Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

As usual, here we are, with the Greens making grandiose demands that are grounded nowhere in reality. They continue to think we can simply write blank cheques on these sorts of things and, problem solved, with little to no regard for the lives and livelihoods impacted in the construction of their utopia. You don't think all of us in this place wouldn't love to throw money at other problems in society and watch them vanish? But that's not how it works. We don't live in an imaginary world of unicorns. Money doesn't grow on trees.

But, as usual, this bill isn't about helping the environment. It's about the Greens continuing their ideological vendetta against coal and gas companies in this country. They still do not understand that those baseload forms of energy are what keep prices down, with ample supply, and have helped Australia benefit economically. Not only that, but these forms of energy have helped people globally. In fact, Kerry Chikarovski, the former leader of the opposition in New South Wales, was on the ABC back in August, when we were last debating this bill, talking about the millions of people who have been lifted out of poverty as a result of cleaner Australian coal in India—regional centres receiving power for the first time, places that don't have the means to invest and build renewables. And it was as if she'd said a swear word, because everyone at the ABC had their fingers in their ears, changing the subject.

This is the real inconvenient truth. They don't want to talk about these realities, like the sovereign risk posed by interconnectors on our renewable infrastructure or the forced Uighur labour in China involved in the construction of solar panels, or that moving too aggressively to shut out coal and gas without nuclear will mean that prices will skyrocket and blackouts will increase—especially when at present we can't keep up with the 22,000 solar panels we need to be building daily to meet the government's aggressive targets. Go and build them in the regions in arable farmland, because people need to stop eating the methane-emitting cows anyway! Bugs are the new beef!

The UK is changing its tune on its own new targets. Germany has been forced to open coal again. And these are countries with clean and green nuclear. But we can't even have this discussion, because it's ideology over reality every day of the week. Passage of this bill would require the environment minister to intervene, to halt activities or limit or curtail many, many forms of industrial activity in Australia. It would disrupt projects that lead to vital economic activity, job creation and wealth generation.

As was the case with a similar bill they brought into the parliament in 2020, the Greens have failed to specify the financial or regulatory impacts of this legislation. So, just let me sum it up for you: it would be bad. Passage of the bill would give rise to even more environmental assessment and approval processes that already exist. And that's the point. The Greens would have you believe that opposition MPs and senators are walking around looking for ways to destroy the environment. But I can assure you, I'm not driving my car up onto the kerb to take out shrubs on the way to the office each morning—and in fact it's an EV, so, if I did, would there be a net offset in emissions lost and shrubs destroyed? I'm not out there clubbing koalas that are in my trees on my property. We'll leave the clearing of koalas to you whilst you push forward with this Rewiring the Nation.

Many businesses are already forced to spend months, if not years, navigating and meeting the exacting green-tape and compliance requirements associated with these processes, and this new legislation would only exacerbate these problems. There are already coal and gas projects that for years have jump through hoops to meet environmental requirements. Then, when they do, they're told that's not good enough. So is this simply a political vendetta?

In the late nineties and early 2000s, the Howard government actually considered the potential merit of a greenhouse or climate trigger as a way of improving the scale and pace of emissions reductions in Australia. However, it ultimately decided that there were already other, and better, policies, laws, strategies and programs in place to achieve these objectives. The nineties, however, was probably the last time the greenies and activists seemed reasonable. They hugged trees and told us to save the whales. Now they glue themselves to streets and throw soup at paintings made by dead guys who didn't even know what climate change was. You're sure showing them!

This is precisely the problem. You're upset at the world because it won't meet your demands—the ones that you know are best for everyone, because you seem to know better than everybody else. If only they could see that you're doing it for their own good! And if they won't listen to your requests, then we can make them listen to your demands. How very colonial of you! You're enforcing a way of life that you believe is better for the rest of us against our will because we'll thank you later, right? Perhaps you're all just victims of subconscious and systematic biases, built into the system by the patriarchy. I thought you were all so impervious to this and the rest of us sheep were the problem. Doesn't it just scream First World entitlement? Doesn't it reek of superiority complex? The rank hypocrisy is astounding.

As I've said in this place many times, if the Greens didn't have double standards, they'd have none at all. No matter. The coalition has a strong and proud record of emissions reductions in Australia—a practical one based on reality. During our time in government between 2013 and 2022, for instance, Australia's emissions were reduced to a level 20 per cent lower than they were in 2005, which is the baseline for the Paris Agreement. That was a performance superior to that of any year under the Rudd and Gillard governments and left Australia's emissions over 100 million tonnes lower than they would have been under Labor's own projections about the proposed impact of its carbon tax. At the time we left office in 2022, we were on track to meet and beat our 2030 Paris target, with projections showing a 30 to 35 per cent reduction.

Between 2005 and 2019, Australia reduced its emissions more quickly than did Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the United States. Australia has a strong record of meeting its targets, having beaten its 2020 Kyoto target by 459 million tonnes. The coalition's technology driven Long-Term Emissions Reductions Plan also set out a credible pathway to net zero by 2050 while preserving our existing industries, establishing Australia as a leader in low-emissions technologies and positioning our region to prosper. Being technology agnostic is still the way forward. Invest and any and all technologies that allow you to reduce your CO2 emissions without erasing industries. This means you meet your targets and your economy doesn't suffer. But, again, while we sit here punishing ourselves as some sort of climate penance, we look at the largest emitter, China, which is continually absolved of its emission sins—a country whose emissions make our reductions obsolete.

But I want to reiterate to the Greens that we're not trying to blow up the planet. We are committed to reducing emissions; we just have to do it in a way that brings everyone with us. You would have us destroy everything for this patch of paradise you envisage so that the privileged few could enjoy heaven on earth. You claim to fight for the immigrant, the poverty stricken and the minority, but these are the very people you would destroy in your pursuits. When there isn't enough energy to go around, when the cost of living continues to explode out of control, when inflation is rampant, who do you think suffers first? It's those most vulnerable people. If you really cared, you would put them first instead of your own interest, instead of your own ego.

The coalition believe we can have our cake and eat it too. We've proven that. There is a way to reduce emissions without destroying ourselves in the process. But, as I've said, if we don't deal with the largest emitters, given it's a global issue, as you and the UN keep pointing out, then it seems to make no sense at all that we aren't all up in arms about those emissions. Their reductions alone would have the most significant impact on the climate to date.

To finish up, I want to put a call out to all those climate activists. Instead of doing the easy stuff—chaining yourself to the steering wheel of your car on the freeway or throwing soup at art to demand climate action from a country that has been taking climate action for years—I'd like to suggest we get a GoFundMe together. Perhaps some of the Greens senators will lead the charge. We'll start a grassroots campaign to send you to China, where you can make demands of a real high emitter to help save the planet. In fact, in a spirit of generosity and cooperation, I'll chip in the first five bucks. I'm sure some of my colleagues will be willing to contribute. Any takers? Where is St Greta? Get her out of hibernation. Send her to the front lines. Do your bit for the planet, guys. But you won't, because you're all semantics and no substance, all about the virtue signal. As long as you all feel good about yourselves and empowered at the end of the day, you can all smile and pass your problems on to your kids, feeling content that you did your bit. That's what really matters in the end, isn't it—how you feel? Suffice to say, I don't think we'll be supporting this one.