Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

My question on appropriation is for the Assistant Minister representing the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. Minister, it's absolutely clear that the rest of the world is moving toward net zero carbon emissions by 2050. More than 120 countries worldwide have adopted this target, and more than 70 per cent of Australia's two-way trade is now with countries moving to net zero emissions by the middle of the century. Yesterday, the leaders of the G7 reaffirmed their commitment to this important target. The Prime Minister was invited to the summit, yet he chose to thumb his nose at the G7 leaders by refusing to back net zero emissions by 2050.

Australia is more isolated than ever on climate change. In addition, some of our biggest trading partners are moving closer to implementing carbon border taxes designed to hit nations such as Australia that have made insufficient efforts to combat climate change. Within weeks, the European Commission is expected to release the details of its proposed carbon border adjustment mechanism—that's carbon tariffs. I'm not a fan of any kind of tariff, but these are real and they're going to exist. The carbon tariffs will require importers of polluting industrial goods to pay a border levy based on the volume of emissions used in making and shipping their products. Other nations could easily follow the EU's lead. Indeed, the US has already put carbon tariff legislations through their congress in 2009. The writing is clearly on the wall, and this government, Minister, is ignoring it. The world is moving on, and we are being left behind.

So my question is: why won't the Morrison government commit to net zero carbon emissions by 2050 when all our main trading partners and major economies already have? Why won't the government honestly explain to Australia's trade exposed industries that our status as a climate change laggard poses a real threat to jobs and exports? Minister, why does this government have its head in the sand on the issue of climate change? The Prime Minister said last year he was not concerned 'about Australia's future exports.' Imagine that—a Prime Minister not concerned about Australia's future exports. Well, I sure am. Then, in February this year, the Deputy Prime Minister dismissed talk of net zero emissions by saying he was not worried about what might happen in 30 years time. Well, I reckon a few people around here are worried about what might happen in 30 years time, especially young children and older people. They are definitely worried about what will happen to their lives and their children's lives in 30 years time.

Minister, why are both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister not worried about the real threats facing Australia's exporters? Why won't the Morrison government commit to net zero emissions by 2050, when peak industry bodies such as the National Farmers Federation, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association have either committed to the target or have called upon the Morrison government to adopt policies that align with international climate change goals? Minister, why won't the Morrison government commit to this, when resource and major export companies in this country, such as BHP, Rio Tinto, Fortescue, INPEX, Origin Energy and Santos—companies driving the economy and providing jobs for hundreds of thousands of Australians—have already committed to net zero by 2050, or even sooner in the case of Santos?

I'll raise another threat to our exporters: this government's genuine failure to ensure Australia has a genuine diversity of trading partners. Australia is a trading nation; we depend on trade. It is the Australian government's job to encourage businesses to export their goods and services to the world and to support these businesses in doing so. It is the government's role to ensure diversification in trade and to go beyond the mere inking of free trade agreements and the celebratory shenanigans that go along with them. Minister, it was said in December that the government wanted to diversify Australia's export markets by restarting talks with India on a free trade agreement. But almost three years ago this government was handed a blueprint for closer economic engagement with India that would almost certainly have led to more exports to India and more jobs for Australians. An India Economic Strategy, written by Peter Varghese, contained 20 priority recommendations. A highly valuable report that was funded by taxpayers, it has been ignored. My question is: Minister, why has the government implemented only one of the 20 priority recommendations from the Varghese report?

To achieve genuine trade diversification takes years and decades of work, requiring skilled diplomacy and even personal intervention and, dare I say, leadership from senior ministers or even the Prime Minister. This is not happening with this government. Previous governments, both Labor and Liberal, have managed to achieve trade diversity, but it is not happening under this government; they just do trade agreements and then leave the room. Minister, when will you admit that you simply have not put in the hard yards needed to genuinely open up new export markets? (Time expired)

See this speech in context