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

I have received a letter from the honourable member for McMahon proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government's climate announcement not being the Australian way.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This evening the Prime Minister will fly off to Glasgow, but his packing light. His luggage has not been a difficult undertaking, because he doesn't have to pack any new policies to deal with climate change, because he doesn't have any. He doesn't have to pack any new medium-term target for the government, because we know that he wanted to update his medium-term target but the National Party wouldn't let him. He certainly doesn't have to pack any economic modelling on the impact of his policies. We have been working through the reasons why he might not want to release the modelling of his policy, but, I must say, we hadn't thought that one of those options might be that it hasn't been done yet. So he is packing light for Glasgow.

In all the melodrama, all the crisis meetings on Sundays and all the chaos of the last week, all we've seen is one substantive announcement: a pay rise for the minister for resources—and that's it. The man who vetoed government support for 250 jobs in North Queensland, because they are associated with renewable energy, looked out for his own job and not theirs—because, with the National Party and the Liberal Party, it is always about them. They have introduced a positions trading scheme—trading positions for policy. I have seen some pretty cynical low-rent actions in my time in this House but this one takes the cake: trading a pay rise for a policy concession.

All we see are slideshows and slogans. A steaming pile of nothingness is all we have got from the government this week—a lot of spin. But, in all that spin, there are two things which have been particularly insulting to Australians, I think. There are two elements of this government's approach which have been a particularly insulting method of operation for Australians. The first is for this Prime Minister and this government to have the temerity to call their policy 'the Australian way'. How dare you invoke the name of our country to justify your delay. How dare you invoke the name of our great nation to justify your lack of action. The Australian way is innovation, not indolence. The Australian way is to lead, not to follow in the wake of other countries. The Australian way is to seize opportunities. Climate change is the world's biggest crisis but it is Australia's biggest economic opportunity, and the Australian way is to seize it. How dare you invoke the name of our country to justify your steaming pile of nothingness as a policy.

What the Prime Minister has done is confuse the Australian way with Morrison's way—and there's a difference. The Australian way is to innovate, not to be indolent. The Australian way is to embrace the future, not to scare people about it. The Australian way is to get on with the job, not talk about it. The Morrison way is to spend $13 million of taxpayer money to talk about a policy they don't have. The Morrison way is to spend $13 million of taxpayer money to boast about policies they opposed.

The Australian way is to come together to deal with crises and challenges, to unite as one people. That's the Australian way. When people in rural and regional Australia are going through drought, which is more and more the case thanks to climate change, people in metropolitan Australia come together to support them—unite. The Morrison way is to divide Australians, to talk about how climate change is apparently the obsession of people in inner-city wine bars. That's the Morrison way. The Australian people come together at times of crisis, like bushfires, and support each other, not get on a plane to Hawaii and not even bother to tell the Australian people they're going. That's the Morrison way. That's not the Australian way. The Australian way is to embrace technology, to embrace the future, to embrace science. That's not the Morrison way.

That's the other egregious part of the government's spin over the past week—to talk about technology; to have the gall, to have the hutzpah to come into this chamber and say they're on the side of technology, to say they're on the side of science. This nation, thanks to Australian scientists, has engineered the modern solar power. Professor Martin Green, at the University of New South Wales, and of whom the member for Kingsford Smith is so proud, has basically, with his colleagues, invented the modern efficient solar panel. The Morrison way is to undermine and undercut ARENA and CEFC, who've been so important to that innovation. The Morrison way is to undercut science. This is the Liberal and National way, and we see it time and time again. We can look at recent examples. We can look at examples across this government.

We know there have been plenty of mistakes at the Treasurer's hands with JobKeeper. He's made plenty of errors. He just hasn't understood it, but there have been some things he's done deliberately, like excluding universities from JobKeeper, like letting 7,000 university researchers lose their job in the last 18 months on his watch. That is no government that loves technology. And we know the Prime Minister's greatest hits: saying that electric vehicles would end the weekend, saying that a battery is about as affective as a big prawn or a big banana, saying that a 50 per cent renewable energy target is nuts. We also know this government's record on science funding and technology funding: undercutting not just ARENA and the CEFC but our greatest institutions like CSIRO and the universities.

Tonight, as the Prime Minister jets out, another man will be taking over: the Acting Prime Minister of Australia, the man who's in charge while the Prime Minister is away. Let us never forget his track record either. When a great Australian scientist pioneered a new vaccine for cervical cancer, the man who will take over the government of this country this afternoon warned that it might make young women more promiscuous. How dare they lecture us about technology and science! How dare they pretend to the Australian people that they are on the side of modernity and innovation! They are stuck in the past and scared of the future. Their track record on climate change is appalling and their track record on technology is even worse, and they dare to bring down a document for which their big step forward, their big leap for the future, is to assume that new technologies will come forward. Fifteen per cent of the advancement in action on climate change and emissions reductions they say will come from technologies for which they have no framework to encourage and no policies for investing and which they have undermined for eight long years. That is what has been particularly insulting to the Australian people this last week.

There's disappointment that after eight years of toxic policies, of division, of identity politics, of playing the climate wars that this government is doing it yet again. There's disappointment that after eight long years the best they can come up with is a slideshow and slogans and no real action. We tried to give the government a chance to say maybe, just maybe, they could come up with something we could give them bipartisan support for. They've failed miserably at every turn. This is a government that can't plan for the future because they don't understand the opportunities that science and technology and renewable energy provide for our country and provide for rural Australia in particular. They don't understand that the reasons that have powered Australia for so long are the reasons that will power us into the future.

Yes, it's because they've got the space for renewable energy. Yes, it's because they've got access to the electricity grid. Yes, it's because they've got the supports. But more than anything else it's because they have the skills to make energy. Their greatest attribute, their greatest resource, is their human skill that has created energy for so long. With the right government, with the right framework of investment, with a government that gets the opportunities, they can make energy and export energy well into the future. That's what this government will never understand, and this week has shown it more than ever. This government has seen some real lowlights on climate over the last eight years. There have been some really dark and sad moments for this country over the last eight years. But I think this last week has been about the darkest and the saddest.

The Australian people deserve so much more than this government, which has tried to abolish the renewable energy target at every opportunity. Even before they came to office, they indicated that they would abolish ARENA and CEFC. The then Leader of the Opposition wrote to the boards of ARENA and CEFC and warned them, 'If we come to office, we're going to abolish you, so don't spend any more money on science and technology.' Now we have his successor, the current Prime Minister, boasting about technology, daring to wave around this chamber a mobile phone, saying he's the friend of technology.

Australia does deserve better, and there's one way it can get it—a change of government. Throw out the climate change deniers, the party that embraces the likes of Senator Rennick, Senator Canavan and the member for Dawson. But also throw out the fellow travellers, the pretenders, the fake modern Liberals. Throw out the member for Goldstein. Throw out the member for Higgins, who allows this to happen. Throw out the member for Kooyong. Throw out the member for Reid. They do not represent their communities when it comes to action on climate change. Throw out these people who engage in the scare campaign with alacrity, just like their climate-change-denying comrades. They deserve to go, because Australia deserves so much better. Australia deserves better than the member for Goldstein and all his pretend, fake Liberal colleagues. They deserve a new government that gets the future. (Time expired)

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whoa, Nelly! That was one performance! I listened to the whole of the member for McMahon's speech as he opened the batting in the matter of public importance debate, talking about what he thought the Australian way was for cutting Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Do you know what he didn't mention in the entire 10 minutes? I accept that, if it was 90 seconds, he would have struggled, but in the entire 10 minutes he didn't mention one critical thing that has been at the heart of the Labor Party's policy position all week, which apparently is now the cataclysmic difference between whether you take climate change seriously or not—and we do take it seriously on this side of the chamber. It was a legislated target. He didn't mention it once, in a 10-minute diatribe. Clearly Labor have already abandoned their push for a legislated target. Clearly they've got the research back, and it backs this side of the chamber and what Australians think about a legislated target, because they know, exactly as the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction said in question time, only moments ago, that, when you legislate a target, what you actually do is see the power drip out of the hands of the parliament and directly into the hands of the courts, as we've seen in Germany, France and the United Kingdom. What happens when you undermine this parliament isn't just that the members here don't get a chance to stand up and speak on behalf of the Australian community and the communities they represent; you disempower the very Australians who elect us and their capacity to decide the future of this great nation.

Australians know that, at the heart of the Labor Party plan for climate change, they have no respect for democracy, no respect for the will of the people. We saw that from the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard before the 2010 election. You shake your head, Member for McMahon. I know it's something you want to forget, like so many of the other failures in your policy space when you were a minister, including those people who drowned under your watch.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The assistant minister will direct his comments through the chair.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reality is, Deputy Speaker—as you know and I know—before the 2010 federal election, the former Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'—

A government member: There was!

That's right. The assistant minister is right. My apologies—the minister; congratulations on your elevation. But there was. The minister is 100 per cent right. What actually happened was, after they'd made a commitment to the Australian people, they got their vote and then they turned around and they tore the agreement up. They spent $55 million trying to sell their spin and trying to cover over their deception to the Australian people, because they said one thing before the election and something different thereafter. We all know that this is the history and the track record of the Labor Party, and now they're seeking to repeat it.

Compare that to this side of the chamber. We went to an election making it crystal clear what our policy throughout this term of government would be. Of course, we took the Australia people with us in prosecuting that critical argument, and they endorsed it every step of the way. One of the best things about what this government has been achieving in the climate change policy space isn't just that we set out a 26 to 28 per cent target by 2030; we got it endorsed by the Australia people, and we did. We then went on not just to meet and not just to beat but to smash our targets. We're already 21 per cent down on 2005 levels of emissions.

Here's a reality. It's a very difficult one for the opposition and our critics outside of this chamber to accept. The OECD average of emissions reduction is but seven per cent of 2005 levels, and we are hitting 20.8 per cent—21 per cent. That's three times the OECD average as the Prime Minister gets on a plane and goes off to Glasgow. Not only is he going to be able to report back that we're going to meet, beat and smash our targets in 2030, but he's going to be proudly able to put in a commitment from Australia, a statement very clearly from Australia, that was outlined in our substantial plan this week, to cut greenhouse gas emissions with an upwards revision of our projection where we will hit up to 35 per cent emissions reduction by 2030.

That's the fundamental difference between this side of the chamber and the Labor Party—and, frankly, increasingly, the independents who are working with them.

Don't worry, member for McMahon, I haven't even got to them yet! They are working directly with the Labor Party to subvert our democracy. You saw this with the member for Warringah earlier last year. We saw it exactly where it was. The member for Warringah introduced a bill that would have included the power for commissioners that the crossbench appointed. These commissioners would be able to not allow the recommendation of the change of any emissions targets. What they wanted to do was to empower commissioners to veto this parliament. If there was any doubt about the intent or the objective of the member for Warringah, you just need to go and look at her speech.

Only yesterday, when she moved a motion to have a discussion about her failed bill—thrice rejected—she spoke openly about the fact that Australian climate policy needs to be taken out of the hands of democratically elected representatives. When you think about that, that is nothing short of disgraceful—for you to come into this parliament and then appoint commissioners who can veto the rights of the Australian people to be able to decide their own destiny. Now, Labor are trying to support it every step of the way. Despite the fact that the member for McMahon—already, only three days after they started their narrative around legislating a target—now seems to have abandoned it and walked away from a policy position so quickly, he says it's necessary to take the issue seriously.

That must be a wake-up call to the state governments of Queensland and Western Australia that have Labor governments but no legislated target. It must be a spectacular wake up call to the 185-odd countries in the world that have a target, but it is not legislated. Because those countries—and, frankly, even state Labor governments—understand the consequences of Labor's policy. They know and they understand that when you follow the Labor approach you are empowering bureaucrats and not citizens and communities.

That is not what we on this side of the chamber see. I know that's not just what we see in this chamber; it's what we see in communities as well. I see it at every election, when I go to the polling booth. At every election there is this bloke—I won't mention his name; let's just call him David R—who stands there with his Green how-to-vote cards, and he tells people to vote for the Greens and for all of their policy ambitions. Then, as soon as the election is over, he comes storming into my office and demands that the Liberal Party adopt the positions that have just been defeated at the election. He does it every time. Every time! But don't worry. He's independent now. He's not a Green; he's an independent now. His track record shows that they're all tricky. They say one thing and do the other.

The good thing is that, in the community, everybody knows who these people are. Everybody knows about these puppetmasters who want to make puppets of the Independent members of parliament, and we're not going to let them. I can tell you, Member for McMahon: we know exactly who you are, we know that you have no respect for democracy and we know that the member for Warringah has tried to appoint bureaucrats to have veto rights over the Australian parliament, and now the Labor Party wants to do the same with the courts. So make no mistake: we see the tricky agenda. They may not up here in Canberra, but the people in our community know exactly the tricky behaviour you've got up to.

Compare that to the side of the chamber, where we are straightforward. We take an election policy, deliver it after winning an election, and then go on and develop a substantial plan—the first comprehensive economywide plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. There are 130 pages going to the different roles of technologies and the contribution that they can make. This is a plan that focuses not just on what we as a government can do but on what the communities and different levels of government can do. It empowers industry to be part of the solution. The only approach the Labor Party has is a tax. They won't reveal it yet. The member for Warringah won't reveal her plan for one yet either. But what they're secretly hoping is to get into minority government on the back of the Greens and Independents so they can pull the strings of a failed Labor government. (Time expired)

Emma McBride (Dobell, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government claim they've come up with a plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, and they claim they're going to do it the Australian way—the Aussie way. Really? This is a plan that's not a plan and, as we learned today, it's a plan that's based on no modelling. There's no modelling, no legislation and no increase from Tony Abbott's medium-term targets.

The government think this so-called plan is what's best for people in rural and regional Australia, like the community I represent on the Central Coast of New South Wales, but they're wrong. We deserve more than slideshows and slogans. We're lucky to live on one of the most beautiful stretches of coastline, the Central Coast, one of the best parts of the world, and we want to protect it now and into the future. That's the Australian way. That's what Australians do, but not according to this government.

After eight long years of sitting on its hands when it comes to climate policy, this government has finally come up with a so-called plan to meet net zero by 2050, except there's no new policy in this announcement. The government hasn't provided any modelling for their plan or legislation. It's just a plan to promote the Minister for Resources and Water back to cabinet. Just last week in parliament, they voted against legislating net-zero emissions by 2050. People in my community, people across Australia, need action from this government. That's the Australian way: action, not more empty promises.

The government claims it wants to reduce emissions the Australian way. At the same time, it's refusing to put a stop to risky projects like PEP 11. This is a project that would devastate our local environment, our marine life and our local economy. It would put thousands of local jobs at risk—jobs that rely on our pristine coastline. This isn't the Australian way. The Prime Minister says in the community—he said it in the Hunter—that he's opposed to PEP 11, but, at the same time, the resources minister, whom he has recently elevated to cabinet, is yet to make a decision. This is the same minister who said, 'Find me a solar panel that works in the dark.' The resources minister was supposed to make a final decision on PEP 11, back in February, yet he's still delaying. He says he's still considering it. He says he's taking advice. He's refusing to make a decision eight months after his original deadline. That's not the Aussie way. This is the same minister who says investment in renewable energy delivered little more than a warm and fuzzy feeling. If this government can't rule out dangerous projects like PEP 11, it can't be trusted with Australia's national climate plan and it can't be trusted to create and protect Australian jobs.

People in regional communities like the Central Coast want to see real action on climate. The Prime Minister says the Australian way is respecting people's choice. Well, Prime Minister, listen to the voice of the people in my community and hear what they have to say, like Matthew from Norah Head. He told me: 'I want a world for my children to grow up in. Increasingly, there are severe natural disasters, extinction, dying ecosystems. Our government needs to do something before it is truly too late.' Or there was Kay from Lisarow. Kay told me, 'The science tells us we must act now and act decisively to avoid catastrophic conditions for humans and our world's flora and fauna.' Or there was Michael from The Entrance. This is what Michael told me, 'The Morrison government are setting up the Australian people for profound disappointment and abysmal failure in meeting and beating their so-called carbon emission reduction targets by gambling on future unknown technology that has not been thought of, let alone developed.' Michael called it 'pie in the sky' and 'policy on the run'. Michael has hit the nail on the head. How can we rely on this government to show leadership on climate change when the basis of their policy doesn't even exist yet?

The Prime Minister says he will tackle climate change the Australian way. He says the Australian way involves respecting people's choices. Well, Prime Minister, respect the choices of the people of my community and of people all up and down the east coast of New South Wales, who have said, loudly and clearly, no to PEP 11. Clearly, this government doesn't respect the choices of those people and doesn't respect the choices of those thousands of people up and down the east coast in my community. They don't want PEP 11. This government is refusing to act; that's not the Australian way. The Prime Minister can't say he is opposed to PEP 11 in the Hunter and then in this parliament allow PEP 11 to go ahead. That's not the Australian way—that's not fair dinkum! That's not what Aussies in my community want. They don't want the Prime Minister of Australia to say one thing when he's in their community and not act when he's in the parliament. That's un-Australian—that's not the Australian way. The Aussies in my community deserve better than this Prime Minister.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's wonderful to participate in this matter of public importance today. What have we heard from those opposite? We've heard what we always hear from those opposite: lots of finger-wagging! Lots of sanctimony. Lots of finger-wagging and lots of sanctimony but no target, no policies and a lot of confusion.

Labor has been all over the place on the target. They had a 45 per cent target for 2030 which they took to the last election, which was rejected. This week, they voted for the member for Warringah's 60 per cent target, so what is Labor's target? They have announced no target. They always bang on about how we need to take action on climate change, but they have no target and no plan to get there.

By the middle of May next year, Australia will have made a choice between our government, which wants to take action on climate change but which wants to deliver net zero emissions by 2050 with a clear plan to get there—that's what our announcements have been about all of this week—and the Labor Party, which has no clarity on this issue and no plan to get there. What do we know about the Labor Party on this issue? We know they have the idea of the legislated target; it's another thought bubble like the paper vax target, which was Labor's idea to get people to vaccinate themselves, and now we have one of the highest vaccination rates in the world.

Labor has a history on this. As I said, they voted for the 60 per cent target and they've been all over the place. Remember that when they were in government they had the carbon tax, they had the mining tax, they had the CPRS and they had the citizens assembly. Kevin Rudd told us that this issue was the great moral challenge of our time. Well if Kevin Rudd's party were serious about that they would have a plan.

But we know they have a secret plan, based on everything that they've done in the past and based on the fact that they have my friend the member for McMahon as their shadow minister. The member for McMahon was the shadow Treasurer in the last parliament and he brought forward the policy of $387 billion in new taxes on the Australian people. He loves tax, and his way to achieve reductions in emissions will be a tax based policy. We are tech focused and Labor is tax focused, and they always have been.

They don't like technology. Both the member for McMahon and the member for Dobell came and gave us a lecture on the importance of technology. If they like technology, why did they vote seven times in recent days against technology led emissions reduction programs like carbon capture and storage or like hydrogen? If they're going to have the 60 per cent target that they voted for with the member for Warringah, when are they going to tell us how many jobs it will cost, which industries will close, what it will do to electricity prices and what it will do to the regions?

Labor loves to point the finger and loves to play the gesture politics, but Labor has no plan here and the fact that they have no plan will shine through to the Australian people at the next election. By contrast, what is our plan? Our plan, because we are serious about climate change because it is a real and serious issue for our planet and our country, is to have a target of net zero by 2050 and to achieve that through technology, not taxes.

You just need to look at our record. We've beaten our 2020 targets. We are beating our 2030 targets—in fact, we are on track to beat them and to have an emissions reduction of around 35 per cent. While emissions have fallen to 21 per cent, at the same time we've grown our economy by 45 per cent. This is what happens when you have a technology focused approach. We are reducing emissions in this country faster than Japan, faster than Canada, faster than the US and faster than New Zealand. We've done this three times more quickly than the OECD average. If you want results, look to the work of the Morrison government.

Our plan is about technology, not taxes. It's expanding choices, not mandates. It's driving down the cost of new technologies, like what's happened with solar. It's about keeping power prices down. And it's about being accountable for the targets we set. That's why there were announcements made this week in relation to the Productivity Commission's role and the transparency of the Productivity Commission not only looking at the effect on emissions but the effect on the economy more broadly, because this is a great economic opportunity. The $20 billion of investment in technology that will unlock up to $100 billion in private sector investment will help transform our country and our regions and reduce emissions through technologies like soil carbons, like energy storage, like carbon capture and storage, like hydrogen, like low-emission aluminium and like low-emission steel. Our plan is technology focused, our plan is for net zero by 2050, and our plan is credible.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] This week we saw the Prime Minister announce his 'plan' for net zero emissions. As a teacher, I had a good look at it. It did look like very much like a high-school PowerPoint presentation, but I had to give it a D. There was no new work and some secret, perhaps fanciful modelling. It was, basically slack slide shows and slick slogans, which isn't easy to say.

What do we know about it so far? We know that the Prime Minister said the word 'plan' at least 80 times during his slide presentation, we know that it includes zero new policies and we know that it includes zero actual modelling, modelling that hasn't even been written yet. We know that this is a desperate attempt by the Prime Minister to cobble together an announcement before he jets off to Glasgow tonight. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the Nationals, and the guy who'll be the Prime Minister tonight, the member for New England, does not support a net zero target by 2050. We know that the Deputy Leader of the Nationals, Senator Bridget McKenzie, does not support net zero by 2050. And we know that the Minister for Resources and Water, the guy who got the new pay upgrade, the Nationals member for Hinkler, does not support a net zero target by 2050. As Nikki Savva said in her column today, the Prime Minister's PowerPoint show was 'a headline searching for a story', and around the world analysts have been scathing of the Prime Minister's announcement. Major international media outlets have labelled it 'hollow' and 'hard to believe'. CNN's headline read, 'Australia will be the rich world's weakest link at COP26 with hollow net zero emissions pledges.' CNN goes on to say:

… in reality, Morrison will go to COP26, reluctantly, with the weakest climate plan among the G20's developed nations.

The BBC tweeted that it was 'a big announcement with very little detail'. The New York Times headline was 'Australia pledges "net zero" emissions by 2050. It's plan makes that hard to believe,' and it went on to say:

The country's last-minute commitment before next week's climate summit is built on hope for new technology, and little else.

The Washington Post joined the international chorus of despair at the Morrison announcement. They quoted climate experts who said that the government was 'kicking the can down the road' and that the plan 'would do little to change the international perception of Australia as a climate laggard'.

How could this nation, our nation, the nation of Doc Evatt and the United Nations, of Bob Hawke and the Antarctic Treaty and of Keating and APEC be an international laggard? I can't remember Australia being criticised so harshly in the international press before. What's at stake here, apart from the very existence of our planet? The environmental threats to Australia will increase, and then there will be economic threats like green trade tariffs. Our international reputation is on the line. I am a proud Australian. Australia has a proud history on the international stage: Doc Evatt, the president of the UN General Assembly from 1948 to 1949—a guy who helped draft the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Bob Hawke and Paul Keating; even John Howard's gun control laws; Kevin Rudd's apology—all those wonderful achievements on the international stage. Now we are known internationally as a pariah when it comes to climate change.

The Prime Minister claims his commitment to net zero by 2050 is 'the Australian way'. But it is actually 'the Morrison government way'—to divide, to fearmonger, to take credit for the work of the states and to pretend it's somebody else's job if it's hard. So many slogans, so little substance. 'The Australian way' that I believe in is to punch above our weight, to have integrity and to be ambitious about what we can achieve, as Australian leaders of all parties did repeatedly before this Prime Minister came along and started occupying the Lodge.

Australians should refuse to be dragged down by the Liberal and National parties. Australia deserves a government that believes in a commitment to net zero emissions by 2050. An Albanese government will have policies that will make such climate commitments a reality; we will not be crossing our fingers and praying. We will be a government that understands that the world's climate emergency is Australia's jobs opportunity. Right now we have a Prime Minister who said electric vehicles would 'end the weekend' and compared battery storage in South Australia to the Big Banana and the Big Prawn. We've got a Deputy Prime Minister who doesn't even want to commit to net zero emissions by 2050, and he will be in charge tonight.

Australia can be a superpower when it comes to renewable energy. Australia has the most solar coverage of any continent on the earth. We've got a long coastline and an abundance of wind to harness for energy generation. Australia needs an Albanese government, which will harness Australia's natural renewable energy resources to create jobs and cut power bills here in Australia.

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

Australia needs an Albanese government like it needs another hole in the head. That's how bad that idea is! The fact of the matter remains that I can only conclude, having to listen to this detritus of a debate, that those opposite hate Australians and hate Australia. They love Canada. What's happened to Canada's emissions? That's right; they went up by one per cent. What happened to Australia's emissions? They've gone down by 20 per cent. They love New Zealand over there. Their emissions went down by, that's right, one per cent. In Australia they've gone down by 20 per cent.

Those opposite say they don't want to hear slogans; they want action. Well, we've done it. We've done something they could never ever do. When Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister he called this 'the great moral challenge of our time'—you may remember that, Deputy Speaker Llew O'Brien. And what did he do after that? He said: 'It's too hard. I'll see you later.' That's the Labor way: the minute it gets hard, they disappear, because they never want to be held accountable. They want to be in government but they don't want any of the responsibility.

I listened carefully to the member for Robertson, who continues to complain about PEP-11. Let me tell you, member for Robertson: I didn't hear you complaining in 1999 when the Labor state government under Bob Carr gave them a licence—

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will direct his comments through the chair.

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

Oh, Dobell—the member for Berowra is onto it! When the member for Dobell complains about PEP-11, she fails to mention she didn't complain about it when Bob Carr gave them a licence in 1999. She didn't complain when the member for Watson, who still sits in his House—

An opposition member interjecting

Yes, I know you don't want to hear this. We're well aware you don't want to hear any facts. You don't want to hear about voter fraud. You don't want to hear about how our emissions have gone down. You don't want to hear about how this government has done something you never could—that is, announce net zero by 2050. If you take a point of order on me—

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the member for Fremantle seeking the call?

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I'm entitled to take a point of order, notwithstanding what the member thinks. He should be directing his comments through the chair.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been listening. He made a comment, which I pulled him up on.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He just said 'you' about 30 times in a row!

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is in order at the moment, but I'm keeping an eye on it.

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

Someone needs to keep an eye on me! The member for Fremantle can't be left to the task; it's too big a task for one person! Thank you to you two for working together; we appreciate it. The fact is that we have done something they never could: we have signed up and committed to net zero. They run away every time the task gets hard. And when it comes to PEP 11, they renewed it and they signed the permit. We will stop it. That's what we will be committed to. That's what we are judged on—action. We've reduced emissions by 20 per cent. We've come up with a plan to get to net zero by 2050.

I note that the member for McMahon went on social media yesterday and said, 'Where were the modern Liberals supporting the member for Warringah's bill that included a 60 per cent reduction on emissions by 2030?' As I asked the member for Warringah: 'Sixty per cent? Why not 70 per cent? Why not 80 per cent? Hell, why not 150 per cent?' If we're just going to start throwing numbers out there, why not go to, you know, 2,000 gazillion per cent? The fact is that, whenever you ask the one question that matters, which is how, 'How do you get to 60 per cent reduction by 2030?', no-one over there wants to talk about it. Then we get to modelling. Thank you very much for mentioning modelling. When it comes to modelling, they all say, 'Oh, there's no model. What was released in estimates is that they are writing the model up.' There is a model. The reason we won't release the model to you is that you wouldn't understand it—because models are numbers; they are not words. And I know that the member for Fraser knows this.

The fact of the matter is that we have a situation where those opposite, who achieved nothing in government, can only throw mud, have no idea how they are going to achieve anything and are astroturfing their way. They think the Australian people won't notice the fraud committed at the electoral box and the fact that they want to allow it to go on unfettered and unchallenged, and the fraud they want to perpetrate on the Australian people through their lack of detail, their lack of commitment and their lack of heart on climate policy.

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] It's always a pleasure to follow the member for Mackellar on an MPI! It was interesting to watch the member for Mackellar, but I've got to say that he did get one thing right, and that was that his government made an announcement. So here we are yet again standing up to speak about another announcement with very little substance behind it. It's a bit like groundhog day in this place, when this government continues to make mealy-mouthed announcements with very little substance to show for it and very little progress to demonstrate.

They say they have a plan, but this plan has no new policies and no legislation. So let's be very clear what this announcement is. This announcement is so that the prime master of grin and spin, the Prime Minister, can save face in Glasgow by being able to waive a glossy brochure in one hand while he has his little stash of coal hidden in his jacket pocket so he can whisper to it, 'Don't worry, my precious; I'm ambitious for you. It's okay; I'll look after you.' That's what this announcement is all about. It's all about a deal with The Nationals to promote the minister and it is about the Prime Minister being able to go to Glasgow and save face. It is not about a real commitment. It is not about any new policies, any legislation or any real plans to get to net zero by 2050.

But this time they have done something a little bit different—something just a tiny bit different. They have added a slogan: 'The Australian way'. Well, I looked it up. I thought: 'What do they mean by the Australian way? Give them a fair go, and let's see if they are fair dinkum about this.' Apparently, the Australian way is through technology—that's the Australian way. Well, it's only taken them eight years to figure that out. It has only taken them eight years to figure out that the business community and the resources sector are already way ahead in terms of technology. They are already forging ahead on moving towards net zero by 2050—and the government have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the table.

I've been listening to those opposite speak. I had the 'pleasure' of listening to the member for Goldstein earlier. One thing that I've noticed is that they seem to have a string of speakers who consistently want to just point a finger at Labor and say,' Well, what are you doing?' Newsflash: you're in government. You've been in government for eight long years. I don't know what it means to those members to be sitting on that side of the chamber, but sitting on that side of the chamber comes with certain responsibilities. We'd like to be sitting on that side of the chamber, we'd like to take on those responsibilities, but they're there. They're there. And, while they're sitting there on that side of the chamber, pointing a finger at us and saying, 'Well, what are you doing?' here's what we're doing.

We're out there talking to the experts and we're out there talking to the constituents, to the Australian people, about what they want to see; that's the Australian way—people like Ross Clark from Morley, who has a letter in today's West Australian. The letter is headlined 'Long on rhetoric, short on detail'. Ross writes to the West Australian: 'The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has a plan. We know that because he told us 101 times in his climate change ramble.' I think since this letter was published you can add another 80 times to that. Ross goes on: 'Unfortunately, like all things Morrison, it's long on rhetoric and salesmanship and totally absent on detail. The one thing we do know is he was screwed by Barnaby Joyce and the Nationals. But we don't know what it will cost the taxpayer and the environment. We are, after all, just the mug voters.'

That's the sentiment of the Australian people out there today. That's what the people of Australia are saying. That's how they feel about this announcement and its sham plan. They feel like they're being treated like mugs by a government that won't release the modelling because, as the member for Mackellar said, 'Oh, people just won't understand it.' That's their version of the Australian way. Their version of the Australian way is to treat Australians like mugs. That's their version of the Australian Way. Well, Australians won't stand for it. They see right through it and they will show it to them at the next election. (Time expired)

John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a little sad to see the opposition's desire to maintain the climate wars. We've had inaction bred by division for nearly a decade and a half. It has cost leaders on both sides their jobs and led to a more disruptive political climate. For the first time in a long time, we now have city MPs like me and the assistant minister agreeing with country MPs. Together we can get this done, but those opposite have sought to revisit a divisive past. It's time we came together so we can stop this constant and non-productive bickering and finally take some action.

Australia will achieve net zero emissions by 2050. We all should celebrate. Perhaps more importantly, we're going to get there by empowering people, if you will excuse the pun. Australia already has the highest rate of rooftop solar in the world. And, if you could see the weather in Bennelong today, you would see why so many people are putting solar panels on their roofs that energy companies are slashing the feed-in tariffs and working out ways to stop it flooding the system on hot days. This is a good problem! The Prime Minister talks about technology as our way through, and this could sound aspirational if it wasn't for our incredible track record in developing breakthrough technologies, especially in this area.

The CSIRO in my electorate, just across the border, also in West Lindfield, is home to some incredible advances in solar panel technology. These breakthroughs have led the world, and we look likely to continue setting the pace in solar technology. Hyundai in my electorate was home to Australia's first public hydrogen-filling station, and I believe there are plans to increase this capability rapidly. EVs and hydrogen vehicles are firmly rooted in the Australian market and are growing at an exponential rate.

We're also making wave breakthroughs in other fields—renewable energy. For the last few months, a large artificial blowhole has been sitting in the water off King Island, a prototype for a new type of wave power, and, unlike wave power in the past, the data in demonstrates it actually works. Wave Swell is an Australian startup and should soon be making these turbines for islands and coastal populations around the world. Many islands—King Island included—rely on diesel generators for electricity, so these turbines will turn island electricity green overnight. The waves roll day and night with incredible predictability, so it can operate as baseload power.

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time for the discussion has concluded.