Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

Recently I heard the best explanation of the government's climate change and energy policy I have ever heard. It was quite articulate. It was very clear. It was from the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. He was asked about the government's climate change and energy policy, and he said:

We're not worried, or I'm certainly not worried, about what might happen in 30 years' time.

That was his crisp explanation of the government's climate change policy. They're not worried about the future.

We in this building are meant to be concerned about the challenges facing the Australian people today and what sort of country we leave to the next generation in coming decades. I know our young people want us to be concerned about that. We on this side of the House are concerned about what sort of Australia we leave behind. We worry about the fact that under this government's policies, under the government's current policy settings, net zero emissions won't be reached in 30 years time; they will be reached in 146 years time. That's the current trajectory of our emissions under this government. That means we will be asking Australians to live with more of the types of horrendous bushfires we experienced last year. That means we will be asking Australians to live with longer and more intense heatwaves, with all the health implications for our older Australians and the economic and productivity implications of that. That means we will be asking Australians to live with more and more diseases that are more common in tropical areas. They're the health implications of climate change. They're the health implications for our country. That's what Australia will look like in 30 years time, and the Deputy Prime Minister seems not to care about that.

We are also concerned about what our economy looks like in 30 years time, and the government should be concerned about the missed opportunities of their policy neglect. The government should be concerned about the investment and the jobs we are missing out on in Australia because they don't have a climate change policy. That is what they should be concerned about. The economic implications for the suburbs and regions of our country are about getting climate change and industry policy and regional policy correct. The Liberals and the Nationals have been engaging in a scare campaign for decades now. They claim that climate change is some sort of inner-city obsession that will cost jobs in the regions and the suburbs. That's the narrative of the Liberal and National parties. I tell you what: the actual truth is that the policy paralysis under this government is costing jobs in the suburbs and the regions today, and it will in 30 years time as well. The policy paralysis is cruelling opportunities for our young people.

The fact is it is the regions that have contributed so much to Australia's economic success over decades, creating our energy, that are also the places where new energy can be created with the right policy settings. They are the places with access to the ports, the railway lines and the pipelines. They are the places with the space for renewable energy generation. These are the regions, whether it be the Pilbara, Portland, the Collie-Bunbury, the Hunter or the Illawarra. These are the places that can be the centre of job creation in Australia if we get climate change policy right. They can invest in the jobs. They can generate the energy for us, and it can be exported for the growing middle class of Asia. But we've got to get the policies right. And it's the suburbs of Australia where manufacturing can be reinvested in and regenerated, if we get energy policy right.

I have the honour of representing the largest industrial estate in the Southern Hemisphere, Smithfield and Wetherill Park. I live right on its edge. I see the factory closures when policy goes wrong. But I also see the opportunities. I see the factories installing solar panels to reduce their energy costs so they can create jobs. I know—we know—that we can still be a country that makes things, but the first thing to get right is energy policy. We know it; those opposite don't know it. We can create 250,000 jobs over coming decades by moving to net zero emissions by 2050. We can grow our economy by $680 billion. Or, under the current policy settings, we can lose 880,000 jobs, under the approach of the government. That is the negligence, the neglect, in poor climate change policy under those opposite.

We have great opportunities in Australia. We're the largest producers of lithium, which is essential for batteries. We could actually add value by making batteries and solar panels in Australia much more than we do. But what's the approach of the government? The minister for resources is in the chamber. What was his great contribution to the discussion about the opportunities in lithium? He said:

We have got a real risk particularly with solar panels and lithium batteries that they could turn out to be this generation's asbestos.

What vision! What a vision for Australia! What optimism! What hope he creates! It's going to be the asbestos, he says—and he's the minister for resources! That's his vision for Australia.

The fact is that the economy changes when you move to net zero. It makes more sense to manufacture more in Australia, not to export our raw resources so much but to keep them here and add value and to export the products as well. Not only is the government out of touch with the rest of the world with their refusal to move to net zero by 2050, with more than 120 countries committing to do so; they're out of touch with the job creators in Australia, and the representatives of the job creators. The Business Council of Australia, the National Farmers Federation, the Australian Industry Group, Meat and Livestock Australia, BHP, Origin Energy, BlueScope and Orica—and, just last week, Appia—all support net zero emissions by 2050

The representatives of oil and gas in Australia support net zero by 2050. They have a more forward-leaning climate change policy than the government of the day! That shows how out of touch this government is with those who will create the jobs. And the dysfunction shows itself in other ways. We had the Clean Energy Finance Corporation bill before the House—or at least it's meant to be before the House. The minister at the table said, 'This is a legislative milestone.' It's turned into a millstone around your neck, comrade! It's a millstone, because the government can't even bring it in for a vote, as the government benches outdo themselves in a race to the bottom. The minister says that the CEFC should be able to invest in gas. The member for New England comes in and says, 'Soft!'—it should invest in coal and gas. And then the National Party backbench says, 'Soft!'—it should invest in coal and gas and nuclear. As a result, we don't see the bill before the House.

Now, there are parts of the bill that are very good. There are parts of the bill that support the CEFC investing in the electricity grid. We support that. That's very important as we move to more renewable energy sources, to ensure that energy is transmitted across the country very efficiently. But the government can't make it the law of the land, because they are so dysfunctional and divided. Well, you could just adopt Rewiring the Nation. If you can't do it yourself, feel free to steal our policy. Go ahead; invest in Rewiring the Nation, the Labor Party's approach to it. In the meantime, we see the cost of their dysfunction and their disunity. They can't get on with the job.

The frustrating thing is that the Australian story could be so much better. In question time we hear a lot—it must be driven by focus groups—about the Australian way, the Australian approach. I'd like to see an Australian approach to climate change and energy policy that creates jobs and lowers emissions. That's what we're capable of, right across the regions and suburbs of the country. The economics of renewable energy means we could be a country that makes things, embraces the future and creates jobs for young people. It's not a choice between old industries and new; Australia can do both. We can be a powerhouse. We can be a country which brings people with us as we embrace zero emissions and creates those jobs. We can be a country that, with the newest forms of energy—renewable energy—being the cheapest forms, reduces the costs of manufacturing in Australia and actually gives our manufacturers the chance to create those jobs for young people across the suburbs and regions of our country.

But no. Under this government, it's all too hard. We have the false debates. We have the false division. We have the false identity politics. We have the false morality of those opposite, who are in a race to the bottom to engage in the more backward-looking policy. They are arguing about who's the most backward-looking, with the minister for energy giving it a good go, the member for New England coming in and taking the mantle off him and the National Party backbench racing to the bottom to try and outdo them and kill their own bill.

Australia could do so much better. The Australian way could be so much better. But that would take imagination. It would take embracing of the science and the evidence. It would take leadership and looking to the future. It would be about talking to the Australian people about what is possible in 30 years time, embracing the hope and optimism of change, and embracing the need for reform so that those older industries can be accompanied by new industries in our regions and suburbs. This government's not up to it. An Albanese Labor government will have to do it.

See this speech in context