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

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's comments in the House last November, less than a year ago, that 'a net zero target by 2050 would'—to quote the Prime Minister—'require a 43 per cent emissions reduction target in 2030'. Is that still the case?

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

That was in relation to what was being put at the time, if I recall correctly, about some sort of linear trajectory—and there is no such linear trajectory to 2050. That's not what our plan relies on. Those opposite might think that a linear trajectory is how it works, but not those on this side of the House. On this side of the House, we know that you have to invest in the technologies, many of which will have long lead times, that will ensure that the 2030 targets—that we will not only meet but also beat—will set us up well for the future in further reducing emissions. You need to follow the technology path here.

You can take one of two paths. You can go down the path of ensuring that technologies become more affordable and invest in them, providing more choices to consumers so they can lead the process—

or you can follow the path that the Labor Party tried to follow the last time they were in government.

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

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The member for Shortland is now warned. The Leader of the Opposition, on a point of order?

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

Yes, Mr Speaker. This was a very precise question. It went to the Prime Minister's own comments, saying that 'a net zero target by 2050 would require a 43 per cent emissions reduction target in 2030', and I asked: is that still the case?

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

I would just say to the Prime Minister that the question was very tight. It didn't ask for anything about the opposition's approach. The Prime Minister has the call.

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

I understand that, Mr Speaker. I'm simply drawing a parallel, whether it's the Labor Party's policy or anyone else's. You can go down the path of pursuing a technology investment road map, which is what the government's policy is, which appreciates that, over time, the returns on that investment and the acceleration in the emissions reductions that occur because of that investment, and then you're able to achieve much greater emissions reductions over the longer term. If you're seeking to do that by forcing higher emissions reduction targets by 2030, you will force choices that cost jobs. That is not what the government's policy is. It has never been our policy.

At the last election, we rejected a 45 per cent emissions reduction target put forward by those opposite. And it wasn't just us who rejected it; the Australian people also rejected it. They supported our policy of 26 per cent to 28 per cent—to meet that target and beat that target. That's what we took to the last election. That's what we've honoured in government. That's what we're delivering on, with a more than 20 per cent reduction in emissions on 2005 levels, which is much greater than New Zealand and much greater than Canada—countries that also have a very large proportion of their emissions taken up in their export sector. Here in Australia, at the same time that we have seen one of the largest expansions of our LNG industry, we have as a country been able to reduce our emissions by over 20 per cent on 2005 levels. That's what success looks like.