their expertise.
This motion is framed directly from that report. This is not just my opinion. While the government might not like the report, and it clearly doesn't and would prefer to ignore it, it cannot ignore the report. The report is an independent report card on how the government is tracking in accordance with its legislative obligations. The report clearly makes the case the government needs to do more.
That is what this motion is calling for: the government to respond to this report and start taking climate change seriously.
I appreciate Mr Jaensch's comments and acknowledge his previous efforts. I agree with him that you don't want climate change in the periphery. It needs to be at the heart of government. That's what I've raised concerns about - the government's silence about where the climate office will go. I think it needs to be wedded to energy, but it also needs to be closely linked with planning, local government, agriculture and, of course, the environment.
Honourable Speaker, I commend the motion to the House.
Motion agreed to.