Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on this MPI brought before the chamber by the Greens, and I thank them very much for the opportunity to do so. I genuinely do, because it not only gives me the opportunity to spruik the government's achievements in this space, which are delivering responsible and achievable climate policy, but also gives all of us the opportunity to reflect on the Greens' hypocrisy. They're so focused on chasing radical policies on the off chance that they can grab a headline and keep their base feeling warm and fuzzy that they end up achieving nothing. They're not actually here for serious discussion. They're not here for a rational debate. They're not here to represent the interests of each Australian in their own home states. We are here. We've seen the policies even of those opposite. They have a policy, which they've announced in recent days, of a net-zero target by 2050 and a complete abrogation of interest in and support for our 2030 targets. They don't have a 2030 target. We don't know what it is. But this government has a clear plan.

Let's be clear. At the last election those opposite, Labor, took to the election their uncosted policies, which were unachievable. But, to their credit, there is something that they've done: they have tested their extreme economy-destroying policies with the Australian people. But the Australian people comprehensively rejected them, because Australians could see the impact they would have on their jobs, on the economy and on the cost of living. So, in what should have been a period of reflection after the election, when all those opposite could go away and look at what happened and develop some new and quire reasonable policies, they managed to make them even more extreme.

Whilst those over there dabble in the art of the unachievable, our record on the environment and emissions reduction is strong. Our Paris commitment is to reduce emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and we are well on track. On a per-person basis, this is a greater reduction than the commitments of the EU, Germany, Canada, New Zealand and even Japan. And we are on track to beat our 2020 Kyoto target by 411 million tonnes. In fact, the most recent update from Australia's national greenhouse gas imagery shows that emissions are lower than in 2013, when the coalition came into government. Also, emissions are 12 per cent lower than in 2005, as opposed to a two per cent reduction for Canada and a four per cent increase for New Zealand. Emissions per person are also at their lowest levels in 29 years, falling by 40 per cent since 1990. We are achieving all this without putting the economy at risk or jobs at risk, all while lowering the cost of living.

So, whilst on this side of the chamber we believe in having a stronger economy, which creates jobs and provides more opportunities for all Australians, sadly those opposite do not. And while on this side of the chamber we believe in lowering the cost of and raising our national standard of living, those opposite do not. They don't believe in lower energy prices, and they don't believe in tax relief, which allows businesses of all sizes to employ more people and create an attractive environment for investment, particularly in renewables. In fact, they believe in quite the opposite. They believe in putting policies in place that will see the Australian economy weaken, job creation evaporate, the cost of living increase exponentially and investment dry up.

The government, however, is committed to ensuring a strong and robust economy that is able to withstand the headwinds that our economy is facing. This will ensure that we remain an attractive destination for investment and are able to deliver effective emissions reduction policies. Our $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package is a great example of this. As part of this, the $2 billion Climate Solutions Fund is supporting farmers, landholders and Indigenous communities with savanna management, energy efficiency, capture of methane from landfills and storage of carbon in soils. We also have Snowy 2.0, which will increase the reliability of renewable energy. It will provide up to 175 hours of storage and meet a peak demand of up to 500,000 homes. In Tasmania there's the Battery of the Nation and the Marinus Link. This will unlock 400 megawatts of Tasmanian hydropower to the mainland.

We also have a national strategy on electric vehicles, one genuinely designed to ensure that any transition is appropriately planned and managed. It's designed for a realistic transition, not just a photo opportunity at the front of a charging station, an excuse for a ride in a Tesla that those opposite are all too familiar with—although, to their credit, Mr Shorten's announcement in front of a Melbourne building, just down the road, during the election period, with power lead in hand, was probably one of my favourite moments of the campaign! One could say it was a defining moment. It was at that moment that the Australian people could see very, very clearly the lack of detail, the lack of costing and the lack of a plan. Mr Shorten was in the contest for an emperor, but he had no clothes.

But I digress. We also have the Environment Restoration Fund, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and a range of other strategic investments that are having a practical impact on reducing our emissions. All of our policies are fully costed, have been endorsed by the Australian people and are creating jobs, rather than slashing them. Rather than deriding our industries, we see this as a real opportunity. Right across the nation Australian investors, entrepreneurs and captains of industry are leading the way, ensuring that Australian technology is at the global forefront on these matters.

If we lived the Greens version of a perfect world, their utopia, where all their nation-weakening policies were put into place, any chance of Australians out of work finding meaningful, well-paid and long-term employment would be gone. As if this wasn't enough, under their vision regional communities, those that are doing it the toughest, would all but cease to exist. They don't support any industry that drives our economy. We want to see the agricultural sector grow to 100 billion by 2030. They want to see much of this shut down, largely because of what the cattle emit in the privacy of their own paddocks.

The policy that they have is just outrageous. We want to encourage new investment in resource projects across the country, which drives jobs in regional centres, and lifts millions out of poverty right across the world. Sadly, they don't. We want to see a futureproof regional Australia through new investment in water infrastructure and resilience. I guess you can come to your own conclusions where they sit on that. The type of country they want to see Australians living in has no investment in industry, no jobs, no regional economies and no future. This is all for the sake of putting in place their socialist fantasies, as if what we do in this place is some type of left-wing board game. We know, as we know they do too, that their vision will see economic activity shift elsewhere. Let's use mining as an example. If we were to shut down exploration and development investment in new projects, major mineral-importing nations around the world are going to think: 'Wow, Australia has stopped exporting. What an important piece of symbolism. That's it. Let's shut down our own operations—our smelting facilities and power plants—and stop importing it.' Of course they won't. The market would still be there. The exporters would be champing at the bit to swoop in on the opportunity.

What the Greens would see happen is not going to see economic growth and activity in Australia. We're going to see those jobs move to another country with a much lower standard of minerals, particularly coal, lower environmental standards and quite likely much less consideration for remediation after the life of the project. So what should they do? They should take a few steps back and actually have a look at what the global environment impact will be. They've got to do this. Now, that would be progress.