Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

Colleagues, friends, this is a debate about whether you choose a tax based solution or a technology based solution. Those opposite; their coalition partners, the Greens; and their enablers in the fourth estate would have it suggested that the Liberal Party had no plan when it came to carbon emission reduction. So I thought I might start by dispelling that myth. We of course had a plan. We had a commitment to net zero by 2050. But, when we got to the choice between technology and taxes, we took the technology approach.

I've become fond of the member for Maribyrnong now that I'm sitting a little closer to him during question time. As I see him sitting there in question time, I think to myself, 'At least the member for Maribyrnong was honest when he went to the Australian people in 2019.' Arguably he wasn't rewarded for that honesty, but he can hold his head high because he came into this place day after day and said exactly what he would do if he were given the great privilege by the Australian people of leading this country as Prime Minister.

I'm close enough, too, to the Prime Minister to observe him during question time, and I think to myself: 'He didn't take that approach before the last election. No. He took a much more small-target and tricky approach to this.' On the one hand, you had a coalition government that had a plan for net zero, to get there with technology, not taxes. In government, we committed $22 billion to bring down the cost of low-emission technologies—hydrogen, ultra-low-cost solar, green steel and aluminium—leveraging up to $132 billion in private sector investment and supporting some 160,000 jobs. On the other hand, we now have a government that has instead decided to implement a new carbon tax, at a time when businesses and Australian households can least afford it.

'Carbon tax'—that triggers some muscle memory of mine. That's right—former prime minister Gillard introduced her carbon tax. She priced it at $23 a tonne. The now Prime Minister is having a go at doing the same, but, instead of starting at a carbon price of $23, it's been ratcheted up. It's $75 a tonne, rising to $100 a tonne. That's what this is. Under our mechanism, businesses could voluntarily move to achieve these emission reductions by adopting technology which over time would become more reasonably priced. Instead, those opposite say: 'No. You must achieve these outcomes.' They're delivering their emission reductions not through technology but through taxes.

As I said, this is at a time when we're seeing business confidence in Australia plummeting. We're seeing households who have experienced—I respectfully suggest to you—the worst and most difficult 10 months in more than a quarter of a century. We had enjoyed, up until the change of government, unbridled economic growth, strong prospects, strong business confidence. With the change of government, we now have Australians paying more for their energy, paying more for their grocery bills and, of course, having to find a significant additional sum every month to pay their mortgages. The concern I have is: there's no relief in sight. They know that. They know there's no relief in sight. Whilst there might be a pause on the official cash rate from the Reserve Bank, it won't be for long. It will continue to increase, and things are looking difficult.

I mentioned the current Prime Minister. I've had an opportunity to observe him in question time, and I haven't heard him utter the figure of $270—not once. I'm listening. I'm waiting. Many of us are just saying, 'Look, apologise to the Australian people and we'll get on with it.' They haven't heard an apology—97 or more times before the election and some 28 times after the illegal and immoral war being waged on the people of Ukraine began, and yet not once since the election have we heard that figure mentioned. He was very happy to make that announcement so many times before the election but not once since the election. This is a government that ran a very small target. Those opposite are now looking to slink around behind weasel words as they avoid responsibility for what they said.

I've also been enjoying observing the behaviour of those opposite in question time when it relates to the AUKUS deal. You might ask why this is in any way relevant. I began my contribution by saying that this is a debate about whether we solve this problem using taxes, or a tax mechanism, or technology. One of the most significant technologies in this space in other jurisdictions is nuclear technology. Don't take my word for it. The Canadian Prime Minister—a man who is a long way left of me—is pursuing small modular reactors, so it's certainly not something that is the exclusive purview of centre-right governments around the world.

We're about to run into a bizarre dichotomy in this country. We are going to have conventionally armed but nuclear powered submarines in our ports. I congratulate those opposite for having taken up the good work of the member for Cook in establishing that deal.

A government member: You're an idiot.

See this speech in context