Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to be seconding this motion moved by the member for Groom. Context counts. Right now, Australia is experiencing inflation that's almost out of control. The cost of living is biting hard in every household, but this government is not taking any action on it. Despite promising a $275 reduction in household power bills, power bills are skyrocketing. The budget forecast an increase of over 50 per cent in electricity next financial year. The government is taking no action on that. We have businesses screaming out, the Australian Workers Union is talking about 800,000 manufacturing jobs being at risk, we have businesses that might close their doors in this country because of skyrocketing energy prices and the budget suggests that there will be price increases of over 40 per cent in gas in the next financial year. The government is not acting on that. The budget shows that the economic modelling that underpins the entire energy policy suite of the government is flawed, yet the government is taking no action on that.

But there is something that the government is acting on. The government has decided that, in the midst of an energy crisis with all this pressure bearing down on Australian households and industries, now is the time to sign a global methane pledge. This is an opportunity to get on the world stage, to beat their chest and say that we are joining with other nations on a global pledge. The problem isn't just with the substance of what the government has agreed to but the fact that it is yet another broken promise. In opposition the now Prime Minister was very happy to stand alongside the coalition and refuse to sign the global pledge, agreeing with the coalition government that this pledge should not be signed. That was the government's position when in opposition, but now in their first six months in office they have added this broken promise to a long list of broken promises. This is nothing less than doing one thing in government that is very different from what you said in opposition. Those opposite know that, but they're very relaxed about it because there are just so many broken promises from this new government.

When it comes to the substance—this is the far more important point—we hear a lot of motherhood statements from those opposite, and I'm sure the government speakers to come will make them. It is speech after speech of motherhood statements. But what they cannot tell the Australian people, let alone those in the energy, resources and agriculture sectors, is how much this pledged commitment will cost and who will pay for it. That is typical of what we see from the government when it comes to climate and energy policy. They will agree to high-level targets without having done any homework whatsoever on how those targets will be achieved, how much it will cost to achieve them and who will pay for them. I welcome those on the government benches who will be speaking to outline the cost to Australia and how it is going to be paid for.

We already know that the government has an absolute disregard for the gas industry at a time when, despite a warning from the ACCC and a lot of other authoritative agencies that we need more gas, there is pressure on us having more gas poured into the system. We know that signing this methane pledge will only put more pressure on gas developers and generators, but the real heartburn for the Australian economy is to the agricultural sector, and to livestock in particular. No-one in government and no-one in industry can explain how this target will be achieved with the technology that exists today. It can't be done, yet they're happy to sign a pledge that somehow Australia will develop on it.

Industry is doing a great job, by the way, and the coalition backed them; that's why we put $18 million into ensuring that we were working with industry. But we are going to have no technology that can deliver on this methane reduction pledge. Do you know what that means? Those opposite, those in government, are wanting this to be delivered by changes in behaviour. They want people to eat less meat. They want the farmers to have fewer cattle in their herd. They should not be signing this pledge. They should not have broken their promise. But that's what the Labor government does. (Time expired)

See this speech in context