House debates
Monday, 4 September 2017
Bills
Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017; Second Reading
6:44 pm
Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
It's a wonderful opportunity to able to rise to speak on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017, because it fits as part of a glorious package being put forward by the Turnbull government in dealing directly with the challenge of electricity prices in our Commonwealth.
What we know is that, for the past decade or so, there have been fundamental problems with how electricity, the energy market and energy policy have been approached. Under the previous government in particular, they started this rot where you had policy approach from the bases of worrying about emissions cuts first, worrying about price second and worrying, ultimately, about reliability last. And what's happened as a consequence of a bad fundamental approach to dealing with electricity and making sure there is sufficient energy provided to the market is unsurprising. When you worry about emissions cuts first, you get a policy framework that focuses on that. So, introducing more and more unreliable power means it compromises the stability of the grid and, in addition to that, you just throw away any real concern about issues around prices.
What this government is doing is reorientating the discussion around electricity to where it belongs, mindful of making sure the system's reliable so that people actually have power when they switch on the lights at home; and making sure that industry has access to the electricity they need to be able to generate the jobs to provide for Australians so that people don't just go out there in the workplace and work successfully but earn an income so they can go home and also pay their electricity bills at home, so reliability is critical. Secondly, we are very concerned about price and acknowledge and recognise that people won't pay for electricity, if they can't afford it. But, more importantly, price plays a big role in making sure that all Australians get the energy they need.
In my electorate, there are many people who might own a home—they might have bought it many, many years ago—and it may have substantial value. They may be asset well-off—some people are asset well-off—but, increasingly, pensioners and those on fixed incomes are forced to live in smaller parts of their home during winter because they can't afford their electricity bills. We are mindful of this reality and are making sure policy reflects their needs.
Higher electricity prices always hit the less well-off the most and those who are on fixed incomes. It doesn't matter where you go in this great country, people are very mindful of their electricity bills and of the human consequences when bills go up. And that includes people, by the way, who sit in this House. It's no longer an issue that affects people simply based on their earning capacity or their income; electricity prices have become a hot topic across the nation, because people are facing real price pressure, and the Turnbull government is actually doing something about it.
Getting that organisation of policy focused on reliability first, price second and dealing with the environmental challenges so that people can have a reliable system and can afford their electricity means, not unsurprisingly, they care about the environmental consequences and are happy to work with the government and private investors to manage the change. But, if you don't have that, you're not going to be able to get it because people are rightly going to return and focus on making sure they have reliable and affordable power first.
This abolition of limited merits reviews sits as part of that framework, acknowledging that about $6.5 billion have been passed on to average Australians because of a bad policy framework that has led to contention around prices and that flow-on cost to consumers. This simple measure taken by the Turnbull government—let's be honest and acknowledge those opposite and those on the crossbenches who are prepared to stand up and support the government's efforts to reduce prices on households and thank them for it—to deal with some of these challenges is real. It doesn't sit in isolation. We know the major investment in Snowy Hydro to increase the potential is part of the package as well. Further measures will continue to be rolled out, and the intervention in the gas market is a direct consequence of what deals the previous government signed up to, knowing full well that there were going to be consequences for the domestic supply of gas and the price of gas. They are being tackled as well.
There will be further measures introduced over time to make sure that every lever that is available to the federal government—and many of them sit with the states—to make sure Australians can afford their electricity bills in the coming years in delivering reliable, affordable energy, while also dealing with some of the environmental consequences of energy production, will be addressed by this government. It is a position based on integrity and understanding the nature of the problem rather than going off on grand idiotic and policy objectives set out by the more ideologically extreme parts of the opposition as we have seen in previous governments.
This doesn't mean that we don't recognise very directly the challenges that are faced across Australia. Recently, I had some lovely constituents come and see me who raised concerns they had, for instance, about the environmental effects of stationary energy—in particular, Dr Joan Corbert and Gillian King. They came along and presented me with a petition from constituents of the concerns they had. Their petition was principally signed out of St Peter's Church in Brighton in Were Street. It said:
This petition of concerned people of the electorate of Goldstein, draws to the attention of the House the severe and urgent threat that climate change poses to the health, well-being and security of all people around the world, particularly our poorest and most vulnerable neighbours.
The petition goes on to say:
We remind the House that Australia's greenhouse emissions are the highest per person among wealthy nations while our emissions reduction targets are among the weakest.
We therefore ask the House to do all in its power to protect communities in Australia and our region from the harmful impacts of climate change - such as more severe heat, extreme and unpredictable weather and rising seas - by:
This petition was signed by many people, and I will be providing it to parliament for consideration. When you sit down and talk to people like Gillian and Dr Corbet and have a mature dialogue about the important need to make sure we have reliable power, to protect the interests of the citizens that I have spoken about—particularly those on fixed incomes, or those less well off—they are mindful and aware of the situation. They are also mindful and aware of the fact you need a reliable and stable grid. So the measures in the Finkel Review are directly around making sure that there is battery storage for unreliable or inconsistent energy from renewable sources and play an important part in that discussion. That is what happens when you have a mature and sensible discussion around the consequences of reliable and affordable energy, while also making sure we minimise our environmental footprint: you can actually engage with people to take them on a journey and address the challenges that this country faces.
Unfortunately, that is not what we get from the opposition. Instead we get soundbites and ideological posturing by the Leader of the Opposition and many of his acolytes on the opposition benches. The consequences of the approach they take will only lead to higher prices and more unreliable energy. Increasingly there will be a diminishing in anything they are going to do around emission cuts, so you actually achieve nothing. That's why the Turnbull government approach is so rational and sensible and focuses directly on what we need to do as a nation to make sure that those who are concerned about the environment have their concerns addressed. It is making sure we don't have unnecessary and disproportionate harm for those who can least afford the consequences of bad Labor policy. That is one of the great challenges we face in driving energy policy forward.
There is a constant sovereign risk that sits over this policy in this country. It is called the Australian Labor Party, in concert with the Marxist member for Melbourne. They see no lesser opportunity to be able to nationalise parts of the electricity market. We heard that from the Marxist member for Melbourne, only a few minutes ago, where he wanted to be able nationalise parts of the grid, because he somehow has this delusion that if you just get bureaucrats in a room, somehow they are always going to act in the best interests of the people. The truth is, very clearly, we have seen across human history that that doesn't always work and, in fact, it often has the complete reverse effect. And if you want to see that, just look at the behaviour of the Queensland state government, where they have near complete ownership of their energy generation assets, but it's not leading to massive cheaper prices. In fact, the incentives are, perversely, in a different direction, and what they actually do is try to find new ways to raise new revenue. By comparison, the great state of Victoria, which privatised its assets many years ago and got a good price for them—and that was one of the great achievements of the Kennett government—has consistently had much lower prices than many other parts of the country, where it's been driven by public ownership. Drawing such simple Marxist conclusions, as the member for Melbourne does, does a disservice to the communities he is concerned about and does a disservice to the nation.
The other thing we need to be mindful of is to not just have a conversation with those people who are concerned about the rises in greenhouse gas emissions—though we should be mindful of that and we should work with them very successfully, which this policy is doing. But it is actually addressing the real challenges that industry faces. One of the things about the Goldstein electorate is that we are quite industry-light; there aren't many industrial parks; there is one significant one around part of Sandringham, but as soon as you leave the Goldstein electorate, in parts of Moorabbin and Braeside and Dandenong, there is more industry. But although there isn't a large amount of industry, it is full of industrious people, people who sacrifice, take risks and invest in the future, not just for their own gain but to employ many Australians and provide the jobs that this nation seeks—the foundation of this great country.
I was disturbed recently when one of the businesses came and spoke to me about the reality they faced when coming up to renegotiate their power prices and bills. There are lots of similar stories around this country. I'm not going to discount it by saying this is just isolated to businesses based in the south-east of Melbourne. But I wish the member for Isaacs were here because a lot of those businesses operate out of his electorate, even if they are owned or operated by people within the Goldstein electorate. The consequences they face not only from bad policy at a state level but also from previous federal governments not approaching energy policy seriously are quite real. In fact, this small business—I won't mention who it is—is a manufacturing company producing parts for things like vehicles. When the owners went to market to ask what their energy prices are going to be on wholesale contracts, they saw a dramatic increase over the next three years. The increase, estimated against all the competitive scenarios for electricity prices, ranges from between 270 per cent all the way up to over 300 per cent.
When you see over many years the potential for a nearly 100 per cent increase year on year, the consequences for job creation, for employment, for people to continue to be able to operate their business in a way that delivers human outcomes for the owners and for the employees are very real. That's the situation that is being faced in the south-east of Melbourne right now. That is the situation being faced by many businesses that operate all across the country. We know the worst of it is being experienced by the great state of South Australia due to the legacy of many years of bad Labor governments, particularly their overinvestment in renewable power without any consideration or understanding of the consequences of the policy. It's true we need to provide an environment of market certainty. We need to get more businesses to invest capital, to take risks and to invest in the future building of this country. That is at the heart of what this Turnbull government policy is seeking to achieve.
There remains perpetually one big, fat risk in this country and it is called the prospect in the future of a Labor government. That is the risk. Every time any Australian wants to look at why their electricity prices are going up or why people say there is no investor certainty or confidence, it is because of the people who sit opposite. They will not get off their idiotic, ideological approach to energy policy. Particularly under their super shifty leader, Bill Shorten, they will sell out Australian households, Australian businesses and Australian jobs at any opportunity if they think they can appease voters, particularly in some electorates like that of the Marxist member for Melbourne.
It is time we as a nation grew up. It is time we as a nation realised the real energy challenges we face, and the only solutions are being provided on this side of the House by people like the member for Deakin, who is sitting at the table, like the member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg, and like the member for Wentworth, the Prime Minister. It is a measured, sensible, proportionate policy that is taking the country with us and is making sure we deliver the outcomes that this country needs. So, while mocking by those opposite may make them feel better at the moment, the legacy consequences will be felt by Australian households into the future. I'm proud to be part of this government because we are focusing on what we need to lower the household electricity prices that every Australian faces. We are making sure we provide the investor framework, opportunity and certainty to make sure we can not only increase supply to the market but also, more importantly, make sure we are mindful of the human consequences of bad policy decisions. We on this side are anchored in reality, we understand the market and we are making sure we deliver for every Australian.
No comments