Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Hansard source

Exactly, and I'll come to that, Member for Moreton. So there's been a 20 per cent reduction since 2005—14 per cent by Labor; six per cent by the Liberal-National party, and yet they brag about that. But, when you break down their six per cent, how do they get to the six per cent? Guess how much of the six per cent came from Labor's Renewable Energy Target that they've tried to abolish time after time? In fact, the member for Hume, the minister, got preselected and then elected to his seat on an anti-wind-farm, anti-RET agenda. So, of their six per cent, guess how much came from Labor's Renewable Energy Target? It's five point seven percentage points—5.7 percentage points. And guess where the rest came from? The rest came from the first recession in 30 years, last year—the one that the minister was bragging about because it took cars off the road. He was actually using it as a bragging point! So, of their six per cent, 5.7 percentage points were from Labor's RET and the rest were from dropping us into a recession. I can't believe this minister can look at himself in the mirror, quite frankly, let alone come into this chamber and make the claims that he's about to make.

Their second claim will be that, in 2020, emissions under them were 100 million tonnes lower than they were under Labor. The truth is that, in 2013, emissions in 2020 were projected to be 656 million tonnes. The actual outcome was 499 million tonnes. So, on the face of it, the minister can make that claim. But those projections were revised down every year, basically, of the last decade—in 2016, 559 million; in 2017, 551 million; in 2018, 540 million; in 2019, 534 million. What caused these reductions in the projections of how much our economy would emit? Was it their strong action on climate change? Was it their stable and consistent energy policy? No. The government's own documents say these downward emissions projections were caused by the impact of the drought on the farming sector, by the decline of manufacturing emissions—because they closed the automotive industry—and by Labor's RET. So the three reasons emissions were 100 million tonnes lower are that there was a drought; they killed the car industry, destroying 50,000 jobs; and Labor's RET. That's the truth about all the numbers that the minister for emissions will throw at us in this debate.

The third claim—and the most offensive one, quite frankly, because the rest is history—and the worst one is that they will meet and beat their 28 per cent reduction target by 2030. Well, their own documents contradict that. Their own documents predict that, by 2030, emissions will only be 23 per cent lower than in 2005—only 23 per cent. So their own documents are surrender documents. Their own documents surrender and say they will not meet the target. The worst will be the 'technology, not taxes' line from the minister. Minister, unless you've got a money tree, the only way you promote technology is by creating incentives and subsidies. To pay for it, the government has to do what? It has to use taxes.

This is a government that is totally bereft on climate change. This is a government that is betraying not only future generations but the current generation by denying us the economic opportunities that are associated with taking strong action on climate change. Those on this side of the parliament, the Labor side, are committed to net zero emissions by 2050. We'll have strong medium-term policies announced before the next election and, more importantly, we've got a track record, when in government, of taking action on climate change, seizing the economic opportunities that go with it and not betraying future generations like those on the opposite side. They talk about family values, but they're undermining the Australian family as we speak.

See this speech in context