Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is it important to have a clear and balanced plan to meet our environmental commitments to reduce emissions while supporting our economy—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

The member for Mackellar will resume his seat. The member for Burt, the member for Rankin and others will cease interjecting or I'll have to start interjecting them. The member for Mackellar can begin his question from the top.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is it important to have a clear and balanced plan to meet our environmental commitments to reduce emissions while supporting our economy to create jobs by reducing taxes, reducing electricity prices and supporting the economies of rural and regional communities? How does this compare against the risk of alternative approaches?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Mackellar for his question and commend him on his editorial on the weekend. This year under our government Australia will meet its 2020 Kyoto emissions reduction target. And we won't just meet it; we will beat it by 411 million tonnes, which is the equivalent of about 80 per cent of Australia's annual total national emissions. Labor sought to achieve that target when they were in government by having a carbon tax that they promised they wouldn't implement.

Ten years ago, when we were in opposition, we set out a plan as to how we would meet that 2020 target without a carbon tax. We took that plan 10 years out. We took it to the election and Australians endorsed the plan to reduce emissions without having a carbon tax. Today, the plan we outlined in opposition 10 years ago is the plan that has ensured that we've met our Kyoto agreements 10 years later, here in 2020. Also some 50 million tonnes on average lower per year are our emissions now than they were under the average of the Labor government. Renewable energy is at record levels in terms of investment, and electricity prices have fallen some 3½ per cent in the last year. We did this all without a carbon tax, and we did it all while at the same time increasing the number of jobs in this country by over 1½ million. We are taking the same balanced approach when it comes to meeting our 2030 commitments. It's a balanced plan that's about technology, not taxation; a plan that is investing in new technologies and energy sources like hydrogen, investing in the Snowy scheme, investing in hydropower in Tasmania and investing in transmission lines.

I'm asked about alternatives. Those opposite can't agree on what they want to do in 2030, so how can you trust them about what they want to do 30 years from now? How can you trust someone who hasn't been able to deliver a surplus in 30 years? And now they want to tell you what they want to do about emissions in 30 years! This Labor opposition is the same bill you couldn't afford at the last election and it's the same bill you can't afford now. They are reheats of the failed policies that were offered to the Australian people at the last election. At the last election our balanced plan was endorsed. Those opposite's plan was rejected, and it's the same reheat they're forcing on the Australian people now.

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

My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Isn't it the case that cabinet committed to net zero emissions by 2050 when it signed up to the Paris Agreement?

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

That's incorrect. We signed up to the Paris agreement, which involves the world achieving net zero in the second half of the century. That was our commitment. We have strong targets, we have a clear plan and we have an enviable track record, as we've just heard from the Prime Minister.

Dave Sharma (Wentworth, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. How is the Morrison government delivering on its balanced plan to reduce emissions to meet our international commitments, and what are the risks of 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 his question, and I acknowledge his strong focus on reducing emissions and of course doing that while we maintain a strong economy. He knows that the way to do that is to take real and practical action, and that's through technology, not taxes.

We'll meet and beat our Kyoto 2020 targets by 411 million tonnes, as we just heard from the Prime Minister—80 per cent of a years worth of emissions—having inherited a 700 million tonne deficit when we got into government. We have a strong 2030 target and, according to the December emissions projections, we'll meet and beat those targets as well. According to emissions data that's come out today, we've seen a 2.3 per cent reduction in emissions in the domestic economy this year. We've seen reductions in the total economy and of course in the National Electricity Market we've seen a 3.2 per cent reduction, to the lowest level of emissions in our electricity market since records began. Right at the heart of that is world-leading investment in renewables. Increasingly, we're seeing a focus on dispatchable power to drive down wholesale prices, which have come down 35 per cent, year-on-year, in the last 12 months.

I was also asked if there is an alternative approach. The Leader of the Opposition has announced a target for 2050. Taking a leaf out of the member for Maribyrnong's book, he's done it without outlining his plan to get there. They've failed to front up and look miners, farmers, manufacturers and truck drivers in the eye and tell them what the implications are of those targets.

Today, we've had members of the opposition out there citing the CSIRO's Australian National Outlook 2019 report to back up their target and to describe what their plan really is. Let me let the House in on a little secret about what's in that report: it models a $273 carbon price, and it slashes the sheep industry, the beef industry and cropping, decimating country towns, and of course putting regional Australians out of a job.

Mr Marles interjecting—

The member for Corio will be happy to know that the report says it's the end—the death—of the coal industry. We know where this ends: with a massive carbon tax, slashing jobs and incomes in the Australian economy.

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

My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Liberal Premier of New South Wales that her government's target of net zero emissions by 2050 is consistent with both the Paris Agreement and the federal government's own commitment to the Paris Agreement?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer the member to the answer by the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, which spelt out very clearly what the government has signed up to in terms of the Paris Agreement.

I'm asked about the Paris Agreement, and our commitment is 26 per cent reduction in emissions over 2005. I'm pleased to tell the House that, as of the most recent report, that is now down by 13.1 per cent, which means we're half the way there. And we have a plan to meet the 2030 commitment. The only problem is that when I look at what those opposite are talking about, they have no idea what they want to commit to for 2030. They say, 'Well, I don't know whether I'll tell you before the election or I won't.' They want to talk about things 30 years from now; they can't even agree on what they want to do 10 years from now! When we were in opposition, we set out a 10-year plan.

Ms Murphy interjecting—

Mr Conroy interjecting—

Mr Giles interjecting—

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

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Dunkley is warned, as is the member for Shortland. If the Leader of the Opposition would just bear with me a second, I'll get a few of these warnings down. The member for Scullin will cease interjecting. The Leader of the Opposition, I guess on a point of order.

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

You guessed correctly, Mr Speaker.

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

No—just state the point of order.

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

It's on relevance. He hasn't mentioned Gladys Berejiklian once and her commitment to net zero—

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

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. As he well knows, the Prime Minister is not compelled to mention anyone by name, particularly if the name wasn't in the question.

Mr Albanese interjecting—

Yes, that's right. The Prime Minister has the call.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm asked about the Paris Agreement and I'm asked about a 2050 zero-carbon commitment. I'll tell you what, on this side of the House—because this is what we took to the Australian people—we said we'd hit a 26 per cent reduction by 2030. We have a clear plan to achieve that. Those opposite won't even tell you what their 2030 commitment is, because of the Otis group. And now we've got the Milo group, which I assume has been established to counteract the Otis group, and they put a big slap-down on the Otis group with the ill-timed and ill-prepared commitment which the Leader of the Opposition made on the weekend.

What I do know is this: Australians will always pay the price for Labor's ill-considered decisions. They will pay the price of a plan that doesn't even exist for 2050. They can't even tell you what they would do 10 years from now, so how could you believe anything they say about what would happen 30 years from now? This is a classic example of the Labor leader trying to have it both ways. He won't tell you what's happening in 2030; he wants to tell you what's happening in 2050. There are no details, there's no plan, there's no specificity. He just says, 'Trust us. We're Labor.' Well, the last time the Australian people trusted Labor when it came to climate, they said there wouldn't be a carbon tax and then they delivered a carbon tax, breaking their promise. I'll tell you what I won't do: I'm not going to make a promise to Australians; I'm not going to put a tax on them to get emissions down; I'm not going to take away their jobs in the way that the Leader of the Opposition wants to do.

Ms Coker interjecting—

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

The member for Corangamite is warned!

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not going to turn my back on workers in rural and regional Australia, who depend on the commitments that we've made. I'm not going to jack their electricity prices up in the way they doubled under the Labor government. They doubled under the Labor government; electricity prices have fallen 3½ per cent as a result of the policies that we put in place. You can't trust Labor on climate— (Time expired)

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since we're hearing about who can tell the Australian people what they are planning, since you are in government and the climate is on track to three degrees of heating on current emission reduction commitments, to ensure sensible economic management of Australia's economy, has the government assessed the cost to jobs and to the economy of the outcome of three degrees of heating? And what is that cost?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for her question. The issues that she has raised go to why our government is taking action on climate change. That is why. That is why we signed up to the Paris Agreement and we've made our commitment—

Ms Coker interjecting—

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

The Prime Minister will just pause for a second. The member for Corangamite will leave under standing order 94(a). Yes, that's right. I asked you to cease interjecting. I warned you, you kept interjecting and now you're leaving. That's the way it works. The Prime Minister has the call.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is why our government is taking action on climate change. That is why we signed up to the Paris Agreement and that's why we're meeting our targets. As I said, we are meeting the Kyoto targets. I must note, when we announced, 10 years ago, our plan to achieve the Kyoto emissions reduction target, it was mocked by those opposite. They said you couldn't do it without a carbon tax. It was mocked by others around this place, but I'll tell you what: it wasn't mocked by the Australian people, because they backed that plan at the 2013 election, seven years out from that 2020 target, and we delivered on that commitment. And we have not only met but beat our targets by 2020.

Mr Gosling interjecting—

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

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Solomon is warned! The member for Warringah on a point of order.

Mr Gosling interjecting —

The member for Solomon is warned. The member for Warringah on a point of order.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point of order is relevance. The question went to what is the cost.

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

As I often point out, the question had a long preamble. I don't want to have an argument with the member for Warringah, but I listened very carefully and there was quite a long preamble before she got to a very specific question. If you need the answer to be tied tightly to a specific question, you need to not have a broad preamble that allows the minister or the Prime Minister answering it to range more widely. The Prime Minister is in order.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is because we do understand there are costs associated with climate change that we, indeed, are taking action on climate change to reduce emissions. But I tell you what we also need to do to take action on climate change: we need to build the resilience of this country for the climate that we need to live in, that we will live in, for the economy that we must grow in this climate and in the environment that we are in. We need to put in place adaption measures to ensure that Australians can thrive in the climate we will live in while taking the action, the necessary action, when it comes to emission reduction. We will also take action on building the dams, which means climate action now, on hazard reduction, which is climate action now just as emissions reduction is climate action now. We will take those actions because we understand the risks and the need to take action in relation to those risks. Those opposite don't offer any plans. They don't offer any policies. They have an uncosted, glib—

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

I just say to the Prime Minister—

Honourable members interjecting—

Members can cease interjecting just for a second. It's very difficult for the Prime Minister to go to the policies of those opposite when, one, he wasn't asked about it and, two, the question was from an Independent. The Prime Minister either needs to wrap his answer up or—the Prime Minister has the call.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to do that. I'm asked about the costs of climate. What I can assure the Australian people is they will always pay the price of Labor's failed climate policies.