Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What must it be like to know that the future you're leaving your precious grandchildren faces dangers that you could act upon, but those around you won't let you? What must it be like to say to Alice or Isla or Jack or Ronan, 'Sorry kids; as much as I love you, there were some big bullies who wouldn't let me do what I knew was right'?

It must be absolutely galling, but that's exactly what we're seeing opposite, with a hopeless division that means the Prime Minister faces something within his party room that he has no power to control. His weakness means that the future he is leaving, not just for his grandchildren but for all our grandchildren, is a much poorer future. The one legacy he might have been able to leave, the one ambition, the one that cost him his job first time round, the one policy that could have shaped Australia's future as a 21st century energy market and the one policy that could lower energy prices for consumers is yet another thing that the Prime Minister is profoundly failing at. He's too weak to fight the Neanderthal view within his party that we need new coal. That view is not shared by anyone with any credibility anywhere in the world. The chair of the Energy Security Board, Dr Kerry Schott, says the cost of building a new coal-fired power plant is always going to be more than the cost of wind and sun. Dr Schott says the cost of running a clean-coal plant is much more expensive than running a combination of wind, solar and gas, or, better yet, wind, solar and pumped hydro. She is one of many. There is consensus. Now all we need is consensus on that side of the House. That's what we're not getting.

I have not come to this place in my 50s only to focus on what life is like for Australians in the second half of their lives. We need to focus on what life is like for my children now, for when they're my age, for their whole generation, for their children and for their children's children. It's time those opposite got their heads out of the sand. There is a clear and pressing need to act and to act now. The fight that they're having gives the lie to the fact that for years the industry investors have been saying they need a clear set of rules, a framework which allows them to make decisions and which doesn't get dumped from one government to another.

In my work before parliament, with investors, I remember the relief at a policy announcement that Australia would have a price on carbon. There was the hope of certainty. That was years ago. Since then it's been a shambles because of the lack of leadership on that side of the chamber and by this Prime Minister. As soon as the investment framework is in place the industry will be able to move forward. It is so keen to move forward. It's vital for us to have a framework now and then to have enough ambition to drive investment. That's what the government's plan lacks. Their target will be reached before the NEG really starts, with rooftop solar alone helping it achieve that target. How ambitious is their target? We're talking two per cent. That's the actual target that we're really talking about.

The Australian National University found the proposal—reduction targets of 26 per cent on 2005 levels—will put Australia towards the bottom of 35 OECD countries. Guess what? That weakens our investment potential. The ANU College of Law researcher Dr James Prest said that Australia may even be at risk of failing its international obligations. Let's be clear: our international obligations under Paris were very, very modest. By international comparison, he says that Australia's aim for renewable energy is clearly quite unambitious. That's what we're talking about: ambition. My ambition is that we leave a better future for our children. This policy doesn't do that. Dr Prest says that the review of renewable targets in all OECD countries shows that only five of the 34 countries have a lower target than Australia and some of these already have high levels of renewable electricity production. Who will be below us? The Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Canada and—wait for it—the United States.

What is the consequence of having such an unambitious target? It is a disaster for this country going forward. We're throwing $444 million at the Great Barrier Reef but not addressing the real issues that matter. We need decent targets that protect all our children and grandchildren. (Time expired)

See this speech in context