Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Hansard source

These are the facts. They don't like them, but these are the facts. When we came to government in 2013 we faced a deficit. We had to get another reduction of 755 million tonnes to reach our 2020 target, which finished on 30 June. We have beaten that target by 459 million tonnes. That's almost a year's worth of emissions. A turnaround of over 1.2 billion tonnes—that's almost two years turnaround in terms of emissions over an eight-year period. That is an extraordinary outcome.

Those opposite won't tell the truth, that our emissions are coming down. They have come down. We have met and beaten our target. The member for Melbourne and those opposite have always said in the past that we can't do it without a carbon tax. When those opposite left government in 2013 they forecast that emissions this year would be 637 million tonnes. That was their forecast, with a carbon tax. We have just learnt that our emissions are 513 million tonnes—20 per cent lower. And we got rid of the carbon tax!

Outcomes matter. It's actions and outcomes that matter. That's what matters for atmospheric concentration, not motions to suspend standing orders—that's not what matters; it's not about tokenism. Between 2005 and 2018 we halved the emissions intensity in the economy. Australia's emissions fell faster than the OECD average, faster than Canada's, faster than New Zealand's, faster than Japan's and faster than the United States's. These are the facts. By 2018 emissions were 13 per cent lower than 2005 levels, and, as I said a moment ago, the latest data has us 16.6 per cent below that baseline. That's in line with Germany, who are at 15 per cent. They are doing pretty well but about the same—level pegging.

So why has Australia done so well? Well, it's partly about significant reductions in electricity and also about agriculture and land management. They've all played a role. In fact, emissions in the National Electricity Market came down 5.3 per cent in the last year. We as a country have invested $30 billion in renewable energy since 2017. We invested $9 billion last year; the Clean Energy Regulator tells us it will be about the same this year. We continue to deploy solar and wind 10 times faster than the global average. One in four Australian houses have solar on their roofs—the highest number in the world. We're a world-beater. We are faster than Europe, the United States, China or Japan. We are world-beaters. We on this side of the House understand that, and we know that that trend will continue.

We celebrate Australian achievement. We believe in this country. We believe in enterprise and, most of all, we believe in technology, not taxation. That's central to our comeback from COVID-19. That's central to bringing down emissions while maintaining a strong economy, while continuing to invest in the industries and jobs that support people in the suburbs and regional Australia and continuing to invest in the crucial manufacturing sector for this country—which those opposite and the member for Melbourne couldn't care less about. He couldn't care less about it because he doesn't have it in his electorate.

Australia's experience has shown that, when new technologies become commercially attractive versus their higher emitting alternatives, they will be adopted by small businesses, households and industry. That's what happens and that is our policy. That is our policy. Our Technology Investment Roadmap embodies that, with a focus on five priority technologies: hydrogen; soil carbon; carbon capture and storage, which, I might remind those opposite, Joe Biden has said they will double down on; low-carbon materials like steel and aluminium; and long duration energy storage. All of those technologies have clear targets which bring them to parity, which means they will be adopted by small businesses and industries alike.

We're putting serious funding behind that, with our Climate Solutions Package at $3½ billion, including our investment in Snowy 2.0 in the Climate Solutions Fund; $1.9 billion in the budget just past in new energy technologies; and $72 million in the Future Fuels Fund, focused on enabling Australians to make the choice to buy an electric vehicle when they want to buy an electric vehicle. It's their choice, not the government's, but we'll support them in making those choices. There is hydrogen hub funding of $70 million. What an extraordinary opportunity for Australia in hydrogen. We're backing it, just as we've backed Australia building industries throughout our time in government. For microgrids, there is an extra $53.6 million in the budget, on top of the $50 million we've already committed; this is about getting new technologies at the edge of the grid and the fringe of the grid. There is $50 million for carbon capture and storage because it is working: 58 projects around the world, almost half in the United States—the biggest one? It's here in Australia. There is $1.4 billion of baseline funding for ARENA. In total, we have $18 billion supporting investments in technologies, to get those technologies to parity and to deploy those technologies in a way which is going to strengthen the economy, not hurt it, as the member for Melbourne and those opposite would have it.

It's important in understanding why we oppose this motion what the alternative is—because, if it isn't technology, it has to be taxes. There are only two choices here. It's technology versus taxes. And we know how much the member for Melbourne loves a good tax. We know how much those opposite love a good tax. But we have laid out our plans clearly, and there are no taxes in that. There are no taxes in that.

I can only assume that those opposite are going to support this motion from the member for Melbourne. They don't have—or, at least, they haven't fessed up to—a 2030 target. This motion calls for 'urgent action before 2030'. What's their target? What's it going to be? The Greens support a 75 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030. What about those opposite? They can't make up their minds, but they are tying themselves to the Greens. In fact, we have Peter Jordan—

See this speech in context