Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Down, down, emissions are down, under this government. You just need to look at the most recent National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting scheme inventory, which shows very clearly that since 2005, on the December quarter of last year, emissions are now down by 20.1 per cent. This comes as a complete fiction to the members of the opposition, who want to ignore the practical reality. We met and beat our Kyoto targets. We're meeting and will beat our Paris targets. And we are laying the foundation for further emission cuts as part of a transition to build Australia's economic future while reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and achieving the decoupling we need in order to make sure we can have sustainable jobs for future generations. The big difference between those on this side of the chamber and those on the other side is that we want to create the opportunities for the next generation of Australians so that they can have a job—so that we can provide security today and opportunity for tomorrow.

That is the approach the Morrison government has been taking every step of the way, because we see the enormous potential to transition the economy and utilise the power of technology. That's the foundation of how we've always seen productivity and economic opportunity. That's why we have a plan that is anchored in technology. And the great thing is that the Australian people back us every step of the way. We took a plan to the last election to put technology before taxes, and they backed us. Research that's come out overnight says that Australians back technology over taxes. That has been the fundamental problem that members of the opposition have, at every point, struggled to get over. They see the debate around climate change not as one about how we build the strength of the country. They have used it as a pursuit to drive their ideological madness, where they use their interests, their issues, as a vehicle to drive what they want to do, which is to concentrate economic power in the hands of the few and to empower the parliament to dictate to business, to industry and to workers in Australia—through taxes and higher regulation measures—how they should live their lives.

We will stand up against it every step of the way, because we believe in the power of Australians to take responsibility. The success of this country doesn't come from Canberra down; it comes from families, citizens and communities taking responsibility. I note that the member who spoke before me talked about how her council was taking responsibility. Well, good on them, because they're enabling the potential to transition, understanding that responsibility begins at home. In the Goldstein electorate, the city of Bayside has taken exactly the same plan. So has the city of Glen Eira. But the critical difference between what the city of Bayside and the city of Glen Eira have done, versus members of the Labor Party, is that they actually have a plan; they're actually implementing measures and have a clear pathway for how they're going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not impose higher costs on households, and of course make sure that the next generation of Australians have sustainable jobs and a sustainable environment.

The plan of the Labor Party is to use the position in emergencies as a basis to impose greater taxes, greater regulations. At the last election they tried to do the same, and they found themselves in a very difficult position, because they were saying one thing in Melbourne and another thing up in Macarthur. They were saying different things all over the country, because the basis of their policy is that they just want to tell people what they want to hear, rather than standing for things because they're right and because they understand the growth of the economy and the opportunity that we can build for this nation. We saw that in this parliament just yesterday, where there were motions to disallow decisions made around ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency.

This parliament decided to reject Labor's plan, because it wanted to undermine more investment in Australian innovation and Australian lower carbon and renewable technologies. Those opposite wanted to undermine investment in EV and hydrogen charging stations. They keep going on about how they want more EVs on the road but they want to suffocate the pathway to get them power. They want stranded assets all over the country in the driveways of the nation. I mean, it's farcical, to be honest. And they wanted to deny investment in energy-efficient and competitive heavy industry. If you understand the challenge of climate change, investing in transportable energy is a critical part of that conversation.

See this speech in context