Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's terrific to have an opportunity to make some remarks about this matter of urgency in relation to climate change and climate risk. My view has been that we can all win from getting to net zero. I'm not so big on the slogans and whatnot, but I do think that we are on the right track with this policy.

It's important to point out here that this is about getting to net zero; it's not about getting to zero. So there will still be emissions—from agriculture and transport, in particular—but, in the long run, it's possible that you could get beyond net zero. You could become an exporter of carbon abatement services. People who have visited far-flung parts of New South Wales, in particular, would be aware that there is a lot of land which could be put to good use in terms of offsetting carbon. A lot of the people who live in these areas are low-income people, and that could be a whole new revenue stream for them.

The reality is that Australia has never had enough capital to fund itself. We've relied upon foreign investment for the past 250 years, and that will always be the case. Even under the superannuation system, we are still very heavily reliant upon foreign capital. The people who are against foreign investment are often city slickers, and they often fail to recognise that a large part of the major foreign investment that is required to deliver this transition will go into the regions. If you want to have offshore wind, pumped hydro and these new forms of energy generation—which, in many cases, involve heavy industry and high-paying jobs—you need a lot of money. So sending the right signals to the capital markets was always going to be an essential part of getting to net zero.

I'm very cognisant of the point that people make that if you close down coal you can't replace those jobs with the handful of people who work on a solar farm. That's a valid argument. If you want to have a plan for heavy industry jobs, it is going to be on things like offshore wind. I do think we should look at nuclear as well. I've never understood why we would take any form of technology off the table. There is way too much ideology in this area.

As a person who has tried to focus their public contributions on economic policy, I would say that this is a major economic policy opportunity for the country, but it's also a huge risk if we get it wrong. Global capital markets, for better or worse, have made up their minds on a lot of these key questions, and we need to make sure that this is a sensible transition. We don't know how successful hydrogen will be, but we do need to put as much time and energy into this as we can.

The other point I want to make is that I don't believe in overly bureaucratic measures. I don't think that putting all this into legislation is the right answer. I don't think we should be outsourcing these judgements to bureaucrats, just as I don't think we should be outsourcing our judgements to the Reserve Bank. We are in a situation where there is too much independence that is centred outside of the elected parliament. Ultimately, parliaments and governments are responsible for these judgements and should stand up and seek election or seek re-election on that basis. So, I don't support legislating things and creating new bureaucracies in this space. What we have put out is a reasonable plan, and it is a plan that will most heavily benefit the regions, which is where the main pain points will be.