Welcome back to the program. Let's go live to Perth. The Member for Curtin joins me, Kate Chaney. The argument from Peter Dutton has been very much focused on the cost of living. Is this something where you see a shift in the community? I know you represent a well-off part of the country, but do you see this resonating across middle Australia, where the focus on the cost of living is so great right now that people's commitment to dealing with climate change might waver a little?

Well, Karen, the big problem with that is that nuclear is not an answer if you're concerned about cost. This attitude of kicking the can down the road and saying we'll deal with it later, if at all, is deeply irresponsible. Climate action should have bipartisan support. It is the source of our future prosperity. Business needs certainty, and by stepping back from a 2030 target, the Coalition is removing itself from being a viable alternative government. Business just wants to get on with it, and we're losing that business certainty. It's not going to be good for the country, the creation of future jobs, and ultimately, renewable energy is the lowest cost source of energy. The Coalition is saying we're going to go for nuclear instead, which won't come out for a decade and is still the highest cost source of energy. I don't think it's a good response to cost of living concerns.

What's the reaction you've had from your constituents in Curtin to the news over the last week on this issue?

The reaction I've seen is incredulity. Last night, I had a community catch-up, and there was a lot of shaking of heads and people bewildered, saying, "How can Peter Dutton destroy the certainty that we need here and say we're not even going to commit to a target before the next election?" It's a bizarre approach to say, "Trust us on climate; we'll sort it out later," when the Coalition has no credibility in that space. To me, it shows that Peter Dutton has learned nothing from the last election and is refusing to be responsible on the biggest challenge of our generation.

You were part of that teal wave or beat on the other side of the country to those seats that fell, Blue Ribbon Liberal seats. I asked Sophie Scamps this earlier in the week, and she said 100% yes, she believes the Coalition's given up on winning those teal seats back, including yours. Do you agree with that?

To some extent, I don't care what their approach is to seats because this issue is much bigger than that. This is about the future prosperity of the country. Maybe they've given up on their seats and they're looking elsewhere, but I'm far more concerned about whether the Coalition is making responsible decisions about the future direction of the country. It's really bad that they're just kicking the can down the road. Electorally, I don't think it's going to be good for them, but more importantly, we're now the alternative viable government thinking about the long-term prosperity of the country because it's not the Coalition.

What do you say to the argument that the government, the incumbents, aren't going to get to 43% by 2030 anyway?

We need to set ambitious targets. Whether we get to 42 or 43%, the important thing is that we are sending a signal to the investment community that we are on the path to decarbonization. We want to make the most of our natural advantages in renewables, which are the lowest cost form of energy, and we continue to push as hard as we can. It's an absurd position to take to say if we're not going to meet 43%, we're going to abandon the whole concept of having a target. In no other field is that a valid or legitimate way of approaching working through a pathway to get to an outcome. We may not make it to 43%; I still hope we can. We're on track for 42%, and we've still got six years to put the pressure on and to get there. We need to be ambitious in this area, not just for the planet, but also so that we have an economy that is prosperous in a net zero global economy. It's vital that we keep pushing, and I'm appalled by the Coalition's approach on this.

Kate Chaney, thanks for your time.

Thanks very much.