[Theme Music Starts]

ANGE:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ange McCormack. This is 7am.

David Pocock admits that sometimes he’s had to vote for policy he doesn’t fully agree with.

The first-term Senator came into parliament with the best intentions to avert the climate crisis, but has sometimes found himself having to work to make legislation he thinks is bad, a little bit better.

Now, he’s trying to put forward a solution he does actually believe in: a private bill that would force politicians to consider the impact on the health and wellbeing of future generations, when they make decisions on the climate.

Today, Senator David Pocock, on his new bill and whether he’s always lived up to his own duty of care for future generations.

It’s Monday, August 7.

[Theme Music Ends]

ANGE:

Senator Pocock, thanks so much for joining me on 7am.

DAVID:

Hi Ange, good to be with you.

ANGE:

Senator, you've introduced your first private member's bill to the Senate. Can you tell me about it and what you hope it will achieve?

DAVID:

Yeah, my first private senator’s bill would legislate a duty of care to consider young people and future generations when politicians, policymakers, are making decisions that will affect the climate.

It's a really simple bill that has two parts, and does two things. Firstly, is forcing politicians and policymakers to consider the impacts of climate harm on young people and future generations. The criticism then, is often, well, that's just a box ticking exercise. You know, politicians say they're doing that all the time, and then we see what they approve. The second part of this actually stops bad outcomes by saying, if this is going to materially impact the health and wellbeing of young people and future generations, you can't proceed with it.

So that's the bill in a nutshell. You know, like many people, I was appalled, and pretty angry when the former government and former environment minister argued that they didn't have a duty of care to young people.

Archival tape – Reporter 1:

“Environment Minister Sussan Ley has won her appeal against eight climate activist teenagers.”

DAVID:

If politicians aren't in here to make decisions that are good for young people, I don't know what we're… what we're doing in here.

Archival tape – Reporter 2:

“In 2020, the teens sued the federal government in an attempt to stop the proposed expansion of a mining project near Gunnedah, New South Wales. They didn’t manage to do that, but in a landmark decision, the court did find the minister had a duty of care to protect young people from the harms of climate change. Today, that ruling was overturned.”

DAVID:

When they were successful in appealing, Anjali Sharma and the group of young people that took their former government to court, the court said this is really a policy question. This should be up to politicians and the parliament, not the judiciary, to decide. And so, the aim of this bill is to plug that gap, to actually improve the way that we're making decisions in here.

ANGE:

And you mentioned Anjali Sharma there. She's someone that was involved in that case that you just mentioned. You’ve also been working with her in drafting this bill.

Archival tape – Anjali Sharma:

“My name is Anjali Sharma. I'm 19 years old, and I was the lead litigant of the Sharma and Minister for environment class action. But I'm here today, standing alongside Senator Pocock, my Senator, as we table this bill in parliament, to implement a statutory duty of care.”

ANGE:

What have you learnt about politics and action, from working alongside activists like her?

DAVID:

Having been involved in campaigns and rallies and protests, even getting arrested trying to help farmers and other people stop a coal mine in the middle of Leard State Forest, near Maules Creek. I've seen that side, seen what happens in politics. It's been pretty eye opening. There's so many smart people in here, who genuinely care, and I think are doing so many good things for their communities.

But when it comes to things like climate change, we're not making the decisions we need to make. And you talk to young people like Anjali Sharma and others, they're rightly terrified about their future. Angry, seeing a new government that comes in, spruiking how there'll be a new chapter when it comes to climate policy. And to their credit, they have, you know, they have legislated a target. 43%, it's too low, but they've legislated something. It's also questionable whether we're on track for that. They've brought in the safeguard mechanism. But at the same time they've approved three or four coal mines, there’s a stack of gas projects… we don't seem to hear anything that indicates that they're not going to proceed with them. They've given $1.5 billion to Middle Arm on Darwin Harbour.

Archival tape – Reporter 3:

“Middle Arm is one of nine proposed hydrogen hubs around the country, with studies funded.”

Archival tape – Reporter 4:

“After the government scrubbed the word petrochemical from its language around Middle Arm last year, just how green this sustainable development hub will be remains to be seen.”

DAVID:

Big gas, petrochemical processing plant and export facility, that will open up Beetaloo basin to fracking. So, they're saying the right things, but it's their actions that matter. And that's where, you know, young people, all of us, you know, should be concerned. But, I think, particularly young people, know how important this is. And so, you know, really wanting to work with them to try and change this, because this matters. This is what we're going to get judged on by future generations. What did we do now, to ensure that we pass on a climate that's liveable? And what do we do now, to actually protect our incredible , so that future generations can not only experience that, but benefit from all of the things that biodiversity... You know, we're part of nature, and it's the only way that we'll survive.

ANGE:

And Senator, I want to understand a bit more about how this bill will work. I'm just wondering about how you would draw the line, when the government had to consider approving or not approving a project, like how would they make that decision?

DAVID:

So there's a threshold that's in line with what was proposed in the safeguard mechanism. If that project will produce 100,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent of greenhouse gases, then it needs to be assessed. And if it's found that it will have a material impact on the climate, for young people and future generations, then it can't proceed.

As far as how do you quantify what sort of harm it will cause, we have so much information on that now. The latest IPCC synthesis report is arguably the most reviewed document in history. There is so much modelling that can be used to look at the emissions from projects, what that will mean for the climate.

ANGE:

Okay. And I want to ask about the safeguard mechanism, because this year you voted to pass that signature policy from the government, even though you did have reservations about it. It has been described as toothless, and it's already been used to support gas expansion. Are you worried that in passing that policy, you might have neglected your own duty of care to future generations? Because we can already see what it's being used to approve.

DAVID:

It's a great question. When it came down to the numbers, I was in a position where, with the Jacqui Lambie network supporting it, my vote, in pure numbers, really wasn't consequential. But I was determined to use whatever influence I had to make it better, and worked with a whole bunch of stakeholders, experts, climate groups, to really try and tighten it up. And the aim of it is, to get the biggest 215 emitters on a downward trajectory. It's not great policy. You talk to any experts, and they say we need an economy-wide price on carbon. That's what I said to the government, said to the department at the start. That's not even on the radar for the major parties. They won't even entertain it, for obvious, political reasons and history. And that's something that I think we can have to grapple with, as Australians, is that if the major parties won't actually take this seriously, then in the Senate, government's coming up with policy. You're working to make it better. And in the end, on this, I decided that it was better to work really hard to make it better and to try and get things like methane, fugitive methane emissions, factored in, to work hard on some of just the really questionable offsetting and the integrity of our carbon offset system. And that's what happened.

ANGE:

Yeah. And how do you grapple with that personally? Because, you know, you were elected and you came in on this platform of climate change action, and then you're saying you kind of have to come in and make a compromise so early on and pass a bill that you're clearly not 100% happy with. Like, how do you grapple with that personally?

DAVID:

Yeah, it's… it’s an ongoing thing.

Working, I guess, getting out there and talking to people in the ACT, hearing what they want. Talking to stakeholders and experts, and then really weighing up policy and grappling with it, working out how can we make this better and, you know, trying to think through like, what is the outcome of really working hard to improve this, verse just flat out opposing it. My sense from talking to people, is that they want people working to get outcomes, to make policy better. And, you know, on something like the safeguard, yes, I could have just opposed it and, sort of, stepped out of the debate and, you know, claim some sort of moral victory, but I don't know what that would have achieved.

ANGE:

Coming up after the break, how David Pocock plans to win the climate wars.

[Advertisement]

Archival tape – David Pocock:

“The challenges facing us are so important. I want to be part of making sure we don't just end the climate wars, we win them. We win them, and we start to lead as a country on climate action and biodiversity conservation.”

ANGE:

Senator, in your maiden speech to Parliament last year, you said you wanted to make sure you weren't just going to be part of ending the climate wars, but you wanted to win them. You've been in Parliament for over a year now with this government, and to end the climate wars and win them, you really need Labor's support. What do you make of them, and do you think they're capable of winning the climate wars?

DAVID:

Part of that was legislating target for the first time in Australia. Taking a step forward as a parliament. But it's… it's really concerning as time goes on. You know, early on, you want to give the government the benefit of the doubt, things do move slowly in here. But we're now seeing a bunch of decisions being made, like approving new coal mines, like continuing with subsidies for investments in Middle Arm. Some of the talking points we're hearing, which frankly, straight out of the, you know, the fossil fuel lobby talking points… really concerning. And, you know, I think we've all got to continue to push the government. This is huge. You know, there's a whole bunch of issues across the country that people are really feeling. Cost of living, rents going up, groceries. People are feeling the pinch. We can't take our eye off climate policy, and ensuring that we're making decisions that start to turn things around. So, yeah. I’m obviously continuing to engage in it here in the Senate. Some of the stuff that gets said is pretty… pretty frightening, with the, sort of… there's still a bit of climate denial and people arguing that we shouldn't do anything. We do have a government that is saying that they accept the science. My concern is that they accept the science, they just won't listen to scientists who are telling us that we can't have any new fossil fuel projects. And it's no longer just scientists. International Energy Agency, not known as a, sort of, radical activist organisation, is also saying we shouldn't be opening up any new fossil fuel projects. And that's, you know, that's a tough thing for the governments to hear, who have been so beholden to the fossil fuel industry for so long now.

ANGE:

Right. So it sounds like you came into parliament in good faith and with this attitude of winning the climate wars. But have you lost faith now in the government?

DAVID:

I haven't lost faith. The thing we need to do is to show the government that this matters to Australians, that we're not going to be satisfied with just ticking some boxes and being able to go to the next election and say, well, we did something. We did more than the last government. We all know that wouldn't have been hard to beat what was happening in the last government. But we're still seeing a government that won't stand up to the fossil fuel industry.

ANGE:

And just finally, Senator, back to the duty of care bill. If it doesn't win Labor support, it won't make it into law. What do you plan to do if or, more realistically, when that happens? What's next on your agenda to make a practical impact on climate change?

DAVID:

I'd say this bill won't be debated until next year. I get very limited time for debate as an independent. And so, we've got six months to make the case. We've got a committee process. I would urge people to put in a submission when submissions open, to get involved, to write to their local member. It seems to me that the thing that politicians respond to is pressure from the public. If they know that this is an issue that people are going to vote on at the next election and hold them to, then I hope we can see some movement. We really can't, hand on heart, look at young people and just say, everything's going to be okay anymore, because it's not. We have locked in warming that has already changed our climate. And that's only going to get worse. Unless we're able to say to young people, we're going to do absolutely everything we can to make decisions that are good for you.

We do have a duty of care to young people and future generations. We've got a moral duty, to make decisions that are good for young people. But at the moment, they can't vote, they can't lobby. And so there hasn't been that incentive to make decisions that care for them. And I'm really hopeful that this can start to change the way that decisions are made here. We can no longer be making decisions based on the short term. We have to start thinking longer term. It hasn't been working for us. And I'll be urging my fellow colleagues here to consider voting to legislate a duty of care.

ANGE:

Senator Pocock, thanks so much for joining me today.

DAVID:

Thank you Ange, cheers.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

SCOTT:

Also in the news today…

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said over the weekend that the Voice referendum must go ahead, and will be held between mid-September and mid-November.

The Prime Minister warned that the vote could be a once in a generation chance, and that other forms of constitutional recognition might not be possible if the Voice is defeated.

And,

Pakistan’s former Prime Minister Imran Khan has been sentenced to three years in jail on corruption charges.

Khan was forced out of office after a no-confidence vote in parliament, and is seen by his supporters as the rightful Prime Minister of the country.

I’m Scott Mitchell, this is 7am. Ange McCormack will see you tomorrow.

[Theme Music Starts]