David Speers: Tonight, the political demands continue, but still no deal on climate. Just 10 days out from talks in Glasgow can the Prime Minister land a policy that satisfies his party and the world? Welcome to Q&A. 

David Speers: Hello and welcome to the program, I'm David Speers, we're coming to you live from Melbourne tonight, which is just hours away from reopening. Joining me on the panel tonight, the director of the Seed Indigenous Youth Climate Network, Amelia Telford, clean tech investor and founder of Climate 200. Simon Holmes, A Court. In Canberra, Assistant Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction Tim Wilson. Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy Chris Bowen. And in the coal mining town of Moranbah in Central Queensland. The Mayor of Isaac Regional Council Anne Baker. 

Tim Wilson: It's great to have you all here. Now remember, you can stream this live on iview and all the socials qanda is the hashtag. Please join the debate. We can publish your comments on screen from Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. And our first question tonight comes from Jason Neut from a mining camp in Middle Mount Queensland. 

Jason: Do you have confidence in the Morrison government going net zero emissions by 2050? And what do you think that impact that will have on the Isaac Region? 

David Speers: Well, Anne Baker, let me go to you first on this. You, are the mayor of the Isaac Regional Council, you're a Labor Party member, but I understand you describe yourself as an equal opportunity critic of both major parties here. So the question is, well, do you think Australia should be committing to net zero by 2050? And and what would it mean for the coal community that you represent? 

Anne Baker: Look, what I think you should be a target absolutely should be a target set. And we need a target set to enable to open up this conversation about forming good balanced policy. There will be and there is going to be an impact, and we need to clearly understand what that is and how it's going to be delivered. 

David Speers: And when you say there should be a target, when you say there should be a target, just to be clear. Do you think there should be a net zero by 2050 target? 

Anne Baker: I don't believe I'm informed enough on numbers. I'm not a scientist about making up the methodologies of what that target should be. What I absolutely support, and I believe the majority of my region supports the setting of a target. 

David Speers: Okay, but you don't. You're unsure as to what that target should be. 

Anne Baker: It's not for me, I'm not a scientist, and I'm not going to pretend that (inaudible). 

David Speers: But do you understand what a net zero by 2050 target might mean for the coal workers in your community? Are you aware of what that may mean to them? 

Anne Baker: Yeah, I am absolutely aware that there's a high level of frustration. There's a high level of confusion. What I am very confident about is that we have been at the coalface of coal mining for well over a century. We are living and breathing approvals around mining leases that are currently happening every week of my working life. We are living and breathing current approvals of mining projects that are being approved and conditioned for a 75 year life. 

Anne Baker: So there is life in the coal mining industry into the future. What we need to be included in, from my perspective, is an inclusive conversation about a balance of energy. My region is currently running on a coexistence model. We have coal for coal projects with neighbors of solar farms. We've got coal projects with neighbors as wind farm. We've got cattle farms. So we are living and breathing a coexistence model as we speak. 

David Speers: Well, it's good to have you as part of this conversation tonight that's bouncing around some of the others here. Tim Wilson. Let's just start with a bit of clarity on your position. Do you want the government to support net zero by 2050? 

Tim Wilson: Well, I do with a plan, and this has always been one of the differentiators. There are a lot of political parties out there who say they want the moniker or the intent of net zero by 2050. And the prime minister has been very clear and I agree with him very clearly that to give exactly the sort of confidence that we've just heard. We want a plan that isn't just yes, it's about the environment, but it's also about the economy and jobs to steward the whole nation forward. And that's the conversation that's happening in Parliament right now, where we have people representing rural and regional communities who may in some cases experience disproportionate impacts and how we help them transition. And when we talk about the communities like the one we're talking about, there are obviously investments in transition away from coal towards gas, which is a lower emissions footprint. And increasingly, we want to see that as a destination for investments of things like hydrogen. So we're not just talking about coal being a critical part of Australia's past, a necessary part of Australia's future, but also diminishing share of Australia's future energy. But how we're actually going to add new sectors and new investment to grow the jobs in those communities, so we take the whole of Australia with us.

David Speers: We will come to some of those transition issues. But again, I just want to clear up your position here. You presumably seen the government's plan. You're the assistant minister. Do you support it and do you support net zero by 2050? 

Tim Wilson: Resolutely with the plan I do...

David Speers: ...with a plan or with the plan the government has on the table. 

Tim Wilson: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear that question. Could you repeat the question?

David Speers:  With a plan. Or do you actually support the plan?

Tim Wilson:  Oh no, I support the plan. There is no dispute about that. The principles which underpins it is very clearly focused on the role of technology to create new investment, new jobs so that Australia responds to changing market demand that creates an environment for jobs in new technology sectors and, of course, cleaner energy, while also making sure we offset the emissions of existing things like fossil fuels and the like. And so it's about taking everyone with us as part of a national conversation. And that's I think that fundamental principle is very exciting. 

David Speers: And does this plan that you are supporting come at a cost to regions like Anne's or not? 

Tim Wilson: Well, it is an acknowledgement that there are adjustments that are made in different parts of the country where you've got traditional sectors like coal in some communities, as I said, there's changing market demand globally. It's not just being driven by what's happening domestically in Australia. And so there will be a change from what's demanded by the rest of the world. And in part, that plan is focused on what can we do to support those communities through that adjustment? And how do we lead the investment and create the investment so that the skills, the value and of course, the community that exists in the identity that exists in those communities is conserved, but frankly thrives. 

David Speers: So what's what's the plan mean to Fran and for her community? 

Tim Wilson: Well, I said that before. I mean, we've seen a transition away from coal towards other types of technologies, including the role of gas. Now, the gas is not the final solution, but it's a transition fuel on the way through to the use of cleaner hydrogen. And of course, there's investments in looking at things like hydrogen hubs in communities exactly like this so that they can become exporters of the fuels of the net zero world. So Australia can thrive and support its community. And of course, with jobs that people are rightly proud of. 

David Speers: Well, and I'll come back. Let's get a reaction to you. Hydrogen gas sounds like there'll be new jobs there is that is that an adequate level of comfort for you and the workers you represent?

Anne Baker: Oh look we're full of frustration, to be frank. What what I think needs to be really put on the table here is to be very clear about the quality of coal that is in the Bowen Basin. We have we are sitting on the world class metallurgical coal, world class metallurgical coal that delivers steel. At the moment as we sit on this panel tonight. There is there no other answer to coal mineto steel its metallurgical coal that is absolutely needed. World class. The other type of coal is thermal coal, which delivers electricity. Our frustration in this conversation that we quite frankly, have not been included in, we've got no vision over any plans, and I struggle to understand how the plan can be written when a target has not been set. And when communities and regions like the one that I lead have not been included in any of this. Plan and with any of these plans...

David Speers: None of us, none of us have seen the details of this plan that the Tim Wilson is talking about. Yes. 

Tim Wilson: Could I just add to that? 

Anne Baker: I would just make one more point. 

David Speers: Yes.

Anne Baker: The thing in our part of the world, also, we don't use the word transition. We use the word transformation. Transitioning clearly describes you moving away from something. And there is no replacement as we sit here tonight for metallurgical coal producing.

David Speers: Simon. I can see you shaking your head for a lot of this. So let me let me come to you. And perhaps we need to explain to viewers what Climate 200 your group is is all about. You're trying to unseat a number of liberals like Tim Wilson with independent candidates. Why? 

Simon Holmes à Court: Yeah. Well, more than that, we are at the beginning of the most amazing transformation in Australia's political system. Communities around the country that have become disengaged from the political system that have been there are tired of the inaction on climate, on climate change. They're tired of the corruption that we're seeing in Canberra. And and frankly, a lot of incredible number of people in the movement are frustrated with the government's inability to address the treatment and safety of women in Australia that that particular issue. Communities across the country have stepped forward with community campaigns inspired by the Helen Haines' in Indi and Zali Steggall and many other strong community independents before. And they're putting a new model forward. MPs that are accountable, absolutely accountable to their communities. They're not spending every minute of the day trying to work their way up the political ladder. They're not beholden to the party machines. They're not worried about their donors. They are absolutely committed to the community, and we're seeing them do fantastic stuff in parliament. But can I just say in this conversation about net zero, this is so frustrating you don't get a prize for net zero. Announcing net zero when Tony Abbott signed Australia up to the Paris Agreement in 2015, he signed Australia up for a net zero target. Back then. New South Wales and South New South Wales and Victoria signed onto net zero in 2016. Every state and territory in Australia has a net zero target. Australia has a net zero target right now, so this this is an absolute distraction. We're talking about it because Morrison is about to go to Glasgow with nothing, nothing more than Tony Abbott's re warmed up homework from 2015. We, we're going to be an absolute embarrassment when we get there. Australia, what is Glasgow about? It's not about net zero. Glasgow is about the Paris Agreement, and the Paris Agreement is about keeping global warming to less than two degrees, well less than the two degrees, preferably one point five. And if we don't manage to do that, we might, as we say goodbye to the reef. The unprecedented fire events that we've had recently will become every other year. And large parts of Australia will become both uninsurable and unlivable. Glasgow is about the Paris Agreement, not about net zero. 

David Speers: So if that's the case that it's not about net zero by 2050, it's about 2030. Why aren't you supporting candidates to run against Labor MPs? Because they don't have a 2030 target either. 

Simon Holmes à Court: So we we're not starting campaigns and we're not choosing candidates. What we're doing is identifying the campaigns around the country that are strongest, and I was on a Zoom call earlier this year. Three hundred people from 72 electorates turned up to a conference. Cathy McGowan, the former member for Indi, organised and they heard about all the skills required and what they would need to do in order to get this model going. About 30 of those communities have really strong efforts, and it's unsurprising that the strongest efforts are in the communities most frustrated, and they're frustrated with members that don't represent them. The candidate that's been chosen by North Sydney to run against Trent Zimmerman, Kylie Tink, she told me. She said that she's voted liberal every election of her life, but she doesn't. She doesn't recognise the party and the party doesn't recognise her. When Morrison said that climate policy wouldn't be wouldn't be settled in the inner city wine bars and the dinner parties in in Sydney, he was talking about her and her future constituents. 

David Speers: So at the moment, it's only Liberals you are trying to turf out through this campaign. But you're not ruling out...

Simon Holmes à Court: Absolutely not. Not ruling out when strong community campaigns run, regardless of, you know, these are these are communities that are running against the party machines. 

David Speers: Chris Bowen, let me come to you then on this if it's not about net zero by 2050, if this Glasgow summit is all about 2030, you know what is Labour offering? 

Chris Bowen: Well, I'll answer that, David. But firstly, let me deal with a question raised by our view on a very good question. And firstly about confidence. I have no confidence in the Morrison government. Here we are after four hundred and twenty three weeks in office. Two weeks before Glasgow and Tim can't tell us what the official policy of the government is in relation to net zero after 70000 hours in office. They need some more for hour meetings. This is the global warming. Climate change is the biggest challenge facing the planet and the biggest economic opportunity facing the country. And the government of the country doesn't have a policy. On the regions, and the question was about how the regions are impacted. I've got good news. The regions will be at the heart of the transformation to net zero, and the quicker that transformation occurs, the better for the regions. The key to dealing with climate change is to electrify everything and to make that electricity renewable and that electricity is going to be made in the region. So we're going to need much more electricity, and that's going to be made in the regions, not just because they've got the space for the big renewable installations, because they've got the skills, the skills that have powered Australia for so long in traditional energy are the same skills that will power our renewable economy. And we saw the BCCI modelling just last week, which said Australians will be much better off with net zero. But Australians in regional Australia will be three times better off on average than Australians in the capital cities, because that's where the great transformation will occur. Now on the medium term targets Simon's 100 per cent right, you shouldn't get a prize for declaring net zero. The Labor Party's been committed to it for years. It shouldn't be a matter of bipartisan dispute. The fact that I can come on here and say it is a matter of bipartisan difference is an indictment on the government of Australia, but 2050 is not enough. What will really determine whether we can hold the world to 1.5 degrees over the next decade is what happens. Sorry, at 1.5 degrees, warming is what happens over the next decade. And that's why medium term targets are so important. That's why the government should be increasing its medium term target at Glasgow. They're saying they're not going to. It is Tony Abbott's target. Tony Abbott is a climate change denier, and it was designed explicitly to match the United States...

David Speers: We might come back to the 2030 target, but Amelia let me bring you in here. You heard Anne talk about how coal workers she feels have been forgotten a lot in this debate. You represent young indigenous Australians who want more action on climate change. Have they also been forgotten? Do you think in this debate? 

Amelia Telford: Absolutely. I think whether it's, you know, mining communities, First Nations, communities, farmers like particularly First Nations communities, though like we are being left behind and my heart goes out to, you know, to mining communities who've paid a really heavy price. And, you know, if we could do anything and the same applies to really any issue is involving communities who are most impacted by issues in building solutions, building the plans for the way forward. You know, I think for our mob what's not being talked about here in terms of, you know, conversations about leadership in the political football of climate change is the problem that we have with politics right now and the fact that big corporations, oil and gas corporations are, you know, are holding our politicians back from taking urgent action on climate change. And you know, you're talking about 2050, like 2050 is going to be too late. Last year, half the country was on fire. There's communities who are running out of water. There's places that are going to become unlivable like this. It's going to be far too late. And the action that we need to say needs to be this decade. And when you talk about leadership, you know, if if you're not prepared to step up to the game, if you don't know what leadership looks like, then honestly get out of the way and let First Nations people first people of this country have been looking after this land sustainably for tens of thousands of years. Step back and let us stand up because we know what to do in a crisis. We know what to do. It's time for you to follow our lead. 

David Speers: Well, our next question I'd like to bring in Paul Stevenson. He's on the Sunshine Coast. Paul, you grew up in Marrar, in Central Queensland's Bowen Basin, and your family has some close connections to the mining industry. Tell us a bit about that. 

Paul Stevenson: I was born and grew up in Nowra, in the biggest coal producing region in Australia, the Bowen Basin, my family's farm there for four generations, and many of my family members have worked in the coal mines for decades. So yeah, I have a quite a quite a close connection with with both of those industries. And I've also worked very closely with farmers all over the region who faced impacts from coal mining and gas projects. 

David Speers: So how do you feel about the idea of net zero by 2050? 

Paul Stevenson: Look, I think the science is absolutely clear. There's there's really no debate anymore. You know, I went to the University of Queensland, we had some great research there showing ninety seven per cent of climate scientists agree that climate change is, you know, it's a real phenomenon caused by human beings and net zero is a is a bare minimum response required. 

David Speers: So what are the concerns, though, of coal miners about this? Or are there concerns? What would they actually like to see our political leaders focusing on?

Paul Stevenson: Yeah look, so my my brother works in the coal mining industry. My father worked in the industry, my uncles worked in the industry.  I think that it's possible to both work in the industry and recognise that there are global changes happening. The Japanese government, the South Korean government and the Chinese government, our three biggest trading partners in terms of coal exports, have all announced policies to achieve net zero emissions. And that's going to lead to an inevitable decline in coal exports from Australia. So we have the option of either managing that in a totally disorderly fashion that leaves people socially and economically dislocated, or we can plan for that transition, as has happened in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria and really make sure people are taken care of through that economic transition. 

David Speers: So your point is this is going to happen. Whatever we do, it's about managing that transition, as you say, making it as orderly as possible. 

Paul Stevenson: There's no denying that governments and industry are moving on this issue around the world. However, Australia is being left behind because of recusant politicians who claim to represent Central Queensland. But no, from my experience, you know, Matt Canavan is not from Central Queensland, Barnaby Joyce is not from Central Queensland. So. Where we're being left behind by people who claim to be speaking for coal miners, but really I don't know whose best interests they have heart. 

David Speers: So someone like your brother who works in the industry? What would an orderly transition ideally look like for him? 

Paul Stevenson: Well, look, I think he's he's been preparing for this for so many years. He's done further training and study, and he's well placed to move into other industries. So I think that's the kind of thing that needs to be delivered by government and it's government's role to manage this process. So we need we need training. We need, you know, if people want to go to university who have had a trade previously, they should have that available to them. We need to have economic support for for workers so that they are not left high and dry and stranded. 

David Speers: All right, Paul, thank you. 

David Speers: So let's get to, I guess, beyond the sort of motherhood statements about helping these communities, what practically does it look like? Chris Bowen, let me go to you first on this. What would Labor do to help those workers practically? 

Chris Bowen: Well, that was a great question from Paul, and he's 100 percent right. This change is happening, and people in regional Australia understand that they're used to economic change. My family came to Australia in 1880. The coal miners from Wales, my great great grandfather, Daniel Bowen, came from Mount Morgan in Queensland, the world's biggest mine. Now that mine closed years ago and my there's still a beautiful place, but there's not many economic opportunities for young people. That's what happens when you don't manage change. But the key is to create the new jobs of the future through renewable energy. Yes, through renewable energy exports, yes. And again, we saw a joint VCA ACTU report just last week, a different one showing that, for example, 13000 jobs will be created in Central Queensland and the beautiful Bowen Basin. What a great place it is just through clean energy exports, but also through good energy policy, which reduces the price of electricity, which means we can we can get manufacturing going again in Australia. All the studies show us that the countries with the most complicated manufacturing sectors, which is a good thing, have good climate change policy. Australia has a less complicated manufacturing system that's not a good thing, and we don't have a forward leaning climate change policy and renewable manufacturing, creating more making more solar panels in Australia, for example, where...

David Speers: But are these directly transferable? 

Chris Bowen: So we put 60 million panels on roofs in Australia in the last decade, and one per cent of them have been made in Australia, which is much better than that...

David Speers: We absolutely can. And I understand that the big picture pitch there. But just come back to the practical question of how directly transferable those jobs are to making solar panels, for example. I mean, is that what's going to happen? 

Chris Bowen: Well, everybody's different. But as I said before, the skills of our energy workers are very transferable to new energy. You know, when I go to coal fired power stations and coal mines and I talk directly to workers about the future, which I do a lot when travel is a little easier than it is at the moment, which I've done a lot this year, I talk to people about the jobs of the future and people in coal mines and coal fired power stations want to hear about the jobs of the future. They know the world is changing. As I said before, they're used to economic change the used to the price of commodities going up and down. They want to know there's a plan now the states are getting on with it. I give full credit to the Liberal government in New South Wales, for example, with their renewable energy zones, which are four times oversubscribed for investment, which is going to create thousands of jobs in the Hunter Valley, for example. That's just one example. But imagine what could be done with a national framework as an said and has been spot on tonight. I mean, the regions have been ignored in terms of the policy development. I've met with the Bowen Basin mayors and talked to them about the future of renewable energy in in Australia. They've got a lot to offer, a lot to contribute when we work. 

David Speers: And let me come to...

Chris Bowen: The world's climate opportunity. Is Australia, the world's climate emergency is Australia's regions opportunity? 

David Speers: Anne he said, I mean, it sounds great this all these job opportunities is is is that what you need to hear or do you need something a bit more tangible in terms of what jobs are going to be there for those working in coal industry right now? 

Anne Baker: Yeah, it's about the practical impacts for us. But I can very confidently say is that we live change, we live and breathe and change and have been for a decade. I'd like to put forward. I absolutely support Amelia's position in relation to our First Nations people. I have been. There culture has been around for centuries, thousands and thousands of years. They say they should be the first group of people consulted. Myself on behalf of our region's resource regions and in the local government context.  We are level of government that is the closest to our to the community, and we're also the closest to the industry impacts. So what I'm proposing and what we're needing is an inclusive conversation around what balanced policy can look like. We need to understand the how and you can't. There is no way that we can get an understanding of how this policy will formulate without a setting of a target that is the enabler for an inclusive conversation with the real stakeholders to build a good balance, sustainable policy 

Amelia Telford: As a young person. You know, I'm incredibly disappointed in the lack of leadership that we're seeing and have seen, you know, for many years now from both of the major parties. I remember talking to a young person in the Latrobe Valley, you know, a coal mining community in Victoria and asking them a question like, What do you see in your vision for the future? Do you see coal as a part of your future? And it broke my heart because I just looked at me and they said, no one's ever asked me that question before. And so you talk about young people, you talk about the role of young people, you know, but I think the average young person or the average voter watching at home right now. I. Really, actually don't think they could tell the difference between the two major party stance on climate change and, you know, look, they're both major parties right now accept donations from Big Oil and gas corporations. How are we talking about 2050? How is that going to be any plan that we can trust when that who are you being influenced by? 

David Speers: Simon? 

Simon Holmes à Court: Yeah, it's so disappointing that here we are in 2021, still using coal communities as political footballs. 

Amelia Telford: It's not a game. 

Simon Holmes à Court: it's not a game anymore, but we're also we've got to move to the opportunity to start talking about the opportunities here that there are there are 40000 coal workers, coal miners in Australia. Their jobs are not threatened by Australia's net zero target. Their jobs are threatened by the net zero targets in our in our customers customer countries, 

David Speers: You mean Japan and...

Simon Holmes à Court: Japan, South Korea, China and Taiwan. Those are the countries that buy our coal and all and all of them, except Taiwan have set a net zero target and Taiwan will do so soon. The coal jobs are at their pleasure and they have already cast the die there. So it's incumbent upon us to grab now the new opportunities we're on the cusp of the biggest investment boom in regional Australia is about to start right now. Australia has such a big role to play in this energy the global energy transition. Half of the world's lithium that goes into electric vehicles comes from Australia. Right now, we don't process much of it. We send it overseas and have others process it. The, you know, so much of the technology solar technology has come from Australia. We have the critical minerals, the the rare earth minerals and cobalt and nickel. We have steel and and aluminium, which we can process here with our amazing renewable resources. We have these boundless plains, they windswept and the sun drenched. We can create. We can generate electricity cheaper than almost any country in the world. There are tens of thousands of jobs waiting for us to grab the 40000 call workers we have. It's a group that we can help them make that transfer, embrace the transformation. They have very compatible skills with all of these new manufacturing, mining and renewable energy jobs that will come out of this transition. 

David Speers: And it's about the policies, the practical positions that are going to be there to help them retrain and reskill for those jobs. Let's get to our next question, which comes from Leslie Ann Hawthorne. 

Leslie: Why is the prime minister spending endless time trying to secure consensus with the Nationals to take action on climate change? Am I correct in believing he has the power in cabinet to actually lead and immediately declare the policy the great majority of Australians and the business lobby now want? 

David Speers: So the news this evening is that the National Party Room has held a further meeting tonight and they have now finalised a list of demands and given formal approval to Barnaby Joyce to negotiate with the prime minister on this. They want more funding for regional Australia as part of the deal. The two leaders will negotiate over the coming days and the Nats will meet again on Sunday afternoon in Canberra. Tim Wilson as the assistant minister are you aware of what these demands are from the Nats at this stage or not? 

Tim Wilson: Well, firstly, David, it was disappointing I wasn't given the opportunity to contribute to the answer to the question that was asked before, because that's precisely why we're investing $20 billion through different grants and finance mechanisms to invest in regional communities so that regional communities don't don't just have jobs, but opportunities and thrive exactly as people have outlined. I mean, Simon was correct about critical minerals, and that's why there's a critical minerals strategy about how Australia can take advantage of the incredible, rare earths and critical minerals that are available to Australia. Went through them lithium, cobalt, nickel and the like, and how they can be critical inputs in things like renewable energy, battery technology and, of course, other types of technology necessary for national security. So this is already the conversation we're having, and we've heard tonight how communities feel disempowered, and I think that's fair enough. I think there are plenty of people who want to have a voice in this conversation because it's not just about one section of the community. It's actually about how we move as a nation forward together. And that includes rural and regional teams...

David Speers: Ok so... 

Tim Wilson: I'm answering the question. Regional communities and in cities. And one of the critical things is we have members of parliament where the people agree with whom they're elected from which communities or not. Are participants in that conversation, and they're actually bringing them forward to the prime minister as all the members of Parliament do, to say this is how we see our future through the leadership of net zero for the future of the country. And that's a fundamentally good thing. Now the details of only been released while I've been on this program so I haven't seen I've seen them number one...

Simon Holmes à Court: But Tim, you have no intention no intention to comply or to embrace the Paris Agreement, right? The net zero target...

Tim Wilson: That's false actually...

Simon Holmes à Court:  The net zero target will not keep Australia well below two degrees or down to 1.5. 

Tim Wilson: So that's just false, Simon. Let let's just start from a basic point. An entry condition of the Paris Agreement is to have a 2030 target. The liberal national government has a 2030 target with all due respect to him Chris Bowen does not, and the Labor Party does not. But... (inaudible) to see mechanisms including what we need to invest in technology and to empower communities, particularly regional communities, to be part of the solution. But you know, as I know, Simon, that the challenge of climate change can't be solved by Australia in isolation, where a little over one per cent of the world's emissions we need...

David Speers: We're getting away from the question Tim Wilson. The point he's right now. The government does not have a 2050 net zero commitment, right? Because this is still held up by the Nationals and this is what the questioner Leslie-Ann is asking about. Should Cabinet just make a decision and get on with it? It's only 10 days to go until Glasgow, or should you wait until the Nats are on board? 

Tim Wilson: I think we should have a democratic process that involves co-operation from members of parliament and communities across the country, so we don't have disempowered communities and disempowered voices. 

David Speers: Does that mean does that mean only take forward the policy if the Nationals are on board? 

Tim Wilson: Well, I'm not going to speculate on hypotheticals. I mean, I'm interested to see what the details are and what the requests are, but it's not...

David Speers: You don't know what they're asking for, but I'm just asking you the principle of whether you should go ahead without the Nats. Go ahead regardless. Make this commitment in Glasgow. 

Tim Wilson: Why would I concede a scenario where we went ahead without taking the whole of the country with us, the principles of...

David Speers: I'm talking about the Nats because this has been dragging all week and you can't honestly say you're relaxed about how long this has taken surely. 

Tim Wilson: If it involves a transit transformation which actually leads to more jobs cutting greenhouse gas emissions and Australia being responsible actor. I'd have no problem in making sure we work through those to get an outcome.

Simon Holmes à Court: But Australia is not a responsible actor in this right we we will be one of the only countries, one of our only allies that are going to this conference without an increased ambition for 2030. We've done, you've done nothing in your government. The last three terms you're doing nothing this term. You've breached your promises to the to the public on reducing reducing emissions or emissions policy.

Tim Wilson: Simon that's false...

Simon Holmes à Court:  And you've got a no plan for the next three terms of government. 2050 is 12 terms of government from now, maybe even more. What is the government going to do to increase our ambition and deliver on a Paris agreement? You know, to keep the globe to keep the temperature of the planet below two degrees of warming?

Tim Wilson: Well Simon... 

David Speers: We are going to come back to the issues...

Tim Wilson: There have been serious accusations that have been made there, which (inaudible). Emissions are down by 20 per cent off 2005 levels. 

Simon Holmes à Court: Tim that's nonsense. That's somewhere between a trick and a lie... 

Tim Wilson: China 60 percent since 2005 levels. This is the way the international standards are set. They are down by 20 per cent since 2005. And one of the reasons why people are now calling for increased ambition is because every model and every trajectory shows that we're not just going to meet it, but we're going to beat it. 

David Speers: Can you now just address that. 

Tim Wilson: Chris Bowen...

David Speers:  Can you let Simon...

Simon Holmes à Court: I have to take you to task on this 20 per cent reduction by by 2005. I say the advertisements, taxpayer dollars everywhere, telling Australians, you've done a great job reducing emissions by 20 per cent. Okay, let's put the land sector aside for a second in the economy that we have to transform. You've reduced emissions by only three per cent over the last 15 years. Yes, the land sector has been an area where we have made some progress. We stopped land clearing, not because the government made it happen because the Queensland government shut down land clearing. Now we are hiding behind that fig leaf. You can't stop land clearing again. You've made no inroads on transforming the rest of the economy and you have no plan going through from here. We've got to move away from these tricks and lies. Australia is not doing. It's pulling its weight on climate change. 

Tim Wilson: Simon the tricks and lies are to say that the provisions that are in the Paris Agreement and how we actually account for emissions don't count because it doesn't suit your narrative. 

Simon Holmes à Court: No other country does Tim, no other country. 

David Speers: And we just agree Europe, the bulk of that 20 per cent of their emissions. Can we just agree and move on that the bulk of that 20 per cent is thanks to the land clearing and that there's disagreement as to whether or not we should be including that or not. Amelia, let me ask you. Yeah, this is the question. The question was about leaving the Nats to one side and just the prime minister and cabinet making this commitment and going ahead with it. Is it important to bring those nats along, or is it time now to just say enough? 

Amelia Telford: The time is to say enough like, you know, we need to bring this back to what this is all about. We're talking about climate change. We're talking about the crisis that we are facing right here right now. 2050 is too late. You know, if you want to talk about 1.5 degrees, I think about my Pacific Islander family who have been saying ever since Paris, before Paris 1.5 to stay alive. You know, my friend, the late Omalu, she's passed away now, but she was the founder of the Pacific Climate Warriors, and she used to say that the future of the Pacific islands and the future of the fossil fuel industry cannot coexist. And it'sthe fossil fuel industry that needs to back down and this is so frustrating. This is absolutely a distraction from the action that we need to take. And I think that, you know, as a young person, you wonder why young people are frustrated right now and hitting the streets. You wonder why our mob have, you know, felt like we haven't been listened to for so long. Australia has the potential to be a global leader on this. We have one of the sunniest countries in the world and one of the windiest countries in the world. We are home to the oldest surviving Aboriginal culture, indigenous culture in the world like we have what it takes. I said it before, but I'll say it again. Like if you don't have what it takes to be a leader in this country, then step back and let us step up and lead. 

David Speers: All right. Well, let's let's get to this 2030 argument that we're hearing a lot about tonight with our next question, which comes from Australian singer songwriter Holly Rankin, who performs as Jack River. 

Holly Rankin: Labor have been extremely vocal about the Morrison government's lack of an ambitious climate target heading into COP26. Yet the opposition themselves haven't put forward an ambitious climate target. The public and international governments are wanting something that looks a little more like net zero by 2030. Why are Labor asking the Morrison government to take this action when they themselves haven't put forward an ambitious policy or target? The youth are really wanting a party that takes climate action, but we are unable to see it in either major party. If Labor wants to take climate leadership, they need to put forward an ambitious climate target. 

David Speers: So Chris Bowen, why doesn't Labor have a 2030 target? 

Chris Bowen: Well, thanks for the question, Holly. And let me say we have tried to give the government an opportunity to get this right. We've been calling for net zero for 2050 for years, and I agree with everything everybody else has said. It's not enough. If that's all you do, you need to get there quickly. Hence, the medium term targets are very important. Hence, we've called specifically for the government to increase the medium term target they take to Glasgow now. Unfortunately, I'm not representing Australia, Glasgow, I'd love to be but I'm not. We are actually trying to, in the national interest, give the government a chance to see if they could come up with something that we could get bipartisan support to. They're not going to. It's pretty clear now, but we still got two weeks for them to get to Glasgow and lift the medium term target. Twenty six to twenty eight is not... 

David Speers: What is Labor now having a target put pressure on the government? Surely I understand the politics. It might not not not suit you, but to get a better outcome at Glasgow. From your perspective, wouldn't it be better to say, here's what we think 2030 target should be? 

Chris Bowen: Well, we think it should be better than 26 to 28 because 26 to 28 is not enough to hold the world to 1.5 degrees. It is not. I agree with Simon. It is not in keeping with our Paris commitments. 

David Speers: What is?

Chris Bowen: We need to do better. And so what is important is if at the time in the next election, the government has lifted its game. The Australian people have a very clear choice and they'll have that choice. Not only we will be outlining our medium term targets, we'll be outlining how will achieve them. Scott Morrison says you can't have targets without policies. I actually agree with him about that. But he uses an alibi not to have either. And we'll be having both. 

David Speers: And Chris Bowen just said the 26 to 28 per cent is not enough. Labor clearly will go beyond that before the next election. What do you think? Do we need something more ambitious for 2030? 

Anne Baker: Oh, look, what I think is we need to remove the politics from this conversation, and it should not be about any one political pol...

David Speers: Well leave the politics to one side. Do you think labor should have, should, should Australia have a more ambitious 2030 target? 

Anne Baker: What I believe is we need a target.

David Speers: More ambitious than the current one?

Anne Baker: Needs to be a target. We have at the moment we're talking and we're sitting here talking about a target that the conversation's been going on for over a decade and we're still talking about setting a target. 

David Speers: No no, I'm talking about the 2030. The 2030 target is 26 to 28 per cent that was set by Tony Abbott. That is still the government's target. Is it enough? 

Anne Baker: Look, I don't believe. I'm not a scientist, I said that in the beginning of this part of the program. I'm not sure what the target should be. What we know is we need to get on with the business. Remove the politics, set a target that we can collectively have an inclusive conversation about setting a balanced balance of energy and a balanced plan. 

David Speers: So should Labor... Would you like to see Labor's numbers on this? Should Labor set a target? 

Anne Baker: Both sides of government, both sides of politics, should be setting, setting a target and having a position on this. Let's just remember you know people put themselves into the political arena. And that takes a lot of courage. We look to them to set policy. Where I see it is we are we are a community that coexisting with the closest level of government to the people who are the closest level of government to the, to the industry impacts. We bring a lot of value to this conversation. We need to be able to provide that feedback information to our elected politicians, regardless of what party they're attached to form a stable, balanced policy. 

David Speers: So on this...

Anne Baker: We got the target set and get on, well...

David Speers: OK, that's what we're trying to 

Anne Baker: talk and be able 

David Speers: to sort of trying to establish here with the two sides of politics. So just on 2030, the US is now committed to 50 per cent emissions reduction by 2030, the UK sixty eight per cent, Japan forty six, South Korea 40, the EU fifty five. A number of states in Australia already at 50 per cent target by 2030. Tim Wilson Why is the government sticking with Tony Abbott's much lower target?

Tim Wilson: Well, at least we have one unlike the Labor Party. One of the reasons we're sticking with it is because it's the one we took to the Australian people at the last election and they voted for. Now...

David Speers: Hang on just on that because I've heard the prime minister use that line all week. You went to the election without any sort of 2050 target and you're now suggesting you do want to make that. You didn't say anything at the last election about cancelling a big submarine contract with the French or closing international borders because of a pandemic. The point is things change. Global events require governments to adapt and reposition. Are you seriously saying you need to stick with the 2030 target that the Tony Abbott set?

Tim Wilson: Well, it was actually one of the critical battlegrounds in the last election about what the target was. Labor said they won forty five per cent. They were defeated. We said twenty six, twenty eight per cent and we were successful. And what we've said and I agree with is...

Simon Holmes à Court: Was based on a bunch of lies...

David Speers: Can we just make sure he finishes the answer.

Tim Wilson: As a basis where we take the Australian communities, where we don't disempower communities and they get to be a participant in the conversation, which everybody says their support until it isn't them. I'm saying I do want to include the entire Australian community is that if there is any change in ambition that we would take it to a future election and you know, there are good sides as...

Simon Holmes à Court: Well why don't you take it to the next election...

Tim Wilson: What we've seen is a trajectory where we have an... Where we're likely to exceed our emissions targets by twenty six, twenty per cent by 2030. That's why everybody saying, can we increase the ambition now? Some people want to dismiss what's been achieved. There's a lot more work to be done...

David Speers: So you could take to the next election a higher target...

Tim Wilson: ...participation and we have the Australian community endorsement.

David Speers: Ok on those grounds, you could take a higher 2030 target to the next election. 

Tim Wilson: Well, that's we're looking at what obviously the projections are for emissions cuts, and that will be a conversation for the next election.

David Speers: So you are looking at taking a higher 2030 target to the next election?

Tim Wilson: Well, as I said, ours will be based on data and evidence and and making sure we get consent of the Australian people. But it's not a unilateral decisions for me unlike the (inaudible)...

David Speers: You would actually have some authority more than anybody on this panel tonight. You are the assistant minister. Can you confirm you are considering taking a higher 2030 target to the next election? 

Tim Wilson: What I can confirm is that if we do something like that, it would go through proper processes through the party. It wouldn't unilaterally be done on this program. 

David Speers: Simon.

Simon Holmes à Court: This this is such deja vu, right? This this far before the last federal election, rings were being run around the Coalition for not having a having a carbon policy. Stepped up and announced in February 2019 it was the Climate Solutions Package, a $3.4 billion package. Well, it turns out 1.4 billion of it was Malcolm Turnbull's Snowy 2.0 2017 scheme. $2 billion was the new carbon. What was it? Carbon Solutions Fund, which was to pay for the government to spend our tax dollars to pay to offset the pollution of companies that wouldn't invest in the technology. How much of that $2 billion has been spent? Absolutely zero. Right. And in the last part of that carbon solutions package was an electric vehicles strategy that Angus Taylor was supposed to announce. He sat on the electric vehicle strategy for two years and eventually announced it was called the Future Fuel Strategy - FFS. The Future Fuels Strategy recommended that we don't buy EVs. It's no wonder that people are feeling disappointed, disempowered when they're constantly gaslit by this government...

David Speers: Ok look Amelia just quickly. 2030 the question is about 2030 and why Labor doesn't have a target, and we know the government's target is still where it was under Tony Abbott are listed with some other countries are at. Where do you think Australia should be? 

Amelia Telford: Australia should be a global leader like we're we're holding us... Where you guys are holding us back. Like, This is so frustrating. I think you know you you talk about being a being in front in terms of emissions. That's an absolute lie. It's an absolute joke. Like you say that whilst in the same breath, you are also, you know, full well that this government is funnelling hundreds of millions of dollars to an industry like fracking in the Northern Territory that scientists have told us communities have told us will absolutely blow our ability to limit global warming to less than 1.5 degrees if just one of those basins alone were fracked. And you know, these are these are Aboriginal communities who are fighting like hell to protect their land and water and have been for over a decade. And and yet you continue to ignore them. So how are these projects getting up? They don't stack up economically. You know, Empire Energy have just been given $21 million. Origin, Energy, Santos, all these companies, you know. And yet you and you know, labor, I'm sorry, but you had an opportunity to be able to stop this and you didn't. And so, you know, I think that really is just incredibly disappointing. And, you know, better these are lies. 

David Speers: Let me get a quick response. Chris Bowen on gas, because it's an interesting point. Would Labor continue expanding the reliance on gas, the exploration and extraction of gas? 

Chris Bowen: Well, gas is a big topic. We won't have time to do it at all tonight. 

David Speers: Well just give us a quick answer. You can always tell us whether you want to expand it. 

Chris Bowen: I'm trying to, David. Gas is going to play a role in the system for some time to come because we've got a need to build a storage to cope with 100 per cent renewables. I'm very passionate about getting to 100 per cent renewables, but we are nowhere near having the storage necessary for the times that we not only need at at night, but for lower wind. We're going to need peaking and firming there are 3 choices. Nuclear, I'm against. Coal is not going to be. There's got to be no new coal fired power stations in Australia, certainly not under a labor government. And then gas is the only third option to have peaking and firming while we're building the storage, the batteries, household, community and grid, the pumped hydro, the hydrogen, all of which I'm passionate about, but are going to take a years to get to the level where...

Amelia Telford: Aboriginal communities are saying no. 

Chris Bowen: Well, Aboriginal communities in the Beetaloo Basin, for example, covers thousands of square kilometres with thousands of traditional owners. The Northern Land Council has been handling the consultations. They tell me that there's very nuanced views amongst those thousands of traditional owners, as you would expect none of us. I'm not a traditional owner. I respect the role of the Northern Land Council with the negotiations and discussions that they'vebeen having. 

David Speers: We've got to move on. Our next question comes from Riley Martin. 

Reilly: Hi. My question is for Chris Bowen to those given in 2007, as agreed upon by both major political parties, that an emissions trading scheme was the best way to reduce emissions at the most economical cost. Why in 2021 are we not considering ETS despite major backing from economists as well as scientists. Is this just a case of politics getting in the way of good economics? 

David Speers: All right. Well, just get a quick one from Chris Bowen and Tim Wilson on this. A price on carbon, some sort of emissions trading scheme. Why aren't we doing that? Chris Bowen? 

Chris Bowen: Well, thanks for the question, really. As a member of the cabinet that agreed on the carbon price, which was repealed by the Liberals, but the world has moved on. Renewables are now the cheapest form of energy and now the best way to reduce emissions in Australia is a sector by sector approach to transport, electric vehicles. Electricity making it renewable. Working with farmers in agriculture If you're carefully designing your policy sector by sector so you can craft your policies to get emissions down. That is now the right solution. 

David Speers: OK, you say the world's move on, but there's a long list of countries that are doing a price on carbon. Estonia, Japan, Chile, the U.K., France, Canada, New Zealand, Germany, South Korea, Mexico, Finland, Sweden, South Africa, Ukraine. China has just introduced a nationwide ETS. Tim Wilson. You're a believer in markets. 

Tim Wilson: I am. 

David Speers: Why not...

Tim Wilson: But an ETS is a form of regulation using markets to distribute. Malcolm Turnbull actually got this right when he said ETS or carbon pricing is better in theory than practice...

David Speers: So all these countries have done it wrong. All these countries have got it wrong.

Tim Wilson: No, no, no. There are different countries that have their unique conditions and they can do it their way. We'll do it the Australian way. But the reality is to have a new emissions trading scheme that reflects the Australian conditions. You need a carbon tax in the vicinity of hundreds of dollars per tonne of CO2 equivalent. And the Australian people have rejected that, let alone the one that, of course, the Labor Party introduced. 

David Speers: All right. The Business Council still, funnily enough, believes a price on carbon would be the way to go. 

Simon Holmes à Court: All, the economists agree that a price on carbon is the cheapest way to do it, but it seems like it's not politically and not politically possible in Australia, and you can forgive Labor for having PTSD over over this issue. But back to being gas gaslit back to being gaslit, Angus Taylor, our emissions reduction minister, has spent the last 20 years fighting renewable energy and we put him in charge of emissions reduction. And Tim, you spent the better part of the last decade fighting against carbon policy as the director of carbon policy at the at the Denialist Institute of Institute of Public Affairs. Right? You argued against the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. You argued to abolish the Australian Renewable Energy Agency...

Tim Wilson: No I didn't...

Simon Holmes à Court:  That Australia should...

Tim Wilson: That's false.

Simon Holmes à Court: It should pull out of Kyoto. You've got a track...

Tim Wilson: ... The United States and China...

Simon Holmes à Court: the harmonisation 

Tim Wilson: Whereas the Paris agreement does, and that's the fundamental difference. We have to work with the global community cut greenhouse gas emissions. And one of the big follies of the Kyoto Protocol was New Zealand was out, the United States was out and China was out and...

Simon Holmes à Court: The most constructive thing...

Tim Wilson: What we actually had was a deal which actually would have done nothing to cut global greenhouse gas emissions. Paris achieves that. That's why we don't...

David Speers: We don't want to get bogged down on what happened. Anyway, let's let's go to well, we'll make this our final question tonight, and it comes from Dash Hunter Clear. 

Dash: Hi, there, my name, Dash and I'm 14 years old, so I'm a bit younger than most of the viewers, but I'm really enjoying Q&A because I get to hear so many different views on important topics. My question tonight is while I live in a bigish family and me, my sisters are very family oriented. We talk a lot about how global warming will affect our future kids and grandkids to come. So I was wondering what the panel's thoughts were on how global warming will affect future generations childhoods and how detrimental it will be for their day to day life. Also, should I even think about having kids considering how bleak the future looks? 

David Speers: Amelia, I'll let you go first on this one. What would you say to Dash? 

Amelia Telford: Yeah, Dash. Look, it is, and it can feel really doom and gloom right now. You know, the reality is, is that we're already facing the impacts of climate change. We have been for some time, and unless we see ambitious action in the next decade, we're going to continue to, you know, for for communities that I work with, you know, in the Torres Strait Islands, communities are saying that burial grounds being washed away into the ocean, seeing the bones of their ancestors, you know, we all experience the fires, we're seeing remote communities, you know, who are going without water like the impacts are here and now. And you know, I think in terms of, you know, thinking about your future, I would say, you know, get involved in in movement, stand up like be the leaders that that, you know, don't wait for anyone else at the time is now . Be the leaders that are that you know, you can stand up and give our politicians no choice but to follow. 

David Speers: Yeah, look Anne, Dash is obviously concerned about the climate impacts. What do you hear from young people in the council area you represent? 

Anne Baker: Yeah. Thanks for the question Dash. look, it's critical for us, our young people are just just as invested as any used across the country in terms of the environment and what what's their future? I think from my perspective, we need to make sure that our youth are informed and educated, that they have a full understanding of what this all means and can only come from inclusive conversation, education. And we just have to had that experience. 

David Speers: Chris Bowen.

Chris Bowen: Good on you Dash and my messages as a bright and optimistic future with Australia, as a renewable economy, a renewable country and exporting renewable energy to Southeast Asia and young people are going to be big beneficiaries of the jobs created and big beneficiaries of getting this right. You know, last night in Parliament, I read a speech to Parliament written by a 16 year old Jaden Noonan in my electorate who was passionate about the opportunities for Australia. We can do this and you're going to be a very important part of it. Please don't let the toxic debate in Australia get you down. We've got a broad, optimistic future. As a country, we can be a leader and we will be a leader with a government that's as good as the people are. 

David Speers: Tim Wilson, I mean, you know, there are studies showing anxiety amongst young people when it comes to this issue of climate change. A serious worry. What would you say to Dash and to other young viewers who are very upset and concerned about what the future holds? 

Tim Wilson: Well, we take those concerns very seriously, but to be truthful, I'm not dissimilar to Chris Bowen in the sense that I'm completely optimistic. One of the solutions that's always been present with climate change is the power of technology, both in terms of cost and what it can deliver. And so I think we're going to smash this challenge. I think we're going to meet it very comfortably through the power of technology now. Some people want taxes and other measures, but I think we can be optimistic about what we can achieve and the question that was asked before about should you have children? Of course, the answer yes, you should have children because I want them to be able to share into the future and the opportunity of what Australia can achieve. Today, I introduced my first piece of legislation, which was to enable offshore wind farms and other electricity infrastructure around Australia's coastline. We're going to make this challenge very comfortably, and I'm very excited about where it can be and the opportunity we can present for future generations. 

David Speers: Simon I'm going to let you go finally on this. Your message to young people worried about where climate change is going to leave them? 

Simon Holmes à Court: Thank you for that question. What gives me hope right now is this community independence movement. If we could just get two or three more Pro Climate, Pro integrity candidates onto the crossbench at the next the next federal election, we wake up the morning after and we wake up to a very different country. We wake up to a country that can move past so much of what we heard tonight, where debates that you could have tuned in to current affairs programs 15 years ago. We get to move past that as independents of the calibre of Zali Steggall, Helen Haines, Rebekha Sharkie, Kerryn Phelps before before then get to approach these issues. Now Climate 200 is supporting those. We have three, three and a half thousand members so far. One of them told me recently that this community independence movement is active hope. So rather than sitting at home complaining about what Morrison's not doing or what Labor's targets, not high enough or whatever, rather than sitting complaining about them or the Murdoch media. Get involved with local community independence movement. And if there's not one locally, see if you can volunteer for one or help us at climate 200. Three and a half members so far two and a half million dollars in our war chest, we're going to make a big differenceat the next election. 

David Speers: And it's sounds like quite a pitch that you're making for the organization. 

Simon Holmes à Court: Join us.

Beyond, look beyond an immediate, I suppose, political campaign to get independents into the house. Beyond that, when we talk about, you know, what sort of policy is actually required from those who are elected, what what needs to happen to give comfort to young people? 

Simon Holmes à Court: Well, take a look at what these independents are trying to do. Zali Steggall just just today put up a bill in parliament to try to stop offshore drilling, drilling of oil and gas off Sydney's beaches. Unfortunately, Tim's side of government blocked it. If he was in the house today, he would have voted against it. What gives us hope is think about these independents now. Imagine just two or three more. They'll have the balance of power... 

David Speers: I think we get the message, 

Simon Holmes à Court: And they will deliver solutions to the problems that parliament is blocked on right now. 

David Speers: Alright, look, thank you all very much for a lively discussion tonight, but a very timely one as well. Given all that's been going on this week, that is all we have time for. Please thank our panel Amelia Telford, Simon Holmes A Court. Tim Wilson, Chris Bowen and Anne Baker. And thank you all for your...