Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to return to the amendment moved by Senator Waters in this debate. It's a simple amendment seeking to change the emissions targets under this bill. My understanding of this amendment is it would change the 43 per cent target by 2030 to at least 75 per cent by 2030 and also substitute a net-zero target with what is termed here a negative emissions target. My primary question to the Greens, on whose behalf I believe Senator Waters moved this, is: are these increased obligations on Australian businesses and industry matched with reductions that would occur overseas in other countries? Would other countries be expected to match the increased emissions reductions we would take in just the next eight years before we take the same reductions in our industries?

It's an extremely pertinent question, given what is happening around the world right now and particularly what has happened since the Glasgow conference only last November. Less than a year ago all the rich and well-to-do members of our global society flew on private jets to Glasgow and the surrounds. In fact, the Glasgow Airport was too congested; they had to go to other airports close by. There were that many private jets. There was a flotilla of private jets flying into Scotland. Not since the Spanish Armada had the British Isles been attacked in this way! They flew in and they made all these commitments. We were all told coal is dead and what have you. Less than a year later, European governments are now subsidising follow fuels.

Yesterday, the new Prime Minister of the United Kingdom announced massive subsidies to people using electricity which comes from gas and coal in the United Kingdom. That's less than a year later, from the German Greens party. May I remind the Australian Greens of this? They don't talk much about this. I used to hear the Australian Greens talk a lot about the German Greens, because I believe their party kind of started in Germany. That's where the first Greens party came from, and I suppose they're just following the German Greens. Soon we can look forward to the Australian Greens reopening coal-fired power stations in this country! But they got their start in Germany. They often mentioned that, but they don't mention them much anymore. They're very silent about their colleagues there on the east side of the Rhine. There, in Germany, the Greens have opened up—or they are opening up; they're in government—21 coal fired power stations right now.

My question to the Greens is: is this policy going to make sure it's mandatory that our businesses shut down and reduce their emissions by 75 per cent by 2030 while we sit back and—not even criticise—just let the German government open up coal fired power stations to keep their petrochemical industries and refineries and smelters going? Is that the plan? How would this plan, which seems unbelievably unfair to Australians and to Australian businesses, in any way help the environment? I think that's what we're all here for or what we're debating here—to apparently reduce emissions to protect the environment. That's the objective of this bill. The objective of this bill is to help reduce the impacts of global climate change and make our contribution in that way. How would adding on this extra burden to Australian businesses, in the context of Europe reopening coal-fired power stations—Italy said only last night that they're reopening coal-fired power stations; Europe is going in the other direction—in any way affect the climate at all, even one iota? And why would we do that to our own businesses and industry?

I do give the Greens some leeway here in that at least the United Kingdom government have themselves committed to, I believe, a 68 per cent reduction of emissions or something of that level. Sorry; it's a 78 per cent reduction in emissions by 2035—so it's a little bit later. That's similar to what the Greens are suggesting here. As I say, the United Kingdom are doing nothing to get towards that. They're fracking again and opening up the North Sea et cetera. But that's their target, like the Greens' target of 75 per cent. It's not far off that, albeit five years earlier.

My second question to the Greens is: what analysis have you done of the impacts of the United Kingdom's 78 per cent target on their own economy, their own business and their own cost structure? A slow-moving disaster is unfolding in the United Kingdom at the moment, at least in part due to their naive and ill-thought-through commitments to net zero emissions and, in this case, particularly, a 78 per cent reduction by 2035. Because of those commitments that they have made in the last few years, the United Kingdom had said no to fracking. They banned fracking right across the British Isles. Because of those commitments, they had refused to release and license new gas exploration areas in the North Sea, which has been for decades the United Kingdom's means of gas and oil access. Because of all those commitments, they have left themselves in a position where they are vulnerable to the aggression of a Russian dictator, and they are now having to take desperate measures just so people can heat their homes over what are brutal winters in the Northern Hemisphere.

It is an unbelievable situation when, months away from winter beginning, a developed country cannot guarantee that people will be able to stay warm. At this stage, unless something changes, it is not too dramatic to say that people will almost inevitably die over the European winter, unnecessarily, because of the failed, naive climate change policies that have put Europe in this mess. That is exactly what's happened. They have refused to take sensible decisions to develop their own resources and allow their countries access to reasonable amounts of energy, and now they're in this position where there are not many options available for the United Kingdom.

The new prime minister, Prime Minister Truss, has already announced that she will cap electricity bills. While that may provide some temporary relief for British residents, it is going to create a whole lot of other problems that have not even been considered yet, No. 1 being cost. The projected cost of this price-capping scheme is estimated at 130 billion pounds—a quarter of a billion Australia dollars—just this winter or this coming year. To put that in context, the United Kingdom's pandemic response—their JobKeeper scheme, which they termed a furlough scheme—'only' cost the British taxpayer $53 billion. The costs of net zero are approaching, and probably will exceed, three times the cost of the pandemic response in the United Kingdom. Has there ever been a more costly, more failed policy than net zero emissions? It is failing and failing so quickly. It's only been a few years since we even heard the term 'net zero emissions'. It was kind of invented over the last decade by some corporate types associated with Richard Branson. It didn't come from the grassroots or any public uprising. It was a corporate plan. Over the last decade, over these 10 years, it has led to utter bankruptcy for what were once proud developed countries. The Australian Greens are saying, 'Let's do that.' Through these amendments, the Australian Greens are saying: 'What's happening over there in the United Kingdom with their 78 per cent target looks fantastic. It looks really, really good. Let's do that here!'

Shouldn't we pause here? We should just pause and not go further down this track, which is clearly inflicting enormous pain on the British taxpayer. It is unclear yet how this will actually flow through in the European winter. The United Kingdom government is destroying the price mechanism, which is trying to ration demand given that there's not enough energy. Now they'll destroy that link, and the people won't reduce their power demand because prices won't go up as high. They still will not have enough energy, so it's very unclear what will happen now, whether there'll be blackouts or whether there will have to be mandatory government type restrictions. Indeed, the President of the European Union, Ursula von der Leyen, said last night that they may have to have 'mandatory controls' on energy use, in her words, 'to flatten the curve'. Where have we heard that before?

It will only be two weeks, Senator Rennick. It'll only be two weeks. Don't worry about it—we're all in this together! Well, I don't think we should go in this together with the United Kingdom. I think the Greens need to explain to this parliament why we are adopting the same targets that have failed in the United Kingdom and will potentially inflict the same pain on Australians that is happening to the British people right now. (Time expired)