Josh Burns (Macnamara, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Grid Reliability Fund) Bill 2020. I do so echoing the position of the member for McMahon and following the contribution of the member for Higgins. I know there are others across the aisle who are receiving a lot of heat from their electorate and a lot of demands to be a part of some of the solutions around climate change and lowering our emissions, but the reason why they have no credibility and why the small group of MPs on the other side of the House who dress themselves up in modernity are so uncomfortable is that they keep bowling up bills like this. I'm going to go through this bill and go through the amendments that the Labor Party is going to put forward, and I'm going to reiterate the point that, if the Labor Party is unsuccessful in getting our amendments through this place and through the Senate, we will not be supporting the bill.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation was a creation of the Gillard government—a proud legacy of the Gillard government—and it was designed, as you may guess, to finance clean energy. It got this fancy name because it was really designed to boost renewables and low-emission technologies in Australia. The other thing it was meant to do was to do this in a way that made money, in a way that was economically viable. Its projects were to stand up with the support of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation in a way such that the corporation wouldn't just be expending but would also be getting a return on investment.

This bill that is before the House goes to the very fabric of what the Clean Energy Finance Corporation was all about. This bill contains amendments to make it so that it doesn't invest in just clean energy or low-emission technology, and it does it in a way that tries to remove some of the financial requisites in order to fund projects. They want to turn the Clean Energy Finance Corporation into the 'not such good investment on any sort of technology' corporation. They want to take the 'clean energy' and the 'finance' out of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. It would be laughable if it weren't so shocking. It is clear why this small group of so-called modern Liberals are so uncomfortable with their position on climate change; it's because the government keeps bowling up bills like this.

The first thing to point out is that, since the corporation's inception, the federal government—the coalition—have, at every stage, tried to undermine the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. They have attacked it at every opportunity, and this is just the latest iteration. The first thing we are opposing in this bill is the provision relating to ministerial power. This bill seeks to introduce provisions that mean that, instead of the corporation having to make investment decisions based on factors like whether or not a project involves clean energy or is financially viable, the minister will have the power to supersede the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We didn't hear anything from the member for Higgins about the ministerial power amendments in this bill, and I'm sure we're not going to hear anything from subsequent speakers about why it's such a good idea to give the current Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction power to overrule and intercept the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

We have seen time and time again why this government can't be trusted to manage the taxpayer funds of Australia. We saw the sports rorts saga where, instead of funding eligible sporting clubs, ministers intervened and funded clubs based on where they fit in the marginal seat spreadsheet, in collaboration with the Prime Minister's office. We've seen this minister for energy be far more distracted with interventions and downloads from the City of Sydney website, creating wars with Clover Moore. Most recently, we've seen the Minister for Home Affairs use his ministerial discretion on the Safer Communities Fund—the fund that is literally designed to protect our vulnerable communities. This is something I have a lot of experience with, having been involved in the design and also the rollout of some of the iterations of this program and having some of the vulnerable communities in my electorate. These are communities that are deemed at risk not by the whim of a minister but by our policing agencies and by our intelligence and security agencies. Instead of funding the eligible projects under that program, ministerial intervention resulted in the current Minister for Home Affairs investing in projects based on the seat's marginality. If a seat can be the basis on which a minister makes a decision, who knows what sort of ministerial intervention there will be in regard to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation!

I think that one of the biggest indications is the fact that this government wants to insert gas into the Clean Energy Finance Corporation capable technologies. I absolutely reiterate the words from the member for McMahon: gas has a role. It is a feature. Those who work in our gas production and gas pipelines are good and great Australians who work hard, contribute to our economy and do noble work. But what we're talking about here is whether or not the Clean Energy Finance Corporation should invest in technology that isn't clean or low emissions technology. It's a fact of science that gas is not a low emissions technology; it is an emissions intensive technology. While it still has a role to play in our economy for the foreseeable future, it is a fact that it shouldn't be underwritten by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We will move an amendment to say that the ministers should not be able to intercept the decision-making of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and that this is a body that should be independent from government and should be making decisions based on strict criteria around whether or not it achieves low-emissions standards. We, on this side of the House, believe that gas should not be a part of that.

The final amendment really grinds my gears. To be honest, I think we all expected this government to attack the 'clean energy' part of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation—that would be true to form—but the finance bit really tells you a little bit about where this government is at. Not only are they wanting to tackle the clean energy bit and take the 'clean energy' bit out of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation but they want to soften and lower the financial requirements around positive returns from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Let me get this straight: they want to make a reform to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation by taking out the standards around clean energy and they want to do it in order to make it so that it doesn't get proper returns on investment. You couldn't make two more terrible changes to an act that is literally designed to do the exact opposite. The finance corporation is named in a way that is designed to show what it's all about, and this government wants to change it. They want to remove the 'clean' bit, the 'energy' bit and the 'finance' bit. They're leaving 'corporation' though—thank goodness! Or maybe they're not; who knows?

We, on this side of the House, say that the Clean Energy Finance Corporation should stick to its original principles as set out by the Gillard Labor government. It is a fund of government to help drive new and exciting technologies that are going to create jobs. We know that tackling climate change, taking action on climate change, is going to create jobs in this country. The new industries that are going to power Australia and help us develop into the next century are going to be jobs from the moving and low-emission technology that we are talking about today. What this government wants to do—and what will be the legacy of this government—is remove the requirements around clean energy and remove the requirements around the financial return in a way that gives the minister responsibility on the decisions. Well, it's hardly surprising that the minister wants those things taken out for his decisions. He wants to make decisions that result in bad financial outcomes and that don't invest in clean energy. That sums up this government pretty well: bad financial decisions and not investing in clean energy.

The final thing I want to say as I wrap up is about a comment made by the member for Higgins around nuclear energy. I'm guessing the member for Higgins doesn't flag that too often in her conversations with her local environment groups, but I can certainly say that, while we stand open on this side of the House to look at the technology advancements of nuclear technology as they unfold, right now the only technology that nuclear energy has are the large-scale nuclear reactors. That's the only thing that is there now that we can safely look at. If we were to build a large-scale nuclear reactor in Australia, it would take at least 15, maybe 20, years. It would cost somewhere in the vicinity of $10 billion to $15 billion. It's not viable. Ziggy Switkowski has had a look at this in great detail, and we have had a look at this as part of our environment and energy committee. It is just not feasible.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation is a wonderful reminder of the need to look for the projects that are cheaper, that are more cost effective and that are going to give us that rate of return. Nuclear energy isn't even in the conversation. It's the most expensive form of energy, and that hasn't changed even without all of the technological advancements.

But the other thing to say about nuclear energy is that small modular reactors, which are obviously the talked-about emerging technology, are something that those on that side of the House like to fawn over. Well, they don't exist. If anyone can point me to a factory that's building modular reactors in the world right now, I'll buy your lunch. It doesn't exist. Small modular reactors aren't a thing yet. They might be in a decade—small modular reactors may become a thing. At the moment, NuScale has just pushed back its rollout of its first prototype to the end of the 2020s; it may even be to the start of 2030. It was meant to be delivered in 2026. They're often the prime example of this sort of modular prototype of a nuclear reactor that can be built in a factory. But, unless you're talking about the nuclear reactors that exist on submarines—and those are not 'modular'; they're just small reactors—they just don't exist. And they certainly don't exist without a military or government budget; I can assure the members of this House of that simple fact.

Those opposite come at this debate obviously uncomfortable from the pressure that they're feeling from their electorate, but they need not look at their electorate to realise why they're uncomfortable. They need to look at the legislation they keep bowling into the House of Representatives. The reason those modern Liberals on that side are so uncomfortable with the state of play of this government is: when we're talking about the opportunities of government, when we're talking about legacy in this place, when we're talking about the future of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, what is their answer? Their answer is to rip out the 'clean energy' bit and to rip out the 'finance' bit and to give the current Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction free rein to make bad decisions that don't lower emissions and that reduce your financial return on investment in energy. It couldn't be a worse return.

So, unless the amendments that are moved by the Labor Party pass this place, we will not be supporting this bill. And we stand ready to fight the awful legacy that is being left by this government which has no faith and no belief in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.

See this speech in context