Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance and I imagine, for many members on all sides of this chamber, this is a bipartisan moment. We're all counting down the days until we no longer have this Leader of the Opposition and his pointless and menial matters of public importance, because we all know what's going to happen at the election—which is, of course, the government is going to be returned. But then we are going to see The Hunger Games on the other side of the chamber, particularly for those who aspire to replace the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, we know full well there are already members auditioning—and I see one of them, the member for Maribyrnong, walking out of this chamber, and there are many others who are charmers and pretenders to the throne and the crown. But, of course, none of them have a plan for the future. Their only plan is how they find their way to that chair on that side of the chamber after the next election, because they know that this Leader of the Opposition will fail.

We saw evidence of it in the speech the Leader of the Opposition just delivered. He called this side of the chamber the 'copper mob'. It might interest the Leader of the Opposition to hear that I recently went to a company in New South Wales called SunDrive Solar. SunDrive are doing some really exciting and innovative things. They're changing the very structure of solar panels, and they're switching the use of silver wash, which is a necessary ingredient to be able to build conductivity in solar panels, and shifting to—that terrible metal of the future, according to the Leader of the Opposition—copper. Why? Because it delivers better outcomes, and because it's part of the industrial capacity of the future of Australia. So we on this side of the chamber are proud to be on the side of technology. We're proud to be part of building Australia's industrial future. And, more critically, we're proud to be able to do it in a cost-competitive and efficient way so that Australians can have jobs.

In fact, as I listen to this debate on the matter of public importance, I am kind of reminded of the absurdities of some remarks I heard yesterday at the National Press Club. I watched it from here in the office in Parliament House. But we all know what the National Press Club is like. You have a guest; in this case, it was Climate 200's Simon Holmes a Court. And then afterwards journalists asked questions, because he was projecting his, what do we call it, vision, plan, whatever it is, about the future of Australia, as part of the fake Independents campaign that he is financing so that he can install the Leader of the Opposition from that side of the chamber on this side of the chamber. But we all know what it's like at the National Press Club, Deputy Speaker, when you're giving this so-called visionary speech about where things are going to go. Simon Holmes a Court was asked a question by Katharine Murphy, a journalist at the Guardian. And, whatever anybody thinks about Katharine—and people have a diversity of views, of course, on her media and her reporting and her articles—nobody would call her a hard-right-wing Rottweiler. I think that's fair to say. I think even she would agree with that. She asked a pretty straightforward question, and it was a fair question too. She asked the question, 'What's a science based policy for climate change?' of Mr Holmes a Court. Of course he gave a long, complicated answer but didn't actually address the fundamental, which was, 'What is a science based approach to climate policy?' That led Katharine Murphy from the Guardian to ask the question once again. She said: 'I'm just picking it up, given Greg Brown from the Australian set the precedent. David Crowe, you're active in the climate policy space. Simon, you have been for years. What is the answer to my question? What's a science based approach to climate policy? What's the answer?' The answer was, 'I'm not sure.' And that shows you, despite the big talk and the rhetoric of plans and visions in the future, that so many of those who oppose the government actually have none. They have no clarity about what they stand for. They have no substance beneath the headlines. That's exactly the sort of model that the Leader of the Opposition was channelling in his speech today.

We see this consistently from other members of parliament. We see it from the member for Warringah, whose policy on climate, despite the big talk—again, following from Mr Holmes a Court—is not dissimilar. Their solution is to establish new commissions to do all the work for them. They have no plan. They have no vision. In fact, even the Labor Party when it came down to it, relied heavily on the government's plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions to be able to develop their own plan. The member for Warringah's solution is to develop a new commission whose sole purpose is to override democratic decision-making, because she has no plan. She has no capacity to solve the complex challenge of how we continue to grow our economy while also making sure we cut our greenhouse gas emissions.

That's against the performance and the outcomes that this government has delivered. Since 2005, we have seen Australia's economy grow by 45 per cent. We've seen emissions go down by 20 per cent. We call that the decoupling. We have a plan on how we're taking Australia forward together, because we understand, as the Prime Minister said in question time, it is about jobs, jobs, jobs and more jobs. No-one has set that out more clearly than the shadow Treasurer. The shadow Treasurer said at the start of the pandemic that would be the benchmark of performance of a government at the end of this pandemic. Well, to the shadow Treasurer, we say, 'Challenge accepted.' The reality is we have the lowest unemployment rate in over 13 years against a global backdrop where unemployment has become a big challenge. Inflation is emerging as a challenge in most countries, and of course they have had nowhere near as much sail through the pandemic in terms of the number of deaths. The Prime Minister has been consistent: our job isn't to just protect lives but also livelihoods.

Australia under this government has continued to perform. But I do have empathy with the matter of public importance put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. He is concerned about the future, and I can understand why. When it comes down to it, no Australian can plan if we see a change of government with a Labor-Greens alliance on the other side of this election. It doesn't matter what the issue is, whether it's economic policy. Earlier this week, the member for Melbourne was outraged at the proposition that there might be an inheritance tax that he supported, which of course is the position that's previously been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. He didn't want an inheritance tax just when people die. He wanted an inheritance tax, a wealth tax, today. The member for Melbourne is going to be using that as one of his key negotiating points when he holds the Leader of the Opposition hostage in negotiations after the next election. He doesn't want to tax people when they die, as the Labor Party does; he wants to make sure that people are taxed at all stages of life, including on their family home. So I can understand why the Leader of the Opposition is worried. How can Australians plan for the future when he is going to be held hostage by the Marxist member for Melbourne?

It isn't just those radical policies that the Leader of the Opposition and the Labor Party will be held hostage to after the next election. The Greens have also outlined that they'd like to see a 50 per cent cut in expenditure on national defence. Think about the enormity of the national security challenges our nation faces, the absolute enormity in making sure we secure our interests and our sovereignty on the global stage not just for ourselves but in how we help so many of our allies, partners and neighbours be able to stand up for their sovereignty too, particularly in places like the Pacific Islands. The answer from the Marxist member for Melbourne to impose, negotiate, and hold the Leader of the Opposition and a future Labor government hostage is to cut spending in that space and undermine directly—hack at the heart of Australia's national security.

The question will be put to the Leader of the Opposition when he sneaks into government—if he sneaks into government—with the support of the Marxist member for Melbourne and the Greens. To achieve that outcome, what are you going to do? Are you going to cut the kit that our troops have? Are you going to cut their pay? Are you going to cut their necessary support and infrastructure, whether it's subs, tanks or other types of vehicles, to keep them safe and protected on the battlefield? What's it going to be? These are the big choices they will face at the next election.

The Labor government's plan, with an alliance with the Greens, will undermine Australia's national security and economy from the get go. If you compare it not just to the performance of the government throughout this pandemic period but to the years prior—if you compare it to the plan that we have to make sure we continue to secure Australia's economic opportunities while also building Australia's industrial capacity for the future—we have the plan that will secure our national security in, frankly, what are going to be difficult times and likely to be Australia's most challenging decade. We have the plan to make sure that Australians are in the best position to be able to buy their own home and secure their own retirement. We have the plan for Australia's health security. We have the plan that will continue to ensure that Australians remain healthy against a global health challenge like the pandemic. At every stage, it's quite clear the choice that Australians have: a plan put forward by a coalition government for security or a plan that's hostage to the demands of the Greens under a Labor government and the Leader of the Opposition.

See this speech in context