Rowan Holzberger (Forde, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I notice that the member for Groom has moved his motion and now has left the chamber, but, while I'm sure he's gone back to his room to follow this debate closely, it would have been nice to be able to address some of the things directly—through you, Deputy Speaker Buchholz—to him.

There were so many things in his speech that it's difficult to know where to start. He talked about there being a lack of industrial complex in this country, but he didn't look at the past, and it's amazing that anybody from that side can stand up here and talk about our de-industrialisation—which occurred under decades of rule of people from that side. But the member for Groom must have been very pleased with his candidate in the ever-continuing leadership race within the Liberal-National coalition, the member for Canning, talking on Insiders yesterday about how this is not the time to make a last stand for neo-liberalism in Australia. I'm sure that the member for Groom was very pleased with that statement and with that interview. But it does ignore the fact that, at the moment, his leader, the Leader of the Opposition, and the shadow treasurer are the two warriors in this place for neo-liberalism. So I think the member for Canning and the member for the Groom would be rightly concerned that those two are wanting to make the last stand for neo-liberalism, because it is very much that approach that has left us in the situation we're in today. That approach saw four out of our six refineries close under them, and this nation would dearly love to have them at the moment. It is very much the former government's complete abnegation of a role in the energy transformation within Australia and its complete lack involvement in the development of those key assets that have landed us in this situation we're in today.

When you look at what they want to do and you hear the member for Groom sneer at the role of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, it really does, I think, indicate something. What I don't understand about the opposition is that it's a bit like one of those optical illusions. The opposition are trying to tell you that the lines aren't actually parallel, but the lines really are parallel when you take a look at it. Sometimes it can be so convincing that I just don't really know what they're getting at. Why would they want to get rid of the home battery scheme? They are so convincing, but, when you look at what they're trying to say, it just doesn't make any sense. They're just coming from this ideological position that somehow renewable energy has to be bad. Why would they get rid of the home battery scheme when it has resulted in 200,000 Australians now being able to basically take themselves off the grid? I don't get it. It is this approach, which they took through their time in government, that has meant that we have ended up in this situation we're in today.

I wish I had a bit longer to talk about a lot of the good things that this government is doing. I was listening to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy yesterday when he was talking about what we've got here. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy said:

Firstly, Australia now has 39 days of petrol, 1.6 billion litres, which is up very slightly. Diesel, 30 days, which is pretty flat at 2.7 billion litres. And jet fuel, 30 days also, 828 million litres. What that tells me is that while the fuel is flowing strongly out the door, especially to regional Australia, it also continues to flow in the door, that every expected arrival has arrived and that our international supply chain remains secure at this point, as we've said all the way along. That's important to reassure Australians.

Instead of trying to reassure Australians, the opposition is more determined to make a political point and prove its ideological point than it is to actually look after the economy and look after the people of Australia. I think they should really take a bit of a hard look at themselves before they criticise the government any further.

See this speech in context