Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The member for Lindsay is not a rookie at all. That's not a very nice comment there from the member sitting at the dispatch box. The member at the dispatch box should not make that inference about the member for Lindsay. I know she's trying her best, but you should not call her a rookie. I'm sure the member for Lindsay supports this airport, because she knows about the jobs that it will create in her local electorate and for her constituents. Construction of the airport will add a $3.6 billion infrastructure package and an estimated 8,000 new jobs. I see the two members sitting on the opposite side. A lot of those jobs will be for constituents in your electorates. I am very happy. They should be here supporting this bill 100 per cent, but instead we still hear this ranting and raving, this antibusiness rhetoric that we continually hear, this continual opposition for opposition's sake.

However, as we get on to the construction of a new airport in Western Sydney, there is one concern that I would like to raise. This goes to our commitment under the Paris climate control agreement. Under that, we have to reduce our carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by 26 to 28 per cent off 2005 levels by the year 2030. One of the largest emissions sectors of our economy is transport. We know that by 2020 the transport sector will make up something like 18 per cent of our nation's CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions. Of that 18 per cent, according to a paper here on Australia's greenhouse emissions projections for 2017 by the Department of the Environment and Energy, Australia's domestic aviation emissions in 2020 will be nine million tonnes of CO2 equivalent, but by 2030 it will have increased to 12 million tonnes. So we're looking at a 30 per cent increase in the carbon emissions from our domestic aviation, yet under the Paris agreement that we have there has to be a 26 to 28 per cent reduction, not off 2020 levels but off 2005 levels. So, just on rough back-of-the-envelope calculations, if we are going to have every sector do its so-called share in that 26 to 28 per cent reduction, I see that from where we are today, rather than having an increase of a third in our domestic aviation emissions with more flights, more people travelling and more overseas tourists, we're going to have to have something like a 40 per cent decrease.

This is where it gets interesting, because the policy of the mob on the other side, under the Paris agreement, is to have a 45 per cent reduction in emissions. So I put the challenge to those who sit on that side of the chamber: can you tell me what emissions reductions you want in our domestic aviation sector? What do you want?

Opposition members interjecting—

We just heard it there. The opposition want to prevent Australians from travelling. That's what they want to do. They want to prevent Australians from travelling, one of the greatest rights that we have. One of the greatest improvements that we've had is that Australians can travel and visit other areas of our nation, with all the tourism jobs that come with it. The opposition want a 45 per cent reduction. Not only would they be happy to close down our new airport in Western Sydney; but they would have to close down a lot of the internal flights around this nation to meet their absurd, economy-wrecking, job-destroying emissions reductions. It's very timely that the shadow assistant minister for climate change has come into the chamber, because he may be able to inform us what Labor's plan is to reduce emissions in the domestic aviation sector.

We've recently seen a lot of debate in the UK on Heathrow Airport saying they are having a new third runway. Is it any wonder? As we look around the world, they're talking about the number of passengers on international flights being set to double between now and 2030 or 2040. But an interesting comment in the debate on Heathrow was from a gentleman called Leo Murray, director of the campaign group Fellow Travellers. He said:

If Britain moves to a net zero 2050 target to honour the Paris agreement, all domestic flights will need to end pretty much immediately.

I would like to know this: is that the policy of the Australian Labor Party? Do they want more or fewer Australians to fly domestically? The Australian Labor Party want to have a policy of a 45 per cent emissions reduction target over and above what we already have. And we should remember that our Paris target is already, per capita, the most onerous in the world.

See this speech in context