Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm sure you do! We participated in the inquiry, and there were a couple of days of hearings. I persistently tried to get answers on this key question of the cost. I think it was the Business Council which referred to the work of Alan Finkel, who estimated that it's going to cost about $1 trillion to transform the electricity sector. But we don't have any good analysis in the government or the private economy of the overall cost estimates over the long-term. As an importer of capital, as Australia has been over the last 250 years, I would have thought that we should try to get those answers. I think it is something that we should pursue.

I was surprised that more work had not been done by the Treasury and by the line department on this matter of the cost. I think it means that the bill is genuinely unsupported by a broad evidence base, and I have concluded that, in the absence of being able to ascertain the cost, the things that really matter here will be the signals that we send to the market—recognising that, whatever the cost may be, I think we can all agree that this country does not have enough capital to fund the transition ourselves. Those who have bandied around the idea of using other pools of capital for this purpose—like the superannuation scheme, for example—are, I think, very wrongheaded. The day that that scheme starts to pursue non-financial objectives is the day that it will be on the road to ruin. So, setting aside the major domestic pools of capital, we are going to have to seek funding from offshore to fund these major capital investments in this transition to net zero.

There are two things about this issue that I think are really important in the debate on this bill: What are the policies of the parties of government? And what are the policies that those parties of government will take to market? I think we have had some significant developments in recent months. And I very much welcome, as a member of one of the parties of government, that the leader of my party, Mr Dutton, said on 11 August, in relation to the 2030 targets—which is a large part of this debate—that our target 'is likely to come in well north of 35 per cent, maybe 40 per cent-plus' and that we'll 'have a very credible policy, I can promise you, by the time of the next election'. Now, that is a significant statement, and it is a statement that, from the coalition's point of view, puts an end to the 2015 targets, at 26 to 28 per cent reductions in carbon emissions, that we have had for too long, in my view. Those targets should have been updated to reflect what is now possible. Even our own modelling in the last parliament showed that it was possible to exceed 26 to 28.

In relation to this, the Business Council of Australia said that they think bipartisanship is very important and that they are very supportive of both major parties coming to the net zero position. The BCA said to the committee that they would be strongly supportive of a more ambitious coalition target. I look forward to playing my role—because you've got to focus on what you can control—of helping the party of government, with the coalition, to have the best possible plan that we can have for 2030 and 2035. That is something that is within our preserve, and I think a significant change has been achieved in the past few months: that we have put an end to the Abbott-era 2030 targets. So, I look forward to that process over the next couple of years.

The second issue is about the policies. Again, I like to say that it's important to focus on the outcomes, not on the embroidery. There are many policies that can be deployed in this space to get emissions down. You can look at the fuel standards. You can look at your tax policies, You can look at your corporate law. You can look at how you might require companies to disclose their emissions. You can look at how emerging technologies like cryptocurrencies can tokenise the carbon credit system and how that can be used. There are so many opportunities in this space that draw on Australia's core equities of being a sophisticated, high-wage economy.

One of the things we have done in the past few weeks is that we have been able to examine another bill, which has looked at the tax arrangements on electric vehicles, and there is no doubt that how that bill has been drafted is a very muddled approach. That has been cherrypicked out of a National Electric Vehicle Strategy, which prior speakers in this debate have referred to. It is important that we think carefully about these policies, that we cost them and work out, 'Okay, if we're going to have this particular measure, this is how much carbon abatement we're going to achieve.' I think that is very important.

In relation to corporate law—and, again, I think that as a safe and strong jurisdiction, as an open democracy with the rule of law and as a member of the G20 group of nations—we should be looking to be a leader on carbon disclosure. We shouldn't be looking to do it through self-regulation. We shouldn't be asking the Corporate Governance Council to put out a note. We should be looking to pass laws in the life of this parliament to ensure that Australia is going to have an aggressive but measured approach on carbon disclosure. I believe that the countries that have the most transparency on these issues are more likely to be able to attract marginal capital. If you are an investor, if you are an international investor—whether you're BlackRock or you're a smaller investor—if you can look into an organisation and make a judgement about their risk profile by looking at their scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions, then I think you're more likely to invest into that nation than into another nation. And as a nation that has often exported corporate law, we should be looking to do that again.

I note that some in this place like to junk all fossil fuels in together, but that ignores the statements of the scientists. Whether it's Finkel or whether it's our own institutions or whether it's Larry Fink at BlackRock, which is the world's biggest investor—I want to make the point that everyone who is credible and serious identifies gas as a necessary transition fuel, so we should not be conceding on gas. I'm pleased that the coalition is pushing this government on gas and building on our record in government where we had some important initiatives in this space.

Of course, the same goes for nuclear. There's no reason that we would have an ideological position that would preclude the country from using this particular form of technology, particularly when you consider the large deposits of uranium we have in this country. We will be well served to remove the obstacles for using nuclear. I mean, it seems to be a bizarre position that if the market wanted to use this particular formula of energy production, it would be prohibited because of an ideological position that was put in place decades ago. So I do think this body of work that has been done by the environment and communications committee has made a very persuasive case for the removal of the nuclear prohibition, and I look forward to the work that is going to be done for the Leader of the Opposition on this matter.

In summary—look, it is not true that the majority position of the G20 countries is to legislate a target. The Parliamentary Library itself has said that 12 of the 20 countries have not legislated a target. Having said that, I don't think it's necessarily the end of the world if you do it. The point I've made in these remarks is that the key legislative component here, even though it is international law, is done through the NDC, so whatever you do here is simply superfluous. If I was the minister for energy and climate change, or if I was a minister for any portfolio, I would not be describing my own legislation as 'not necessary'. Why would we, as a parliament, enact a bill that the minister has said is unnecessary. I don't think that's our job.

Finally, it is very important that we reflect on what we can control in these roles that we have been given, and I am very pleased that the coalition, as a party of government, is committing itself to having a more ambitious agenda for 2030. It is true that it was our government that committed the country to net zero emissions at 2050, which was one of the signature achievements of the last government. All that is left for us to do now, as a party of government, is to ensure that we have a credible position, one that is more aggressive than the 2015 targets, for 2030 and 2035 and all the other interceding years. That is something I look forward to working with my coalition colleagues on.

If we achieve that, we are sending a signal to the market that both of the parties of government are committed to emissions reduction and are committed to getting Australia where we need to get in the medium and long term, and we should do that in a way which is technology agnostic. I don't believe we should be throwing gas in with coal. I think they have fundamentally different characteristics, as referenced by the scientists and the major investors, and I also think that we should be very much open to this debate on nuclear energy for domestic purposes. It makes no sense that we would be the greatest exporter of uranium but have no view about using it for our own domestic purposes. They are important issues. I thank the Senate committee for their work on the bill, it was an important inquiry, and I thank the Senate for the opportunity to speak to this bill this afternoon.