Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

I thought I might make some broad remarks about all of the amendments moved by the member for Melbourne. I very clearly understand the first substantive policy point contained in those amendments, around taxpayer financing for new coal fired power stations or for extending existing coal fired power stations. It's a point I've made myself in this debate on more occasions than I could count over the last few years, but it's not a matter covered by this bill.

I also understand the second substantive policy point that was really the focus of the member for Melbourne's remarks then, about the powers contained in this act being used, effectively, to manipulate the closure schedules of existing coal-fired power stations. I think that point would certainly have much more weight, were the powers to order divestiture still in the minister's hands, with the greatest of respect to the minister. But, with the changes that we have been able to obtain so that those powers are now in the hands of the Federal Court, on the advice of the ACCC, I don't think that those points have the weight that they may have had previously.

More broadly, though, I make the point, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated only just then, that our focus—particularly in this bill, because we think the bill will pass both chambers in one form or another—has been to protect against the privatisation of those publicly owned assets that remain in the jurisdictions that the Leader of the Opposition outlined, and to ensure that there is no prejudice to worker entitlements in the event that a divestiture order is made. We're utterly committed to delivering those two protections for communities, who have said time and time again that they want their electricity assets to remain in public hands and also worker entitlements—two things I know the member for Melbourne feels strongly about, as well.

We know that the member for Melbourne's amendments are not going to be passed by this parliament. We understand the policy position. I have some sympathy, obviously—I've said that time and time again myself—for the policy positions being advanced by the member for Melbourne. But our focus, our very clear focus in this debate, is on those two protections that were identified by the Leader of the Opposition.

See this speech in context