Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services) Share this | Hansard source

That's a terrible contribution from those opposite. They're ignoring the actual facts. Australia invested $7.7 billion in renewable energy just last year, almost $300 per person. As the minister said, Australia's emissions are falling faster than anywhere else in the OECD, including the US, Canada, New Zealand. They're the facts that those opposite conveniently ignore. We know that, yesterday, when the minister was talking about renewables, he said that there was 7,000 megawatts of investment in renewables in the last 12 months alone. We know that one megawatt is enough to power approximately 650 homes, so 7,000 megawatts was enough renewable energy to power over four million homes last year alone. That's more than what Labor did in the six years they were last in office. The facts are that their arguments are completely hollow. They're unfounded, and they don't have a leg to stand on. That's the absolute reality of what the facts show.

A lot of that investment in renewable energy was also in rooftop solar. I want to commend the people of Petrie on their investment in rooftop solar. Almost one in three houses have rooftop solar, some 28,000 homes in Petrie alone. The government is also contributing to that as part of our renewable energy commitment. Recently, we installed renewables at the Redcliffe Surf Life Saving Club. We've also installed renewable energy at the Redcliffe Community Men's Shed and the Aspley Memorial Bowls Club. We've installed it throughout the electorate of Petrie, and I'm very proud of that. Businesses are also playing their part, like Packer Leather in Narangba, who have done a whole lot to help reduce their footprint by installing solar on their roof.

Not only are those opposite ignoring the facts; they're also voting against more jobs in the renewable sector. Yesterday, Labor—every single one of them on that side of the House, and that flows on to their candidates—and the Greens voted against an additional 1,400 jobs in renewable energy. Labor voted against another $192.5 million going to ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. How is the $192.5 million that Labor didn't support going to be used? They don't support reducing industrial energy efficiency, because that's what that money was going to be used for. Agricultural trucks, for example, use 53 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres. Rigid trucks use 28 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres. Yesterday, they voted against ARENA's commitment to help support and increase heavy vehicle fuel efficiency and industrial energy efficiency. Packer Leather is an industrial energy user in my electorate, and ARENA would have helped them. Labor voted against it.

Labor also voted against hydrogen fuel. Hydrogen fuel is used in vehicles. It has zero emissions when running. It can be used in passenger cars and buses. It has even been used in space. Labor voted against that. Labor voted against electric vehicle infrastructure too. I'd like to see some more electric vehicle infrastructure on the north side of Brisbane and in Redcliffe. Every single one of those members voted against it yesterday. They also voted against more microgrids throughout Australia. We know that diesel generators play a big part in pushing up emissions. In regional areas, microgrids could have been used in Indigenous communities, in remote communities, by farmers, in shearing sheds, and even locally in Moreton Bay, in places like Moreton Island, Bulwer, Cowan, Kooringal and Tangalooma, a resort just off the north side of Brisbane that uses a lot of diesel generators. ARENA was going to ensure that microgrids had a real part to play in further reducing emissions and helping with climate change. Let it be on the record that every single Labor member opposite voted against that $192.5 million extra. So don't complain if it goes through the Senate and you don't get extra electric vehicle chargers in your electorate. You shouldn't be getting any, if you vote against good policy like that. The fact is that— (Time expired)

See this speech in context