Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

About a fortnight ago I made a comment in the media which was treated by some people with a bit of disdain or scoffed at. I would like to go through that. First of all, I proposed that the cost of subsidising renewables in this country was the substantial reason why electricity costs in this nation have been pushed so high, and that was making it harder for Australians to adequately heat their homes in winter, which was resulting in an increased rate of winter mortality in this nation—put simply, more people die in winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes, because of the high cost of renewables.

As I said, some have scoffed, but I'd like tonight to go through the evidence, the facts and the scientific literature that support my claim. Firstly, there is the cost of subsidising renewables. A recent report from BAEconomics estimates the total cost of subsidising renewables in this country at over $3 billion. This is for 2015-16. They estimate the cost for the renewable energy target is $2,073,000,000, made of the LRET, which is mainly subsidising wind turbines, and the Small-scale RES, which is $648 million worth of subsidies to solar. An important thing to remember is that those subsidies get loaded directly on to consumers' electricity bills. They are not a subsidy paid from government taxation revenue; they go bang onto your electricity bill. The jurisdictional feed-in tariff schemes that the states have—through Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, ACT, Victoria and Western Australia—are an initial $772 million in subsidies. Again, that goes bang straight onto someone's electricity bill. When it comes to the subsidies to solar, that's only in one single year. There was a recent report, about 12 months ago, by the Grattan Institute—hardly friends of the coalition. They said in their report Sundown, sunrise, talking about the cost of solar energy:

By the time the subsidies finally run out—

They are referring to the subsidies to solar—

households and businesses that have not installed solar PV will have spent more than $14 billion subsidising households that have.

They concluded:

But lavish government subsidies plus the structure of electricity network tariffs means that the cost of solar PV take-up has outweighed the benefits by almost $10 billion.

So, it's irrefutable that the subsidisation of the cost of renewables in this country is pushing electricity prices high. And it's a substantial cost; at least $3 billion is direct subsidies. In addition, we also have the indirect and hidden subsidies, the additional costs often, of hooking wind turbines and wind farms up to the grid—many other subsidies—plus the distortion it does to the market, which pushes wholesale prices up. But I will set those aside and will just talk about the $3 billion in direct subsidies that get added on to our electricity bills.

Is that making it harder for Australians to adequately heat their homes in winter? The Australian Energy Regulator keeps statistics on the number of Australian households that have had their electricity disconnected. You go to your house, and you have no power; your power has been disconnected because you have fallen so far behind with your electricity bills that the power's been disconnected. They also keep records on the number of households that are on payment hardship plans, who simply haven't been able to afford to pay their electricity bill and have had to enter into a payment plan with their retailer to pay it off. Those statistics show a doubling over recent years in the number of Australian households that have had their electricity disconnected or are on payment plans. And all of us will have anecdotal evidence in their electorates of constituents who have come to us, some in tears. I have had old pensioners ring me in tears, telling me they cannot afford to pay their electricity bill and cannot afford to turn the heater on at night.

What does that do? What effects does that have, if you are forced to live in a cold home in Australia and you cannot afford to turn your heater on at night? There was a recent study in England, released under the name of the Marmot Review Team, titled The health impacts of cold homes and fuel poverty. The report details some of the adverse health effects if you are forced to live in a cold home. It says that around 40 per cent of excess winter deaths are attributable to cardiovascular diseases and that around 33 per cent of excess winter deaths are attributable to respiratory diseases. It says there is a strong relationship between cold temperatures and cardiovascular and respiratory disease and that children living in cold homes are more than twice as likely to suffer from a variety of respiratory problems as children living in warm homes. It says that mental health is negatively affected by fuel poverty and cold housing in any age group. Living in cold houses increases the level of illnesses such as colds and flus and exacerbates existing conditions such as arthritis and rheumatism. It negatively affects children's educational attainment, emotional wellbeing and resilience and negatively affects dexterity, and it increases the risk of accidents and injuries.

In this nation, although a lot of the media here makes us think that the heat is the main concern, the greater killer of Australians, it is actually the cold. If we look at the figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics that show the average daily deaths per month, on average an Australian is 20 per cent more likely to die in the month of July or August than during summer time—a 20 per cent higher rate of deaths on an average day in July or August than in summer time. We are looking here at about 380 deaths per day in summer, but in winter around 450. That is about 20 per cent extra.

There are many reasons that people are more likely to die during a cold winter. But the World Health Organisation attributes 30 per cent of those deaths to inadequately heated homes. And I quote from a World Health Organisation document called Environmental burden of disease associated with inadequate housing, from the WHO Regional Office for Europe. It concludes that the annual burden of disease due to cold homes can be conservatively estimated at 30 per cent of excess winter deaths.

We can take that figure and look at how it applies in Australia. We have seen evidence from studies in other medical reports that shows that the number of excess winter deaths in Australia is actually higher than in Nordic countries like Sweden. The professors that have written reports following those studies have said Australian homes are inadequately heated compared to Swedish homes. We simply do not heat our homes adequately. If we are looking at about 7,000 excess winter deaths a year and we attribute 30 per cent of those to inadequately heated homes, that means that over 2,000 Australians die every year because they cannot adequately heat their home. Yet we have policies in this nation that make it harder and harder for Australians to pay their electricity bill. We subsidise renewable energy by $3 billion annually, and that goes straight onto consumers' bills. Yet we are going to push that target higher and higher. The Labor Party even want to copy South Australia and push the target to 50 per cent. And we have seen what that does. As we saw in the Financial Review last Friday, it is gold, gold, gold to South Australia: they have the highest electricity prices in the entire world. They have even beaten Denmark and Germany, the wind turbine capitals of the world. Is it any surprise that South Australia has more deaths from hypothermia than Sweden does?

I call on good members of the Labor Party. I am sure, in your heart of hearts, you cannot see this pain inflicted on your fellow Australians. Please, join with me, and let's suspend the renewable energy target. (Time expired)

See this speech in context