Topics: Labor failing energy policy; Pathway to net zero; AUKUS;
07:45AM ACST
25 June 2024
Pete Stefanovic: Let’s send it to Canberra now, joining us is the Shadow Foreign Minister, Simon Birmingham. Simon, good to see you. Let’s pick it up there, Matt Kean.
Simon Birmingham: G’day, Pete.
Pete Stefanovic: Well, his opponents called him Matt Green. So, does that make sense that he’s now the government’s climate tsar or is it just politics from the PM just to annoy the Coalition?
Simon Birmingham: Well, look, you know, I think what matters here are not the personalities, but the policies. And the reality is that Labor’s policies are not working. Australians are paying far higher electricity bills than Labor had promised them. They’re paying a price for that. Labor’s targets in terms of the rollout of renewables are not hitting the rate that Labor had promised, and that means we’re at real risk of not meeting our emissions reduction targets. What you’re seeing from Peter Dutton and the Coalition is a clear long-term vision, a willingness to take some of the difficult decisions in relation to opening up the discussion about nuclear energy. But in doing so, providing more concrete and firm pathway for how net zero can genuinely be achieved by 2050, and doing so in a way that has a focus on the reliability of our energy, on how industry can continue to play a big role in this country, and, of course, on how we can have stability in prices for Australians.
Pete Stefanovic: You’ve argued your support for large-scale renewable energy projects in the past. So where does nuclear fit into your argument?
Simon Birmingham: Well, I think nuclear does play a key role in terms of providing the type of firming and baseload energy that is particularly necessary for heavy industry, particularly necessary for us to keep a manufacturing and industrial base in Australia and to have reliability in the grid. But I’ve equally, absolutely been clear that large scale renewables have continued to become more cost effective and competitive over time. I don’t resile from those comments. There have been a lot of subsidies, a lot of investment and support to get them to that stage. Now, I expect there will continue to be investment, but it’s not happening as fast as the Labor Party had planned or promised. There are a number of challenges, including community challenges in different parts. Big, big transmission rollouts to meet some of the Government’s ambitions. And these are where it is running into strife and why, ensuring that we have ultimately a technology neutral approach. It’s not about nuclear versus renewables, it’s about having all of the options on the field to be able to achieve net zero and ensuring that we deploy the best and optimal mix of technologies to get to that end goal.
Pete Stefanovic: Okay. What do you think the 2035 emissions target should be? Have you got a decision on that yet?
Simon Birmingham: Pete, I think it would be ridiculous for me to sit here and try to pull a figure out of the air and say what that should be. As a country, we should be striving to achieve the maximum reduction in emissions that we can, consistent with the five yearly trajectory and targets of the Paris Agreement. But that maximum under analysis and careful consideration of the impact on our economy, on what is actually achievable economically, socially and environmentally across the country. If we could all click our fingers and say we’d be net zero by 2030, that would be marvellous. But it’s not true and it’s not possible. The target is net zero by 2050. We need to put the policies in place with the trajectory to get there with the best mix of technologies.
Pete Stefanovic: Back to Matt Kean. He’s said in the past 70% by 2035. Is that achievable? Does that fit in with what you might be thinking privately?
Simon Birmingham: I’m not going to rule in rule out different figures, because the best way for the analysis on this to be done is with the tools, powers and resources of government and done in a transparent way around what the implications will be for jobs, for our economy, for communities, as well as for the environment. Governments have to be up front about these things. Sorry. What’s that Pete?
Pete Stefanovic: I just thought I’d add to that and on AUKUS, do you have concerns about what this could mean in the AUKUS argument as well?
Simon Birmingham: Well, I don’t have concerns about emissions reduction trajectories and so on. I do think that the Prime Minister’s response to the Coalition’s nuclear policy has been completely, completely off the rails. Anthony Albanese, rather than slapping down Labor figures who have been putting out there memes of three-eyed fish and koalas and the like, it seems to think it’s all just a joke. Well, it’s not a joke. Australia relies on nuclear technologies we have done for decades at Lucas Heights and in relation to nuclear medicines. We are planning to, in the decades ahead in our defence and submarine capabilities. And there’s no place for this type of petty, pathetic scare campaign that Anthony Albanese is tolerating in the Labor Party. He should be shutting that down and ensuring that if he wants to argue against our policy, he does so on economics and on science, not on some type of Simpsons style scare campaign.
Pete Stefanovic: Okay, just a final one here. Front page of the Courier-Mail this morning. I’ve got to ask Simon. Peter Dutton’s son, holding a bag of what appears to be white powder. Now, Mr. Dutton’s office has already said this is a family matter. Have you got anything more to add to that this morning?
Simon Birmingham: I don’t really, Pete. Look, these are private family matters as Tony Abbott has said over the years, when it comes to politics, we, the politicians are volunteers. Our families are conscripts. It’s not fair for them to be dragged into different things. There’s a long-standing practice across all sides of politics and the media to really not do so. Dutton family is a strong family. They’d never proclaim or pretend to be a perfect one. But this is a private family matter.
Pete Stefanovic: Okay, Simon Birmingham, appreciate your time as always. We’ll talk to you soon.
Simon Birmingham: Thanks, Pete.
[END]