Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Let's talk about workers. Imagine, if those opposite can, what it is like to be a worker in the energy industry. There is policy paralysis from those opposite. There are constant headlines about the sector in which you work. Everybody has a view on it, and mostly the commentators do not really give the full picture. So when real workers wake up to headlines like 'Energy target on PM's back', 'Turnbull faces revolt on power' or 'Coalition in revolt over climate fix', how do you think it makes them feel?

While those opposite are busy tearing themselves apart over the Finkel review—well, actually, it has been for the last decade on this issue; they cannot decide whether a price on carbon is a good idea or not—the workers will be at the frontline of any efforts to reduce carbon emissions so that we can achieve the very modest Paris climate agreement target agreed to by this government. They have been left feeling vulnerable about their future. The reason for this is that when the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott abolished the carbon price he replaced it with nothing—not a single piece of energy policy.

If this government was willing to consider a bipartisan approach on the proposed clean energy target—and we have certainly indicated that we are up for the conversation—we could achieve a number of things. For a start, we would see lower power prices. That would be good for consumers both at home and in their businesses. When I talk to small businesses about overheads, they say the cost of power, which cannot be turned up or down, is crippling. With wages growth at all-time lows, the prospect of ever-increasing power bills is frightening, especially when losing the clean energy supplement, for many lower income people. We would also see certainty for investors, who have been driven away from the sector by the inability of those opposite to accept the need for policies to address climate change and energy security.

We have an energy crisis where no-one is making an investment and wholesale energy prices have doubled since 2013. They are the facts. That is because investors face such huge uncertainty and they cannot make investments until they know what this parliament is going to do around carbon pricing and emissions reductions in this country. It has been four years of paralysis—in fact, a decade of those opposite's indecision.

In a bipartisan way we could achieve some certainty for workers. In fact, we need to ensure that there is, as the Paris climate agreement mandates—the one that those opposite have signed—a just transition for workers in the sector. We cannot afford the unplanned, ad hoc approach that car industry workers or the Hazelwood employees went through thanks to those opposite.

Germany has done this well, starting way back in 1998, and their plan will see 130,000 coal industry workers transitioned, with none left behind. This does not just happen, and it certainly does not happen by sticking your head in the sand. But with a tripartite approach of employers, government, and unions, including the CFMEU, a bright, clear future for energy sector workers is possible. If we do not do this well, this is what is going to happen. I am going to tell you what Jason, a Hazelwood employee, said: 'I got a text message about 15 minutes before the announcement meeting commenced.' His reaction: 'I was silent. To be honest, I was numb. You couldn't really react, because you were just knocked for six.' That is what lack of planning does. This parliament has an opportunity to get this right.

The science is clear. The economics is clear. We need to price carbon. And this is not just me. A Labor MP who lives in a fragile World Heritage area is saying it. Even coal-fired generators are saying it. The list is long—and I will leave out the CSIRO and scientists—BHP, Origin Energy, AGL, the National Farmers' Federation, and every state government. Like us, they would prefer a different model, an EIS. But, like us, they are willing to see careful consideration of the Finkel recommendations. We would be in a much different position if the current Prime Minister had not been rolled by his predecessor, Mr Abbott, in 2009 and been able to agree to Labor's carbon pollution reduction scheme. Under Malcolm Turnbull, car prices are up, pollution is up and jobs are down, and no-one knows whether he has the guts to fix it. (Time expired)

See this speech in context