Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Watt did indeed broadly range over a number of matters during his contribution to the debate, but did try and connect them in some way to Senator Gallagher's question of Senator Birmingham. At the outset, can I say that there is no greater champion for regional Queensland than Senator Matt Canavan. He is recognised in Central Queensland by the people who live there, by the people who voted at the last federal election, as a champion for that region, for those businesses and for those jobs. That's why he's in the position he's in today, and it is absolutely no surprise whatsoever to me that Senator Canavan is advocating for the region and advocating for the livelihoods of those Queenslanders who he stands up for every single day. That's what Senator Canavan does, that's what we expect him to do and that's what the people of Queensland voted for him to do, and what they will vote for him to do again come the next federal election.

We've got to look at some facts in this debate around climate change and net zero. The fact of the matter is that Australia's emissions are at their lowest level since 1990. Emissions in Australia in 2020 were more than 20 per cent lower than in 2005, which is the benchmark baseline under the Paris Agreement. Since 2005, we have reduced our emissions faster than Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the USA. We're on track to beat our 2030 Paris target of reducing emissions by 26 to 28 per cent. On a per person basis, that's a reduction of 48 to 49 per cent. And we've done that on the basis of a policy that is technology not taxes. That is the pathway forward. That's the responsible pathway forward for the Australian government and for the Australian economy—technology not taxes.

You will not see this government adopt an overly ambitious, reckless plan—reckless target, I should say, without a plan—for 2030 that will cost jobs in our regions, that will decimate our regions. You will not see that coming from this side of the chamber. One of the reasons you won't see that coming from this side of the chamber is people like Senator Matt Canavan and the National Party, representing their constituents in regional Australia. What you will see is a reasonable, proportionate response to the realities of the world. That's what you will see: reasonable and proportionate.

There is no doubt that the world is changing in terms of its demand for its energy sources, so it's absolutely fit and proper that the government prudently and soberly consider a long-term plan in relation to net emissions. As part of that plan, you only have to look at our technology road map to see what needs to be part and parcel of it. It includes appropriate investment in industries such as the hydrogen industry—blue hydrogen, green hydrogen. We have to work with our trading partners, and there are great Japanese and Korean partners who we have been engaging with—today, yesterday, over the past 12 months—who have been engaging with great Australian companies in relation to hydrogen investment in this country, and that's the pathway where we can achieve milestones in the longer term in a prudent fashion. At the same time, our coal industry, where we produce some of the best quality thermal coal in the world, will continue to supply coal-power plants in our region. At the same time, our gas industry—the Gladstone LNG project and other great gas projects—will continue to provide energy sources to the world, continue to do that effectively based on the efforts, the enterprise of great Queenslanders and great Queensland companies.

We are having a debate on this side of the chamber, and the National Party is an important part of that debate—as are all of the views and considerations put forward by members of the Liberal Party. They will be considered soberly, and, at the end of that process, we'll have a reasoned, proportionate plan tied to a target. It won't be a reckless proposal that will hurt regional Queensland and hurt regional Australia. It will be considered, and it will be based on technology advances not taxes. Technology not taxes. (Time expired)