Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Minister, can you outline to the House how the Morrison government's stable and certain approach to emissions reduction is helping to build our economy, and are you aware of the risks associated with alternative approaches?

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Barker for his question—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will just pause for a second.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven't called you yet; I'm wondering why you're on your feet. Given your position, I'll hear with great interest what your point of order is.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My point of order is under standing order 100(d)(vi). The question mentioned emissions reduction. Given that emissions are going up, is that out of order—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in that it's an ironical expression?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've asked you to resume your seat. The question is clearly in order. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. I can produce for him reams of Hansardall of my fascinating reading I do at night, when the House isn't sitting—of times when he himself rejected points of order as being ridiculous at that stage when he was the Leader of the House. The minister has the call.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Barker for his question and I acknowledge his deep insight and advocacy for emissions intensive businesses in regional areas because they are crucial to regional Australia. When we arrived into government in 2013, we were faced with not just a financial deficit but a deficit in achieving emission reductions and abatement, because they left us with a 700 million tonne deficit versus our 2020 targets. We now know, from the hard work done by this government and by hardworking Australian businesses and industry, that we'll overachieve on that target by 367 million tonnes. That's a 1.1 billion tonne turnaround. We haven't just turned around their financial deficit; we have turned around their abatement deficit. As we look forward to 2030, we've laid out to the last tonne how we're going to achieve our emissions obligations through our $3½ billion Climate Solutions Package. That's the centrepiece. We'll do this while growing the economy. So we have a clear policy that is delivering results.

We are receiving endorsements for this policy from unusual quarters and unusual places. The member for Hunter has endorsed our policies. The member for Burt has joined with him. It's not just them. The WA state Labor government has said that the government won the election and has a mandate to follow its policies through. On the weekend, the Australian Workers Union—a place that's generated many of those opposite into this place—endorsed our policies.

So whilst we're in lock step with the Australian people and hardworking Australian businesses right across this country, those opposite are for hollow symbolism and empty gestures. We don't yet know what their policies are, but they have followed the Greens to support a climate emergency. The question is: what do they mean by that? The Greens have belled the cat in the Senate, and they have defined a climate emergency. Do you know what it is? No oil, no gas, no coal, no Adani, no Beetaloo and no hope for Australia under those policies. It means terminating literally tens of thousands of jobs. It seems those opposite are taking a leaf out of Extinction Rebellion's playbook and are gluing themselves to their old mates in the Greens.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the member for Oxley, I think this is important information for members of the House, following the Leader of the Opposition's last attempted point of order. I'm going to make it very clear to the House, just so members understand. It's been the practice of speakers for many decades now to be very liberal when it comes to the practice of interpreting the standing orders with questions. Just so that members are clear, the rules for questions, as the Leader of the Opposition outlined, in standing order 100 include that questions must not be debated, and they also must not contain arguments, inferences, imputations, insults, ironical expressions or hypothetical matter. If the opposition want me to enforce that, I think they will find it very difficult to ask any questions at all. I would just make that point.