Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (3), (4) and (8), as circulated in my name, together:

(3)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (after line 3), at the end of subsection 153X(1), add:

Note:   An order cannot be made under this section if it would have the effect of inhibiting, delaying or stopping a planned closure of a coal-fired generator: see section 153ZE.

(4)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 25 (after line 26), at the end of subsection 153ZB(1), add:

Note:   An order cannot be made under this section if it would have the effect of inhibiting, delaying or stopping a planned closure of a coal-fired generator: see section 153ZE.

(8)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (after line 3), at the end of Division 7, add:

153ZE No orders under this Part that would affect planned closure of coal-fired generator etc.

Despite Divisions 5 and 6, an order must not be made in relation to a body corporate under either of those Divisions if the order would have the effect of inhibiting, delaying or stopping a planned closure of a coal-fired generator.

What is clear is that this government wants a big stick so that it can beat companies into keeping coal-fired power stations in the system for longer. This comes at a time when the world's scientists have said that, to have any chance of meeting the targets that the world signed up to in the Paris Agreement, we need an orderly plan to replace coal-fired power stations with renewable energy at a rate of about one a year between now and 2030. So we need to be closing coal-fired power stations and replacing them with renewables in an orderly way. We need a plan to do that. That's what the science that the government purports to accept says.

But what has been clear from the contributions to the debate so far from both sides—and I'll go to specifics in a moment—is that this bill allows the government to use the powers in the legislation to effectively keep coal fired power stations like Liddell open for longer. From the government side one need look no further than the contribution from the member for Hughes, who said in the Hansard:

We have in New South Wales a coal-fired power station, Liddell, that AGL say they want to close down … That is anti-competitive conduct …

…   …   …

Therefore, that is why this legislation is so important. We cannot stand back and watch a company with a very substantial degree of market power in an industry that supplies an essential service like electricity engage in anti-competitive conduct by closing down a coal-fired power station—

See this speech in context