Television Interview - Sky News

SUBJECTS: Net Zero, Energy, Australia China Relationship

TOM CONNELL [HOST]: Here in Canberra, we've had the Nats lead the day by talking about scrapping net zero. Not all of them, just two former leaders, Barnaby Joyce and Michael McCormack. Others could be piling on, though, as well. Where does this mean the politics of emissions and climate go here in Australia? Joining me live now is Assistant Defence Minister, Peter Khalil. Thank you for your time. Jane Hume herself said voters keep voting for net zero, but it doesn't mean, does it, they're happy with all aspects. I mean, power bills are way higher than Labor thought they'd be.

PETER KHALIL [ASSISTANT MINISTER]: Well, you know, Tom, the Liberal Party's got a new leader, but it's the same old dinosaurs squabbling as they have been in the past. I think they had twenty three different energy policies when they were last in government. They could not settle on it. And now, I understand Barnaby Joyce was one of the old dinosaurs squabbling. But it's a bit odd with Michael McCormack because he's backflipped or he's done a flip on his position on net zero. It's almost like Barnaby has injected him with a bit of dinosaur DNA and he's reanimated. It's like a reboot of Jurassic Park. They're back to where they were not being able to actually settle on a climate change policy. And the fact is, mate, while they're squabbling about this, we are actually moving to provide cost-of-living relief, delivering that for Australians. Whether it's the 20 per cent cut in HECS debt, whether it's energy price relief, energy bills, we're doing that --

CONNELL: There's a discount on the energy bill for a price that's higher than you said it would be and it's taxpayer money with a discount. 

KHALIL: There's a set of policies that we’re putting forward around making sure that people get a fair go with their energy bills, putting bans on sneaky hikes in price, putting bans on late payment fees, things like that. We'll be putting that forward as well. 

CONNELL: It's not actually simple, and there's a lot that's not settled. I mean, what is going to happen in all the areas of transport, agricultural as well. So, it's fine to say everyone agrees with it, but it's not simple. It hasn't been done anywhere. We're just on a bit of a path and we're trying to get there. And in the area where we have the most progress, energy, that's where you can already see the cost of it.

KHALIL: The fact is this, you've got a Coalition, after the election and you would have thought that the election in May would have hammered home the point about net zero and the commitment to net zero that we made, that we took to the election and that some of the Coalition MPs supported, including Michael McCormack, who's just done a backflip. Yet now we're seeing them at each other's throats again, the old dinosaurs who don't even believe in climate change science --

CONNELL: But my point is, people want to know what you're doing, and I'm just pointing out that so far the area where we've had emissions cut the most is power, and that's where we've seen power prices much higher than you thought they'd be.

KHALIL: I will tell you --

CONNELL: Are they true statements?

KHALIL: I'll tell you what's been done already in one term.

CONNELL: But hang on, answer my question.

KHALIL: I am. You said, what have you been doing?

CONNELL: No, I didn't say what you - I didn't ask that question. It's true, is it not, that the area in which emissions have come down the most is energy, and that's actually where we've seen prices go up the most for consumers?

KHALIL: Well, first of all, to answer your question, we have actually increased renewable energy on the grid from some 24 per cent when we started in government back in 2022 up to almost, I think, 40 per cent. That's significant and we're going towards 82 per cent renewables in the grid by 2030. That's a huge transition. We've invested billions of dollars in renewable energy --

CONNELL: But it's costing money, isn't it?

KHALIL: Well, it's also cheaper because in the end, in the final analysis, renewable energy, wind, solar. These are energies that we have in abundance in Australia, and we are doing the transition. The cost is about the transition, and we're investing in the transition. The transmission lines --

CONNELL: Investing is the key word, isn't it? We're spending money.

KHALIL: Well, it's an investment in Australia's future, Tom, and it's an investment --

CONNELL: It's also spending taxpayer money.

KHALIL: In renewable energy that will make a huge difference to our economy. And will make us a renewable energy superpower --

CONNELL: I want to get into some other issues. Since the election, are we closer to China diplomatically?

KHALIL: There's been a trip that we've just seen with the Prime Minister, which is, I think, very odd to me that I see Coalition members critical of the Prime Minister.

CONNELL: I'm not being critical of this. I'm just asking a question

KHALIL: No, no, no, you haven't. You're not a Coalition member, by the way. I hope you're not. But anyway, you're an impartial journalist --

CONNELL: Dig away if you want.

KHALIL: We have people in this government, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers who have stabilised this critical relationship --

CONNELL: So, stabilise was the first term, but is now about getting closer? Is this the aim of this trip?

KHALIL: What do you mean by that? We're talking about an economic partner which, you know, if you talk to your Australian barley producers, wine producers, lobster producers, beef producers, you know, billions of dollars have been brought back into the Australian economy --

CONNELL: So, more trade?

KHALIL: Our economic partnership with China, it's an important partnership and the Prime Minister has been very clear about that.

CONNELL: So, ratchet up trade?

KHALIL: We will cooperate where we can, we'll disagree where we must.

CONNELL: Ratchet up trade?

KHALIL: And trade is a very important part of the relationship. Absolutely.

CONNELL: And so, to increase it, is that significant?

KHALIL: One would assume that any advances in trade, an increase in trade is good. It's been mutually beneficial for both countries. It's beneficial for our exporters, it's beneficial for our economy.

CONNELL: Well, it is.

KHALIL: And that is exactly what has been happening. The criticism of the government is very, very odd and confusing to me because they are literally arguing that it's not a good thing that we have stabilised one of the most important economic relationships we have.

CONNELL: One of the arguments that we put forward is this. When we were put in the diplomatic deep freeze by China, it hurt us economically. The more reliance we have on China, the more that could hurt the next time. Aren't we supposed to be talking about broadening, not putting all our eggs in one basket?

KHALIL: We are doing that as well with the relationships that we're broadening across --

CONNELL: But if you increase what you've been doing as a per cent with China, you're not broadening.

KHALIL: We have done a lot of work across Southeast Asia with our partners like Japan and South Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam. We saw the Prime Minister's visit to Vietnam as well. There is a broadening of relationships across the region happening, across the Indo Pacific. The Australian Government's doing what it needs to do to ensure the prosperity and stability of Australia as a trading nation. Now, are we really going to make an argument that has to be an either-or? That if you increase and advance trade relations with a partner like China, somehow that's an either-or? It's not. You're also increasing our relations with other countries.

CONNELL: Let me put the question to you. Should we be increasing the per cents of trade we do with China compared to the rest of the world?

KHALIL: Well, I mean, it depends on what you're talking about. If you're talking about certain types of exports, they go up and down all the time. It depends on circumstances. It's called supply and demand. So, if there's a demand for products, you're opening up markets. That's what we're doing. Not just in China, but in Vietnam, in Indonesia, with India. These are all happening at the moment. It is really interesting and kind of weirdly one-dimensional, these criticisms that we're getting from the Coalition because they think that it's just an either-or. It's not. It is a multifaceted effort when you talk about trade and diplomacy to enhance our relationships.

CONNELL: But you do get to the point where you can become too reliant on a country for trade.

KHALIL: We’re diversifying and we are doing that across Southeast Asia.

CONNELL: Can I just ask you this? It came up in question time. The circumnavigation of Australia by a Chinese ship, was that a provocative act in your view?

KHALIL. The Prime Minister answered this question in question time as you noted quite rightly, he pointed out that Australia does exercises with our allies and partners in the South China Sea in international waters. China does exercises in international waters that you just referred to. As long as it's within international law and the parameters of international law --

CONNELL: It can still be legal and provocative --

KHALIL: That is a fundamentally important principle. It is concerning that there wasn't more notice, and the way it happened. And when you do this --

CONNELL: The way it happened was that --

KHALIL: If you'd let me finish a sentence, the way these things happen are important because you have to have transparency and give notice to other countries when you're doing these exercises, and that was rightly raised by the Prime Minister during his trip.

CONNELL: Was it provocative the way it happened?

KHALIL: Well, I was saying the Prime Minister, and there was concern by the government around the notice and the way it happened, and he raised that accordingly.

CONNELL: Peter Khalil, thanks for your time.

KHALIL: Thank you.

ENDS