Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Hansard source

The motion moved referred to all answers to coalition questions, but I intend to focus on the answer to the question by Senator McKenzie to Senator Ayres and the one from Senator McDonald to Senator Ayres. The question asked by Senator McKenzie related to subsequent potential costs for negotiating the next round of COP. Can I put on record that I fully support the government's bid to bring COP to Adelaide. I think Adelaide would have been a magnificent setting. I don't think I can be accused of any bias in relation to that! The minister said that it's in the interests of all Australians for the climate negotiations to be successful. I agree with the minister on that proposition. He also said it's important that all Australians be represented—I actually agree with him—and also Australian farmers. They're especially important, and I agree with him on that one. I'm giving him high marks for the answer.

A government senator: You're on the wrong side of the chamber!

Maybe it's the wrong topic! Importantly, the minister raised the importance of the Pacific. I fully endorse any initiative to facilitate the voices of the Pacific into climate negotiations. I have spent much of my life building relationships with the Pacific. They are small nations. We are well resourced. It is important, from an ethical and moral perspective, that we assist our neighbours in every way.

He did have a slight crack at Mr Dutton, but Mr Dutton held to the net zero target. We must give credit where credit is due. It's only recent events that have taken us off the narrow path and onto the broader path. The minister did say that costs will be determined in the usual way, and I imagine that at this stage they are being budgeted for.

Let me come to the question by Senator McDonald, which was trying to tie electricity prices to net zero. I have a quote here—we all know I like my quotes—from Mr Matt Keane, chair of the Climate Change Authority. This is one that I go to regularly:

As an emissions-intensive, advanced economy that is extremely vulnerable to climate change, Australia has a clear national interest and responsibility to signal that we are willing and able to support the greatest possible emissions reductions.

There are various analyses and forecasts in relation to electricity prices, and it is complicated. The minister did imply—somewhat unkindly—that there was insufficient investment prior to the ascendancy of the Labor Party to the treasury benches. But there are more sensible analyses, and I have one here, from the Clean Energy Council:

Our modelling confirms that continuing to deploy renewable energy will keep wholesale electricity prices as low as possible. Clean energy not only works for Australia but it's the cheapest path forward for our electricity bills.

I agree with that. Electricity prices are often reliant on the gas price. They are affected by capital investment over long periods of time. So I don't necessarily believe in the nexus. I don't wish to inflate the ego of Senator Ayres, but I did take his point. This is a good day for Senator Ayres. But he also mentioned the Australian Industry Group. There are some conflicting and contrarian views in relation to that. My view, and I've expressed this publicly and in this place, is that unless you have a long-term target you cannot expect capital investment in infrastructure to deliver to our energy needs, and you can't do it on a rolling five-year time frame.

I suppose I come to this place with a disability, having worked in the financial markets. Billions of dollars will need to be spent. We are transitioning our economy. It will be difficult. But, unless we do so, we will not be able to reduce our emissions sufficiently. One thing that's left out by those who assert that we shouldn't have a net zero target is pollution and emissions, and they should be included.