Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Hansard source

It's very good to be able to speak on this important motion, because what the Leader of the Opposition has just outlined is his commitment to failure. He attacks, for instance, those people who say we should have an international treaty that includes the world's largest emitters. I am resolutely proud that I want China to be part of the global solution. I want the United States to be part of the global solution. Heck, I even want New Zealand to be part of the global solution. They all ran away from the Kyoto protocol. When it comes to the Leader of the Opposition, he takes more of a Donald Trump approach to engagement in international fora than this side of the chamber—a government which focuses clearly on how we bring the rest of the world to follow our leadership. That's what we saw yesterday, when, for the first time, Australia had, yes, a 2050 target as a nation. Yes, we then had a time frame for the delivery of that target of net zero. But, more critically, for the first time in Australian history we had a comprehensive plan on how we were going to achieve it. We are proud of that as a government because (1) we take our approach to climate change very seriously and (2) what we have understood at every point is that Australians want action on climate change but they don't want to lose their jobs. They don't want the government to burn down the village to save it, as the Australian Greens would have us do. They want to know the government is on their side, to work with business, industry and households to be part of the solution. That's why we've taken a balanced approach and, more critically, taken an Australian approach—the Australian way of reducing our greenhouse gas missions while also making sure we back Australians and their jobs.

I was only reminded of this yesterday. Late last night, I did an interview on BBC World, and in a particularly shrill and hostile interview—from the interviewer—they kept asking why I kept arguing for an Australian solution to this problem. Eventually I had to break it to her that they haven't factored in the affordability of energy as part of their plan and there are millions of people in northern Europe who are at risk of high energy prices, and that now, in the lead-up to winter, there's a very serious risk that northern Europeans will literally die in the tens of thousands because they have not got access to affordable energy—and that that is not our solution. That is not our approach.

But it is the approach of one group of people, which includes the Australian Labor Party, who are more interested in cutting emissions without any consideration of the consequences than this side of the chamber is. We're focused on what we need to do to build the future Australian economy, cut emissions and be part of taking responsibility through a global solution.

We heard this explicitly today from the independent member for Warringah, who moved a motion to bring forward her bill. What she said in that speech, I've got to say, was profoundly enlightening and extremely disturbing. She said explicitly that the objective of her motion was to introduce a bill that would take the decision-making away from duly elected representatives. I saw members on the other side of this chamber nodding along with the independent member for Warringah about that policy because what they want to do is introduce targets in legislation so they can empower bureaucrats to veto the decisions of this very parliament. It is not something that we are ever prepared to accept. We saw this before in the independent member for Warringah's bill that she introduced last year, which literally would have empowered the appointment of climate tsars to veto the decisions of this parliament. There is nothing more antidemocratic. And now the Labor Party want to do the same, because what they want is legislation that activists can use in the courts to override the decisions of this parliament—and we will not stand for it.

We want to make sure we deliver a solution for the Australian people. And what matters in this debate isn't intent; it's outcomes. Without a legislated target, this government hasn't just reached a 20.8 per cent emissions reduction on 2005 levels; more critically, the OECD average for emissions reduction over the same time frame is only seven per cent. So we're beating it by a factor of three. In the 130-page comprehensive plan we released yesterday, the updated projections show we'd reach a 35 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. At the same time the Labor Party hasn't even got a plan. Let's not even talk about when you're going to legislate. You don't even have one and you don't even have a target. How can you legislate air, nothing? You on the other side of the chamber have got nothing to offer. What we're doing is delivering that plan and making sure we cut emissions along the way.

This morning, in the motion where the independent member for Warringah wanted to introduce her democracy-attacking bill, the member for McMahon came up here and attacked the government for exactly the same reason the Leader of the Opposition did just moments ago. Now, we all remember the member for McMahon from the last election, when he managed to elevate himself to the pantheon of Labor greats for quotes—like Paul Keating, who said it was the 'recession we had to have'; like Kevin Rudd, who said climate change was the greatest moral challenge of our time, only weeks later abandoning his very commitment and his signature policy, such was his commitment; or, of course, like Julia Gillard, who said before an election, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead,' only to introduce one after she did a sneaky deal with the Greens to form a coalition government. And, before the last election, the member for McMahon was one of those Labor greats, and it will always go down in the history of quotes: 'You are perfectly entitled to vote against us if you don't agree with our policy.'

See this speech in context