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

Let's be clear about this. If this disallowance were to succeed, there would be less electric vehicle charging than would otherwise be the case. Those opposite, on energy and emissions, are divided and scrambling. It's true. The member for McMahon is trying to endear himself to the left of the party. We know that. While they're divided and trying to work out what their policies are, we are getting on with the real and practical action of delivering outcomes, because, at the end of the day, it's that atmospheric concentration of CO2 equivalent that counts. That's what counts. It's the outcomes that count. And ARENA has an important role to play in it.

Our policies and approach are driven by technology, not taxes. We know the member for McMahon loves a good tax; he's never seen a tax he didn't like. But our approach is working. Emissions are now at the lowest levels they've been since 1990. They're down 20.1 per cent since 2005. That means we're well on track to meet and beat our Paris targets as we meet and beat our 2020 targets. The member for McMahon talked about renewables. I'll tell you about investment in renewables: 7,000 megawatts of investment in renewables in the last 12 months. Did you know that in the whole time Labor was in power between 2007 and 2013 there was 5.3 gigawatts? We did that in less than a year. In the year before that it was 6.9 gigawatts, against the 5.3 gigawatts they did the whole time they were in government. We are the party that delivers. We are the government that delivers. To keep this going, we've committed to $20 billion of additional investment through to 2030 in technology solutions for clean energy and lower emissions, which will leverage up into $80 billion of economy-wide public and private sector investment over that time period—160,000 jobs. It's being delivered by a range of agencies like ARENA, the CEFC and the Clean Energy Regulator. The CSIRO is playing a crucial role. And we see them all playing a role. We need every horse in this race—every technology and every agency.

The members here on this side understand that things like electric vehicle charging and healthy soils all have a role to play in this. When we announced the Technology Investment Roadmap in September 2020, we committed to enabling ARENA to play a technology-neutral role. That's the role they want to play. Let me tell you what the support was across the industry when we announced this—and the support, by the way, for this change in front of the House right here today. First of all, ARENA welcomed the investment. The National Farmers Federation said the announcement was 'good news for farmers', but those opposite don't like it because it's good news for farmers. The Business Council—we heard one of the members opposite talk about the Business Council—said that expanding the scope of ARENA will encourage new low-, zero- and negative-emissions technology in sectors like agriculture, transport and manufacturing. The Australian Industry Greenhouse Network said:

… removing constraints on ARENA and CEFC to enable them to utilise the full range of low, zero and negative emission technologies is a sensible approach.

The Investor Group on Climate Change said:

Expanding the functions of the ARENA and the CEFC to open up opportunities for this technology [CCUS] in other sectors can be valuable for creating opportunities for zero and negative emission technologies in harder to abate industries,

And ClimateWorks—those opposite like to quote ClimateWorks—said:

… we support the broader mandate for ARENA and CEFC to work across an increased number of sectors, as well as energy.

They all supported it, but those opposite said no.

In the nine years since ARENA has been established there have been significant changes in energy markets. We've seen phenomenal investment in solar and wind in this country. We have the highest level of household solar in the world: one in four houses. Not a country in the world can boast that level. It is time for ARENA to be able to expand out into other areas. Now, those other areas will include energy efficiency, low-emissions transport and electric vehicles, carbon capture and storage technologies including carbon capture and use, negative-emissions technologies, all forms of clean hydrogen, technologies that reduce emissions from aluminium and steel, and soil carbon to make our soils healthier—all of that.

And of course the IEA and others know that you have to have all of these horses in the race. They've all got to be involved if we're going to get to net zero. It is absolutely crucial. If you look at soil carbon alone, the University of Melbourne, which is doing a great deal of research in this area, has estimated that over the period from 2025 to 2030 it will create more than 1,600 new jobs, deliver $150 million per annum in economic benefits to Australia on average across the five-year period and reduce emissions by 16 million tonnes per year by the year 2030. We know healthier soils will benefit Australian farmers and graziers, but those opposite are against it. If Labor's motion to disallow succeeds, it will prevent ARENA from being able to invest in exactly these sorts of proposals.

The IEA, as I said, and the IPCC have said that these sorts of technologies are an imperative, but the member for McMahon thinks he knows better than them. He's got an ideological agenda to prevent opportunities to reduce emissions from being deployed. Ironically enough, if you take a technology like carbon capture and storage, I note that on page 39, paragraph 21 of the 2021 Labor Party national platform—it's tough to read it, but I did—it says, 'Labor recognises the role that carbon capture and storage will play in abating carbon pollution,' but the moment they're given the opportunity to vote on it they vote against it.

Whether this is short-sightedness or sleepwalking, I'm not sure which. The Labor Party doesn't know where it's going. It doesn't know where it stands on technology. It doesn't focus on that breadth of technologies that will allow us to bring down emissions whilst creating jobs, strengthening the economy, and making this a greater country than we already are.

Make no mistake: if this motion succeeds, it will mean fewer jobs and higher emissions, and the member for McMahon will have been behind it. We know the member for McMahon was dumped for being 'as useless as a vegan in a butcher shop', but we're seeing the same old Labor with the member for McMahon. We're getting on with the job. Those opposite should join us.

See this speech in context