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

I'm not going to take a lecture from the minister about power prices when, after they abolished the carbon price, wholesale power prices doubled. That is the effect of what they've done. And now they're playing catch-up, trying to work out how to keep coal in the system for longer and bring down prices. What they haven't worked out is you can't do both. If we had an orderly procedure for replacing coal with renewables, where the fuel is free for renewables, then we'd bring down pollution and bring down power bills. But, as I said, it takes a special kind of genius to lift pollution and lift power bills, but that's what this minister's been able to do because he has made the industry the most uncertain it has been for a very, very long time. And this bill is going to do more of that.

What he shows in his contributions talking about the so-called premature closure of power stations is two things. One is that he's a science denier through and through. He just does not accept what the world scientists have said—that there's a link between coal and global warming and that, if we want to give ourselves the best chance of defeating the climate crisis, we have to have an orderly plan to replace coal with renewables. It's basic physics. But the minister doesn't believe in physics. That's what we've heard in his response, and that's no surprise. The government's facade, their new approach, for dealing with climate change is no longer to say, 'We don't accept the science,' but to say, 'We accept the science, but, don't worry, we're doing something about it.' It's a paper-thin veneer. You can just see the minister itching to say, 'No, we want coal around forever and we don't believe in renewables at all.' That was basically the essence of his contribution just then. That's why we need these amendments. We're hearing the deniers out in force; they're running the show, and we shouldn't be aiding and abetting them. If the minister says, 'Look, this bill is only about anticompetitive conduct,' then he should support the amendments because all the amendments say is, 'You can have the rest of the provisions, the bill just can't get in the way of an orderly closure of coal-fired power stations.' You can have the rest of your bill. If he truly believes it's got nothing to do with climate and everything to do with competition, then support these amendments because it shouldn't get in the way.

With respect to the opposition spokesperson, the amendments that have been moved around entitlements and so on are amendments that we support. They are worthy amendments and I'm glad they got through. But we only need them because the bill, now, is going to get through with Labor and Liberal support.

In the last parliament, the position that we were in was that by standing up to the government and saying, 'No, there's certain things we won't allow you to do,' we were able to get them to put the legislation off, to the point where it potentially was not going to be passed at all. I say again, with respect, it's not enough to say that the Federal Court is now involved—and, by the way, they weren't amendments that the opposition secured; they were in the revised bill that was put already. It's not enough to say that. Are you seriously saying that it won't affect a company's decision if they have the threat of litigation hanging over them, instigated by the minister? Of course it will. If a company has to work out if it has to go through an ACCC process and then potentially a Federal Court process, all initiated by the minister, it is going to affect their decision. They will say, 'Okay, if the price you want for taking the foot off our throats is that we're going to keep the coal-fired power station open for longer, then that is what is going to happen.' It is crystal clear from the government that that is what they want. We should amend the bill to remove the ability for the deniers in government to keep coal-fired power stations open for longer.

See this speech in context