Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on how the Morrison government is investing in new energy technologies that will create jobs and reduce emissions? Is the minister aware of any 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 Bass for her question and for her unwavering focus on reducing emissions without compromising jobs or the economy. I note her strong interest in the important projects in northern Tasmania of Marinus and Battery of the Nation, which the federal government is investing in. Like all members on this side of the House, she knows that the pathway to meaningful emissions reduction, without compromising our economy, is through the development and deployment of new and emerging technologies, and that's why we're investing in these future technologies. There is $18 billion in the budget, which we expect to become $70 billion with other investment from state governments and the private sector, prioritising five main technologies including: hydrogen, carbon capture and storage, soil carbon, low emissions steel and aluminium for the manufacturing sectors and electricity storage. All of those technologies have clear, pragmatic goals, including goals like 'H2 under 2'—getting the cost of producing hydrogen to under $2 a kilogram, which means it comes into parity with alternative fuel sources. The member for Bass know that getting these technologies right will support 130,000 jobs as well as the 850,000 Australians in our manufacturing sector. It'll support reaching our Paris Agreement obligations and support other countries to do the same, which is why we've recently signed an MOU with Singapore affirming our joint commitment to bring down emissions with technologies. Technology, not taxes, is the pathway forward.

I was asked about alternative approaches and the truth is that members opposite are paralysed by indecision and division. They can't work out where they stand on gas. They don't know where they stand on affordable, reliable energy. They don't even know what their target for 2030 is. The Paris Agreement requires a target for 2030. It requires it. They are walking away from the Paris Agreement, that's what they're doing, by not committing to the 2030 target. Just today they confirmed that they have no plan to announce their policies or the targets any time in the future—no plan to even have a plan. Thanks to the member for Hindmarsh and his obsessive focus on drastic action, now they're walking away from the Paris Agreement. Just last week a former Labor minister said what those opposite already know: 'The member for Hindmarsh was one of two people that lost Labor the last election thanks to his economy wrecking targets, which were unachievable and uncosted.'