Jessica Collins (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate takes note of answers given to all coalition questions.

Wasn't that very, very telling today to see the response to our questions on net zero, to have the minister absolutely panicking about the questions we asked. Evidence that we put to him from the ANZ CEO, Mr Nuno Matos, that was put to the House of Representatives' economics committee—he called that dishonest. That was evidence given by somebody outside of this parliament to this parliament. That evidence was that some still believe that net zero by 2050 is possible, but I would say, at this point in time, it seems to be difficult to reach with the current dynamics, with the current technologies and with the current public stance in many parts of the world. He also said that net zero by 2050 could be the medicine that kills the patient. I don't know if anybody else in the chamber saw the news last week that found asbestos in the wind farms that were coming in from China. Perhaps just in that part he is absolutely right.

Industry just can't do it with the current technology, and it is time, as we saw this morning with the Defence awards tribunal bill, that this government again admits that it is wrong. We heard from the minister that the government's approach is to take the lowest cost approach. Senator Babet asked about the security risks and the sovereignty risks with having State Power Investment Corporation, which is owned by the Chinese Communist Party and governed by the Chinese national security law 2017. This means that all of its employees have to do what the CCP wishes with that business. That is a massive security risk. That goes outside out levels of scrutiny. We've heard of issues of malware and kill switches, yet the Labor government's approach is for the lowest cost which we have seen is absolutely not happening. The families are hurting, small businesses are hurting, and industry is hurting.

I also asked Minister Ayres about the 180 workers at Rio Tinto's alumina refinery that were sacked last week to align with the decarbonisation pathway. This is deindustrialisation. The minister said, 'My message to those workers is: work with your unions.' It is the government's fault that they are losing their jobs, and the government are driving them to grow the business in unions. It's outrageous—absolutely outrageous. He said, 'Work with the business and the federal government that backs you.' Well, that business is no longer going to be there. How can they talk to the business that can no longer survive because of Labor's net zero agenda? Of course, we all know that the federal government is not backing these workers, because they're sticking by this net zero agenda that is killing our industry.

Remember, behind every job that is lost is a family that is suffering. There are children that might not have enough money to buy their shoes to go to school or have their breakfast in the morning. Behind every job that is lost, there's a family that is suffering. What we see with the damaging Labor net zero agenda are higher bills, stagnating emissions and suffering families. That is the farce of all of this. Tomago, Glencore copper smelter—these are the other places that are suffering too. We heard from Orica CEO Mr Sanjeev Gandhi:

Industries like ours, who are hard to decarbonise, we are depending on technologies that are not yet commercial …

This is why, in the next decade, bills are only going to increase. It's because of the scale of the cost of this transition.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was an interesting contribution. I'm very happy to talk about net zero and about energy. I wanted to pick up a point that was just made in relation to jobs, that some families may not be able to afford to buy shoes for their kids to go to school—something we were very aware of over the 10 years that they were in government. It's interesting that, since they've been in opposition, it's only when it suits them that they actually think about families, the cost of living and how some children may not be able to have the shoes they need for school. They voted against tax cuts. They voted against the Housing Future Fund giving people and families the opportunity to put a secure roof over their heads. When we reduced the cost of medication and wanted to increase funding to Medicare—all of these issues are real issues that impact every single family—they voted against it.

But let's go back and compare what they did when they were in government. As I said earlier today in another contribution, they had 22 energy policies but couldn't land on one. And then, leading into the election before last, they wanted to talk about nuclear energy. The reality is that all of that was rejected by the Australian people. I want to contrast that to the infighting that's going on where you've got the minor member of their coalition, the Nationals, calling all the shots. Now the Liberals have walked away, so they have no credibility at all when it comes to net zero or addressing the urgency of climate change.

As someone who represents the great state of Tasmania, where we have been generating renewable energy for decades upon decades, for a century or more, we know the value that that brings to the economy in Tasmania. We're leading the way. That's where the investment is. That's where the cheaper energy is going to be. They keep coming in and talking about $275 that was committed. Well, this government has actually done more in terms of supporting families with their energy and power bills than any other government. There's a real contrast between what they talk about doing—and then never do—and our government, which is actually investing in renewable energy. The transition now to having batteries at home, to take advantage of solar energy, is fantastic. We know there are more and more families and households and businesses putting solar panels on their roofs. So that is a real contrast to those opposite.

The National Climate Risk Assessment makes it clear that our country has a lot at stake when it comes to acting on climate change, and that, while we can no longer avoid climate impact, every action that we take today will help in the future goal of net zero by 2050 and can help avoid the worst impacts on Australians. We already know that we are seeing, in my home state, the climate changing, and the impact that it is having on our industries: the waters are getting warmer; there's the threat to our berry industry and agriculture. It is shifting and it is changing. And, unlike those who would still like to be back in the Menzies days in the fifties, the reality is that we are about to go into 2026.

The leadership on this issue is always going to come from this side of the chamber, and that's why the Australian community, Australian voters, put their faith in us, because they want to see action, because they live with the change that's happening within our community. They want leadership on this issue; they don't want infighting. Every day we're looking at what else we can do to support Australian families and Australian workers, while those over there are looking at who is going to take Sussan Ley's job. They are infighting. You've got infighting within the Liberals on who is going to be the next leader. Will they leave Sussan there till Christmas?

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Senator—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Because, as we all know, this is the killing season—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Polley, resume your seat. Senator Polley, we address members of the other chamber by their correct title.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies. The Leader of the Opposition, Sussan Ley, is on a slow vote to defeat, sometime in the new year, because they won't do it now because they know how bad it would look for them to knock off their first ever female leader. Shame on them. (Time expired)

Dave Sharma (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We heard from those opposite boasting about real wages growth in question time today and the change in, the increase in, nominal wages. But what we have seen in Australia over these last three years is one of the largest declines in living standards in the developed world. Since 2022, across the OECD, across advanced economies around the world, living standards have increased by an average of five per cent; in Australia, they've gone backwards by seven per cent. So the OECD has gone ahead five per cent in the past three years; Australia has gone backwards by seven per cent. We have seen the economy, per person—real GDP per capita—go backwards in Australia for nine of the past 12 quarters as well.

If you take a look at the outlook using the RBA's own figures, things do not look positive. Firstly, we've got inflation coming in at 3.2 per cent in the September quarter—up significantly from 2.1 per cent in the June quarter—and that prompted the RBA to keep the cash rate on hold at its last board meeting in November, warning of the continued upside risk to inflation. In fact, most analysts and commentators now expect the RBA to hold rates and possibly the next move in rates to be up. So we are at the end of the interest lowering cycle. The RBA also expects headline inflation to increase to 3.7 per cent next year and to stay high across 2026, whilst it expects wage growth to be only three per cent. So if you've got inflation running at 3.7 per cent and you've got wages growing at three per cent, your real wages are going backwards—that's what the RBA expects to happen next year in 2026.

Of course, living standards aren't just the wages you take home; they also reflect the cost of goods you're purchasing and how much you're having to pay for things like rent, or housing, or mortgage repayments, and how much you're paying in tax. Let's look at each of those in turn.

An average Australian borrower at the moment is paying $1,800 more per month in interest on a mortgage because of the 12 interest rate rises that have happened under this Labor government. As I said before, there is no real prospect of further cuts in interest rates on the horizon, which means that those costs are going to be baked in.

People are paying more in tax. Personal income tax receipts are now the largest share of GDP since the GST was introduced a quarter of a century ago, and the Parliamentary Budget Office expects that income tax receipts will go from 12.7 per cent of GDP—already a record right now—up to 14.3 per cent in the next decade. If you look at the government's own budget forecast in the budget estimates, the entirety of the budget repair job—bearing in mind we have a decade of fiscal deficits—is being done by bracket creep. People are paying more income tax, going into higher tax brackets, which means they are underwriting more of government spending.

What have we got here? We've got government spending too high. We've got no productivity agenda. We've got the burden of red tape growing. We had an economic reform summit in August, which the Treasurer convened. Part of the commitment of that was to look at having less regulation across the Australian economy, but just today a report commissioned by the Australian Institute of Company Directors found that the cost of federal regulatory compliance has gone from $65 billion in 2013 to about $160 billion last year. That's an increase of $100 billion just in federal regulatory compliance—not state or other levels of government; it's federal regulatory compliance alone.

What do we have under this government? We have spending too high. Spending is the highest it has been in four decades, outside of the pandemic, at about 27 per cent of GDP. We have inflation remaining a threat. It was 3.2 per cent in the last quarter, and the Reserve Bank expects it to stay above three per cent next year. We have debt growing, forecast to hit $1 trillion in federal gross government debt this year—another record. We have prices going up. We have interest rates not coming down. We have productivity stagnant. We have living standards flat. We have income tax growing year on year, and we have the burden and complexity of red tape growing and growing. This is a recipe for continued decline in living standards for Australians, which means we will fall further behind other advanced nations, and Australians are less able to raise families and build a future. (Time expired)

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Sharma, I do believe we're meant to be taking note of coalition questions asked in question time. Senator O'Neill did ask a cracking question, and Senator Gallagher gave a cracking answer, so I guess I won't call a point of order on you this time. But I'm going to stick to the protocol and talk to the questions asked by the coalition of government senators relating to net zero and energy policy.

It's pretty extraordinary. In a decade of coalition government, they brought 21 or 22 energy policies to this place—it might have even got to 23—and didn't land a single one. Now they're back with another energy policy to step away from net zero, a position which would hurt workers, affect jobs and damage industry. It is absolutely clear to me, as it should be to anyone who was watching question time today, that if the coalition were to lead our country again they would be leading our country back to the Dark Ages.

I wear a stegosaurus dinosaur around my neck today, and that little stegosaurus is in pretty good company, because the dinosaurs still roam freely amongst the coalition—they still roam freely amongst the corridors of this place. The coalition is still debating whether or not climate change is real, and their anti-climate-action crusaders are doing our nation such a deep, deep disservice. Do you know what harms businesses? It's regulatory uncertainty. Do you know what harms business and industry? It's policy chaos. That's exactly what we saw after 10 years of a coalition government.

This is an opposition that simply doesn't get it. This is an opposition that doesn't listen and, presumably, does not read. This is an opposition that ignores the science. They want us to go back to the Dark Ages, and they have dinosaurs roaming amidst their ranks. This is a coalition who would seek to take Australians backwards, but Australians cannot afford to keep paying the price of the coalition's constant climate infighting. The coalition had 23 different energy policies when they were in government and not a single one of them landed.

The chaos, denial and delay that we saw under the coalition government, which continues today among coalition members, have left us with a much bigger challenge to face now than what we would have faced had they acted on the science earlier, had they believed in the science and had they cared enough to deliver an energy policy that would make a meaningful difference on climate change and on our transition and done what industry and business have been calling for, for years and years—the regulatory certainty which guides their investment decisions which enable them to act; policy certainty not policy chaos. One thing is very, very clear: if the opposition were to return to government we would see the disunity and division which defined them for years continue in climate policy and energy policy. It would take our country backwards, it would cost Australians more, and it would hurt business and industry.

The coalition talked about nuclear at the last election. It was another policy that was fundamentally and utterly rejected by the Australian people, because Australians get it. Australians believe the science and Australians know we have incredible natural advantages in renewable energy. Do you know how they know that? They opened their blinds and looked out the window and they saw the sun and the wind. They saw all of these natural resources that we have in abundance in Australia, and they are acting in the suburbs and the regions across Australia. People are lining their roofs with solar panels. One in three households now have rooftop solar. That's four million installations nationwide. More than 120,000 household batteries have been installed since 1 July under our programs. We're seeing record sales of EVs.

Australians get the science. They look out their window and they read, and the minimum they expect of coalition senators and members is that they do the same. The opposition wants to take us back to the Dark Ages. We fundamentally reject that. We are leading with conviction— (Time expired)

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

Perhaps for a change today we actually learnt something in question time. It doesn't happen very often, but today we learnt that the government has no plan to lower electricity prices for Australians any time soon—and definitely not in the next decade. During question time the government were asked multiple times, 'When will electricity prices come down?' and 'Do you agree with energy CEOs who say they won't come down in the next decade?' and there was absolutely no response. In fact, the government spend more time talking about the opposition, as they were just then, than they do about their own plans. They're actually in government. I thought they were in government. I thought we were asking questions of ministers who could possibly do something, but apparently the only thing they can do is carp about the opposition. I believe that the Australian people are hurting right now and that there are many Australians who are losing their jobs because of our uncompetitive energy prices, and it would be better if the government had a plan to fix those problems rather than simply criticising politicians here in Canberra.

The minister in question time mentioned that the government is pursuing the lowest cost. It's very important to understand what they mean by that because they're very tricky with their words. They're saying it's the lowest cost to get to net zero, to get to an 82 per cent renewable energy target. So right now, when the energy planners are planning our electricity system, they're not planning it to deliver the lowest cost; they're planning it to deliver these arbitrary, artificial targets that the government has set which effectively put a straitjacket around our economy and our ability to be competitive and provide good-paying jobs.

What we have decided to do on this side of politics is to say something that I think is pretty common sense, and that is that we should run our energy system with the primary goal of delivering the lowest energy prices for Australians. That's the fundamental thing we would change. The fundamental thing we would change is to say to the energy planners—and put in our laws and policies in this space—that everything we do should be about delivering the lowest price. That is not the priority of this government. The priority of this government is to hit net zero by 2050, whatever that means for people.

I'm now accused, by the previous speaker, of being a stegosaurus or a dinosaur. I want to put on the record that I've never been against emissions reductions. I've always supported sensible reductions and commonsense plans to reduce our emissions in this country. What I'm against is our country being asked to bear an unfair share of the world's reduction in emissions. For the past 10 years, Australia has been cutting its emissions at a rate double that of developed countries. I'm not talking about China and India; I'm talking about Europe, the US, Korea and Japan. We are going at a rate double that of the rest of those countries. The government's announcement the other week of a 62 per cent cut by 2035 means they are now saying they want to increase that to triple the rate of other developed countries over the next 10 years.

It's not a secret. Their friend Matt Kean, who advised on these targets, said he was presenting targets that were a higher ambition than other advanced countries. Why would Australians be asked to bear a higher cost than other rich countries to reduce emissions? As I say, I support reducing emissions. We have said we would reduce emissions, but we have made, I think, the commonsense decision to say that our reductions targets should be set in line with what other nations are doing, not racing ahead of the rest of the world.

Finally, the previous senator said there's nothing worse for businesses than uncertainty. I'm not sure I agree with that. Perhaps the worst thing that I hear for Australian businesses right now is our shockingly high energy prices. That's the worst thing. It's almost impossible to run anything that is energy intensive in this country right now because we are paying so much for energy. We are paying so much for energy that we are paying a higher price, and our factories are paying a higher price, than factories in Japan pay. We are the biggest supplier of energy to Japan, and they can deliver an industrial power price for factories that is lower than we can.

Something has gone horribly wrong. We have power prices that are now three times higher than those in Indonesia. Indonesia has already stolen our nickel industry, with 10,000 jobs lost in Western Australia last year because of that. Now they're targeting copper and aluminium, and they're doing that using their own coal, yet we ship our coal to other countries. We may as well ship the jobs off with them at the moment. That's got to stop. That's why we dropped net zero. It's time to put our own country first, protect our jobs and lower living costs for Australians. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.