Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the importance of investment certainty for clean energy investors;

(2) notes that:

(a) under the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target (MRET), around 3,500 MW of new renewable energy capacity has been commissioned since 2001, with total investment to date of $18 billion;

(b) the Clean Energy Council estimates that there is potential for another $18.7 billion in clean energy investment if the MRET policy was retained in its current form;

(c) over 24,300 people are directly employed in the renewable energy industry;

(d) the Australian Energy Market Commission has found that the cost of the MRET accounted for approximately three per cent of residential retail electricity prices in Australia; and

(e) reducing the greenhouse gas emissions intensity of our electricity generation sector is essential if we are to reduce Australia's carbon pollution; and

(3) calls on the Government to commit to retaining the MRET at the legislated 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020.

The renewable energy target is a crucial piece in Australia's armoury against climate change and our attempts to decarbonise our energy generation sector.

The most up-to-date figures have shown that the RET so far has resulted in the total deployment of over 7,000 megawatts of energy generation, and this represents over 13 per cent of our electricity generation sector coming from renewable energy sources. Over 24,000 jobs are in the renewable energy industry—mostly as a result of the RET. Emissions in the Australian economy have been 22.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent lower as a result of the renewable energy target.

It is important to note that the RET was bipartisan. The coalition when last in government introduced it and they also supported the expansion of the target to at least 20 per cent of Australia's electricity generation, with a fixed target of 41,000 gigawatt hours. The term at least is very important in this debate, because the RET is under attack right now from the government, who seem divided between those who want to abolish it and those who want to reduce the target to some floating percentage figure. I will be very interested to hear the contributions from the members opposite about whether they are in the abolition camp—and I suspect the next speaker might be—and later speakers who will certainly be arguing for a whole variety of options there. But the government certainly painted their colours on this particular issue, by appointing a climate change denier as the head of their review. So it will be no surprise when they support a reduction in the target or possibly the abolition of the target. This is no surprise coming from the Prime Minister, who is the most anti-environment Prime Minister we have ever seen. If you saw his little trip overseas recently, you saw this in spades.

The fact is that the 20 per cent renewable energy target is very important for combatting climate change, it is very important for industry and it is very important that it remains unchanged. The independent expert Climate Change Authority has recommended no change and has stated that the fixed target is crucial to industry confidence. Industry forecasts state that there will be nearly 20,000 jobs at risk and $15 billion of additional investment lost if the target is changed. Quite rightly, a range of actors have said that there is a huge sovereign risk issue if the fixed target is abolished with less than six years to go before 2020.

On the impact of the RET on prices, the independent experts, the Climate Change Authority, have found that the renewable energy target actually reduces wholesale energy prices by increasing supply and providing a source of energy with a low marginal cost of production. The Climate Change Authority broadly agree with AEMO that, in terms of retail electricity prices, the impact is around three per cent of retail energy prices or less than $1 a week on average. In fact, some independent models predict electricity prices will actually rise if the RET is abolished.

I urge everyone listening to the debate to ignore dodgy consultancy reports that might get quoted by the other side that somehow forecast huge price reductions if the RET is abolished or claim that the RET is responsible for huge parts of electricity bills. Trust the independent, apolitical experts through the Climate Change Authority and AEMO, who say it is less than $1 a week for a great carbon abatement task and a great industry development target that works with ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to build a renewable energy industry in this country, which is vital if we are going to de-carbonise the economy and be part of the clean energy industrial revolution that is happening around the world. The coalition has abolished ARENA already, in direct conflict with a promise it made before the election—no surprise. This government loves breaking promises and it is certainly trying to do the same for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

In being an efficient way of combating climate change, the Climate Change Authority has found that the RET's cost of abatement is around $40 a tonne, more than the carbon price but much less than Direct Action will ever hope to achieve. So it is great for industry development. We have seen 24,000 jobs developed. It is, importantly, complementing the carbon price and reducing carbon pollution in the economy and it is supported by important industry groups like the Australian Industry Group, which says there should be no change. This is an important issue. We need to stick to the fixed target to support Australia's de-carbonisation. (Time expired)

See this speech in context