Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Financial Services) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison governments have been in office for 6½ years and, for 6½ years, the country has not had a national energy policy. We heard the member far Hughes rail against the previous policies that were put in place by the Labor government. But then the Liberal-National coalition got elected and, for six years, they have had no policy. That has meant that there has been uncertainty in assets that are predominantly owned by the private sector throughout this country. That uncertainty has meant that they haven't invested in new generation capacity, particularly in certain markets throughout the country. That's led, of course, to a reduction in supply and energy prices have been pushed up.

For six years, the government have dilly-dallied and done nothing—and this bill is their answer to those six years of inaction. This rather childishly named bill will not end the energy market crisis in Australia. It won't reduce electricity prices, because it doesn't encourage bringing on additional supply. It doesn't encourage fixing up the problems with the national electricity market, the problems with transmission and the problems with the distribution market—taking into consideration the fact that many Australians are now going on their own and investing in their own renewable energy with rooftop solar, batteries and the like. It certainly won't reduce carbon emissions. We all know that, under this government, carbon emissions have been increasing again—a problem that will ensure that our kids will have to pay for the damage that's done by this government's inaction on that issue. It won't boost investment in cleaner renewable energy. It won't modernise our electricity market and the rules associated with the generation, transmission and sale of electricity in Australia. It won't even end the war on climate change that's been going on in the coalition for well over a decade now, which has seen 16 different policies on energy in this country, brought by this government to the party room or this parliament, knocked off by the likes of the member for Hughes. When they finally got an energy policy up, in the National Energy Guarantee, they didn't knock off the policy; they knocked off the Prime Minister. They got rid of Malcolm Turnbull, because they didn't like what he was doing with the National Energy Guarantee.

All the while, Australians have paid the price. They have paid the price with skyrocketing electricity prices, and businesses have paid the price with skyrocketing gas prices, and carbon emissions in this country have begun increasing again. That is rather shallow and rather sad. It is sad because we've had a decade of stalled action on climate change in this country, because of the likes of the member for Hughes and a handful of people who don't believe in climate change and have held this government, the Australian people and progress on this issue in our country to ransom.

This piece of legislation is a fig leaf. It's a rather shallow piece of legislation that has come about because they can't mention carbon emissions in any piece of legislation or work that's done on that side of the parliament. If they mention the words 'carbon emissions', then the likes of the member for Hughes and others in this parliament who don't believe in climate change get their backs up and say, 'You're talking about a carbon tax.' Consequently, anything that's even looked like proposing reductions in emissions in Australia as an energy policy has been knocked off by those opposite. That's sad for the country, because it has stalled action on climate change over the last decade.

It's also, more importantly, sad for our children, because they are the ones who will pay the price for this government's inaction on climate change. They are the ones who will have to clean up the mess in future generations, and the cost will be much greater. That's why a million people marched in the streets of Australia a month ago and why students went on strike from school. Even a 16-year-old child understands that climate change is real and that, unless we reduce emissions in this country and take real action on climate change, they are the ones who are going to pay the price for it. As many of the posters that were displayed at the marches said, 'There is no planet B.' There is no other option when it comes to climate change; we either deal with it now or pay the price in the future. This notion of what the government call the 'big stick' legislation—that's what it's come to; a big stick. That's what they go around saying: 'We are going to wield a big stick with the energy companies.' How infantile! How childish this government have become if that is their answer to energy policy in this country, to tackling climate change and reducing emissions.

This is the second iteration of this bill. The government tried to introduce this divestiture legislation in the last parliament. It didn't come from a report. It certainly didn't come from the business community. The ACCC didn't support it when it was originally introduced, and the Labor Party opposed it as well as many of the crossbenchers. Consequently, they weren't going to get it through the parliament. So they backed off and dropped the legislation before the last election. They have come back with this piece of legislation. Thankfully, they have listened to some of the criticisms that were levelled by industry, the Labor Party and others, and they have changed this bill.

The original bill proposed that unless energy producers, wholesale suppliers of electricity, met a base market price for the sale of electricity, the government could come in and divest them of those assets. We heard the member for Hughes talk about divesture of a particular power station in New South Wales. What sort of message does that send to international investors and people looking to invest in new energy assets and new energy generation throughout the country—that, if you don't meet a certain price, the government's just going to come in and take those assets? What group of shareholders is going to agree to invest in a scheme like that? That is what this government—believe it or not, a Liberal government that supposedly believes in free markets—was proposing as its answer to the energy crisis in Australia. That was it—nothing more. That was it: 'We'll just come in and take your assets.'

The government has dealt with some of the reservations by introducing a different bill into the parliament which makes improvements, particularly in relation to privatisation, and Labor will fight for important improvements to the government's big stick to protect workers and rule out any possibility of partial privatisation. But we remain sceptical that this bill will reduce power prices—in fact, I'm certain it won't. That's why we've also proposed to review this bill before it sunsets. It has a sunset provision, and we believe it should be reviewed by an independent body to see whether it actually worked—whether it actually did anything in reducing power prices. The government has presented no evidence, no analysis and no modelling to support this claim that this will work. But we all know that power prices have skyrocketed under this government because they can't get their act together to develop an energy policy after six years. It's shameful. Labor has said that we will support this bill, conditional upon the government supporting our improved amendments that I mentioned earlier in respect of privatisation. Those outstanding issues will be examined as part of a Senate inquiry.

Since 2015, under this government, gas prices have tripled and wholesale power prices across the national energy market have increased by 158 per cent, smashing household budgets and jeopardising tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The lack of a policy on this issue, on energy, has been cited by the Finkel review, by the Australian Energy Market Operator, by the Energy Security Board and by industry and infrastructure Australia as the reason why we've had costs going up. Just recently we heard from the former Prime Minister himself, Malcolm Turnbull. He stated that the energy crisis would continue under the Morrison government. You can't get a better arbiter or more informed opinion on this than the former Prime Minister, because he knows the damage that people like the member for Hughes, who just spoke before me, have done when it comes to this debate in this country. The Liberals are simply incapable of delivering a policy that takes account of carbon emissions. That's the view of former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

If they were serious about ending the energy crisis, the government would bring back to this parliament the National Energy Guarantee. Remember that, the NEG? That was the one that the former Prime Minister and the Treasurer supported at some stage. They said it would bring down power prices by an average of $550, according to the government's own modelling. But instead, what do we get? We get the big stick and that's it. No vision, no guiding principles, no policy coherence. We've got attempts to keep increasing the unreliable and economically unviable ageing coal-fired plants open, rather than policy to support them with clean, affordable and renewable power.

The member for Hughes mentioned the power station in New South Wales that he wants to keep open. The reason AGL are closing that power station is that it's run its natural life. It's like a motor vehicle that was produced in the 1970s that is now not roadworthy, the maintenance costs are too high to keep it running, it's dirty, it's polluting and it doesn't make any sense to run it on the road anymore. Australians make decisions like that—to retire capital that's run its useful life—in businesses and in their personal lives on a daily basis. But the member for Hughes, because he doesn't believe in climate change and thinks that we should still be burning coal to produce electricity in this country, wants to keep assets like that open. He says that if the company doesn't want to sell that particular asset to someone and use that land for another investment—which they are well within their rights to do, as anyone in the private sector in this country should be able to—and replace it with a new asset that is more environmentally friendly, is cleaner and will produce cheaper power into the future, that's no good. He says the government should be able to come in and say: 'No, we don't appreciate that. We'll take that asset off you.' This isn't Soviet Russia. This isn't some sort of dictatorship where governments come in and seize assets.

We have this bill called 'the big stick'. As I mentioned earlier, there have been some amendments made to it. The worst aspects of the original bill have been addressed, largely because of the concerns raised by the Labor Party and by industry. While the original bill risked the privatisation of electricity assets, this bill ensures that any government owned assets that are divested must remain in public hands. There is also a central role to be played by the courts and, importantly, the ACCC regarding divestiture. In the previous bill, there was a power for the minister to divest a company of assets after going through a process. But in this case there is a role for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to recommend that and a role for the courts to be involved. Whilst it's not a deal, it's much more sensible legislation than what was proposed initially.

As I mentioned earlier, it won't solve the government's ongoing energy crisis. While our biggest concerns have been mitigated, we acknowledge that some industries still have worries about the unintended consequences of this bill for investment certainty. If you're trying to encourage people to invest in this country in the supply of additional power, particularly renewable energy that is cleaner, that provides jobs in the future and that caters for the fact that we have to reduce our carbon emissions over time, then this ain't the way to be doing it—to say to those investors that, if you don't produce power at a particular price, then we'll just take those assets off you. That is what this government is proposing. That is their approach to national energy policy. They are so shallow and so wracked by infighting and division around this issue of whether or not climate change is real—and the fact that you can't mention carbon emissions in anything that this government proposes—that that is the state we got ourselves into. That is the reason power prices are increasing. That is the reason gas prices are increasing. That is the reason emissions are going up. That is why our kids' future looks bleak under this Morrison government.

See this speech in context