Press conference, Fairfield West, Sydney

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, thanks for coming out today. I wanted to cover a few topics today: firstly, of course, like all Australians, my thoughts are with those who are dealing with the impacts of natural disasters and have been dealing with the impacts of natural disasters at the end of last year and the beginning of this year. The people of Queensland, both South East Queensland and North Queensland, the people in Western Australia and Victoria in particular.

And, of course, as the Prime Minister has done, as Murray Watt has done, as the Premier and Queensland and the other Premiers have done, we regularly thank those workers, including the workers in energy companies, who are doing so much to help those Australians who are dealing with natural disasters. Of course, we know natural disasters are increasingly frequent, increasingly severe and it’s important that Australians know their governments will be with them as we deal with these natural disasters, as, of course, we’ll continue to be.

Secondly, I wanted to deal with the matter of the Liberal and National parties today saying that they don’t want to take a 2035 target to the next election. This commentary from multiple members of the Opposition saying they shouldn’t take a 2035 climate change target to the next election. Now, this can mean only one of two things: either they are planning a 2035 target but not planning on letting the Australian people know what it is before the next election, so they intend to be fundamentally dishonest with the Australian people, or they plan not to have a 2035 target, which would mean them leaving the Paris Accord. A Liberal and National Party Government under Peter Dutton’s leadership leaving the Paris Accord, joining Iran, Yemen, and Libya as the only countries outside the Paris Accord.

Now, it’s up to Peter Dutton now to explain which it is. It’s 2024 now; it’s time for him to stop the nonsense, to get on with announcing some policies, tell us what his climate change and energy policy is. I’m very clear we’ll have a 2035 target. It will be very clear to the Australian people before the election what it is. We’re committed to that. We’ve begun the process of setting it. Mr Dutton needs to come clean. Will he have a 2035 target or not? I mean, they can’t even deliver a 2030 target. They are saying they want a pause on renewable energy investment. They want to stop transmission. There’s no way of achieving a 2030 target without doing those things. They, on their more honest moments, concede that nuclear has no realistic possibility of being anywhere near up and running by 2030 in Australia, so they have no plan.

Now, the Paris Accord was signed up to, Australia signed up to the Paris Accord under Tony Abbott. I’ve previously said that Peter Dutton would be a worse Prime Minister for the climate than Scott Morrison. I now say, given that they are hinting they won’t have a 2035 target and will leave the Paris Accord, he’ll be a worse Prime Minister for the climate than Scott Morrison or Tony Abbott, and that takes some doing.

So we know that this Coalition is full of climate change denial. We know that it’s full of people who don’t accept the science, and they are calling the shots. We know that the National Party signed up to Net Zero before the last election, but they never really believed it, and they don’t believe it. They’ve got the likes of Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan out there every day explicitly, clearly and openly undermining Australia’s commitment to Net Zero. Would a Dutton government be committed to Net Zero by 2050 or not? Would they have a 2035 target or not? It’s time to come clean. Will they join Libya, Yemen and Iran as the only countries without a Paris Accord commitment around the world? Would Australia really join that foreign policy contingent? Figure the implications for our international reputation, our trading partners if a Dutton Government was to do that by not having a 2035 target. I mean, it's a joke.

This is an Opposition which is not committed to real action on climate, which denies the science and denies action. They are a coalition of climate inactivists and cookers, and they would cook the planet with their lack of a climate change policy.

The final matter I just wanted to touch on today is the recent developments in offshore wind. I want to be very clear about a couple of things. The Albanese Government is very committed to the development of an offshore wind industry in Australia. We’ve made that very clear by our actions – having declared the Gippsland zone and the Hunter zone being well advanced and the Illawarra and Southern Ocean zones. Just before Christmas, I notified those proponents in the Gippsland zone that are proceeding to the next stage and there is a process underway to issue feasibility licences subject to the act. So we’re very committed to that.

But we’re also committed to proper environmental approvals and assessments and we’ve always said that. And every particular development has to meet those criteria and those requirements under the EPBC, as indeed, they have to under various state acts as well. This is not a choice between those two things. We are committed to getting more renewable energy in Australia and particularly committed to Australia seizing the opportunities of offshore wind, which is energy-rich and jobs-rich and will create thousands of jobs in Australia’s regions. But it has to be done properly and carefully.

And I know some commentators argue that renewable energy related to development somehow don’t go through environmental approvals. I think this proves that they’re wrong. Minister Plibersek has very assiduously applied the EPBC Act. The Victorian Government has indicated they will consider further applications for the Port of Hastings, which we welcome, and, indeed, state and federal officials have already met to consider the next stage and discuss potential next steps.

But every particular application, whether it be a port, an offshore wind, an onshore wind – anything – must go through environmental approvals. And, indeed, this government has, under Minister Plibersek, approved multiple renewable energy developments, enough to power the houses of the Northern Territory, South Australia, Tasmania, and the ACT combined. Renewable energy investments that have been approved under the EPBC Act by Minister Plibersek. But we will insist on proper and rigorous assessment of each and every one.

And this is a balance that we will strike, we have struck and will continue to strike. We’ll continue to work with states and the private sector to achieve this. But it will be done carefully, methodically, and in accordance with the law. And that’s what we’ll continue to do.

Happy to take questions.

JOURNALIST: Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan, said yesterday that she’s confident those environmental issues that Minister Plibersek flagged in her decision could be mitigated. Do you share that confidence, and, if so, how quickly do you think you can get the project back on track?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, as I said, we would welcome a fresh application. But that’s a matter that would have to be worked through. Officials have already met to consider that. A fresh application would need to take into account the matters which Minister Plibersek took into account when making her decision. There are options available for Victoria. The Victorian Government is particularly committed to offshore wind. The Federal Government is committed to offshore wind. We’re committed to working together to make it happen. But we’re also committed to working together to make it happen in accordance with the environmental laws of our country.

JOURNALIST: Isn’t it inevitable that Minister Plibersek’s decision on the terminal will cause delays in Victorian and Australia being able to meet their renewable energy targets?

CHRIS BOWEN: No, there’s already a long lead-up for offshore wind. I mean, this is not really a matter that’s related in any meaningful way to our 2030 target because, you know, we don’t expect much offshore wind to be operating by 2030 in Australia. These projects – setting up a new industry from scratch takes time. And we envisage most of the projects will be generating power post-2030. So we do have time. While we are moving fast, we’re also moving appropriately and prudently. And there’s time to work these issues through.

JOURNALIST: The Federal Court dismissed the Environmental Defenders Office’s attempts to stop native logging in northeast New South Wales. Is the government happy with the ruling?

CHRIS BOWEN: I understand Minister Watt dealt with this in a press conference a short time ago, and I don’t particularly wish to add to his comments. We would obviously respect the decision either way. And we’ll work – continue to work with the New South Wales government, as we work with governments across the board on their particular forestry policies.

JOURNALIST: There are calls for Labor to have a 2035 target of more than 70 per cent. Is that a reasonable request?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, as I’ve indicated, we will be outlining our 2035 target well before the next election. I’ve begun the process for setting it by writing to the Climate Change Authority requesting their advice. It will be one of the key inputs to the cabinet. I’ll make a recommendation to the cabinet about what our 2035 target will be – should be. And then we’ll announce that in due course.

Our 2035 target will be ambitious and achievable. It’s got to be both those things. There’s no point setting a target which the country can’t meet, nor is there any point setting a target which isn’t a step up in activity. It will be ambitious and achievable, but that’s the same balance we’ve struck all the way through.

JOURNALIST: As you mentioned, Coalition MPs are warning against taking a 2035 target to the next election. If they don’t adopt a 2035 target, does that effectively mean a future Coalition government would inherit your target?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, it means if they don’t have a 2035 target they have a choice: they can leave the Paris Accord or they can accept the target of the Labor government, if they were in office. I mean, as I said, it’s not for me to explain Peter Dutton’s policies; it’s for Peter Dutton to come clean and say will he have a 2035 target? If they are going to have a 2035 target, will he be upfront with the Australian people? As I said, there’s two ways of reading the articles today – the article today. One is that they intend to have a 2035 target but not tell the Australian people what it is, to be dishonest. Or, secondly, that they don’t intend to have a 2035 target and leave the Paris Accord and join Yemen, Libya, and Iran. Which is it, Mr Dutton? Which is it? Up to him to explain.

JOURNALIST: The EDO argued the government didn’t take into account Black Summer bushfires and their impact on endangered species. Are you concerned about the environmental impact of logging in native forests?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, the court dealt with the matter, and I’m not going to second guess a court decision. As I said, we would respect a court decision, which went any way. The court decision – of course, it’s only just come down in the last hour, so we’ll have a good look at it. I understand that the judge made comments about the responsibility on governments going forward, which we’ll have a good look at. Native forestry is dealt with at the state level. Victoria, Western Australia have their policies, for example. New South Wales will have – I’m sure the Premier will have more to say later in the day, and we’ll work with state governments to ensure the right balances are struck.

JOURNALIST: What would you say to people who say this is a win for the timber industry?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, the court has made its decision and we respect it.

JOURNALIST: When did you first learn of Minister Plibersek’s decision to veto the Victorian Government’s Renewable Energy Terminal, and what communication did you have with her?

CHRIS BOWEN: Just before it was announced, as appropriate. She’s the Minister for the Environment who makes these decisions independently of anyone under the act.

JOURNALIST: You talked about the court’s ruling. The court also ruled the decision to allow logging in native forests is political. Is this a policy Labor would consider changing?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, again, I really can’t add to what I’ve said before. Minister Watt has commented on this already. We’ll respect the court’s decision, we’ll abide by it. I’m sure the New South Wales Government will do the same. It would have abided by a court decision which went a different way. Our government will continue to work within the law and respect court decisions across the board.

JOURNALIST: But is there interest in changing the policy following this?

CHRIS BOWEN: I think I’ve answered the question.

I might leave it there. Happy New Year, everyone. Thank you.