Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Why is reliable energy so important to Australia's economy, and how does that compare to other approaches?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Jagajaga for the question, but also for the really important work that she does with the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in our team. The member for Jagajaga understands, even if those opposite do not, that the transition to cleaner, cheaper, more reliable energy is a golden economic opportunity for our country and for its people. That's because, as the ageing coal-fired power stations become less reliable and as they come out of the system, it's those two influences which are pushing up prices, and that's why an orderly transition, and considered investment in cleaner, cheaper, more reliable energy, is so important to our economy.

When we released our 2035 targets, we put out the detailed Treasury modelling at the same time, and the conclusions of that Treasury modelling were really clear. The conclusions were that clear and credible climate action will lead to more jobs, higher wages and better living standards. An orderly transition will give businesses the clarity and certainty they need to seize the opportunity and invest in Australia with confidence. It also concluded that a disorderly transition would mean fewer jobs, less investment, lower wages, lower living standards and higher power prices, in a smaller economy.

What the Treasury also concluded, when they released these three scenarios, is that the only thing worse than a disorderly transition would be to abandon net zero entirely, which is what those opposite are proposing to do.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer will pause. The member for Page has the MPI today. I do not want another word out of him; otherwise, we will not have the matter of public importance. I mean it. If you want a matter of public importance, it's simple: don't interject anymore, because I'll be left with no other choice. So everyone's crystal clear about what's going to happen? Great. The Treasurer has the call.

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What those opposite are contemplating represents economic insanity, pure and simple. If you look at the document that the Treasury put out with the modelling, they made the following points clear—and I'm quoting the Treasury: 'The economic costs to Australia of not pursuing net zero would be significant and consequential. Not pursuing net zero by 2050 risks lower economic growth, reduced investment, missed export and employment opportunities, and higher electricity prices. These outcomes would flow from several channels, including heightened policy uncertainty, increased borrowing costs on global markets, and the loss of potential new export markets.' These are important points. Theirs is a recipe for higher energy prices, lower wages, less investment, less reliable energy and fewer jobs in our economy, but we know, as the Prime Minister said, they are not really focused on the jobs of the Australian people; they're only focused on their own jobs. They are absolutely tearing themselves apart over net zero. They are divided. They are divisive. They are delusional. And that's why they're in disarray.

When it comes to this most important economic transformation, this side of the House will continue to work through the issues in a considered and methodical way, because our objective is to make the most of this crucial economic transition in our economy so that our people benefit.