Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Across Australia, many people are suffering the effects of higher power prices. This is an important issue that affects small businesses, families and everyone across the country. There are three questions to consider. First of all, what has the government done to assist Australians with power prices? Secondly, what's been the effect of this action? And, third, what's the alternative; does the opposition have any better plans?

Let's start with what the government has been doing. Since we came to office, we, first, intervened directly in the market to assist Australians with energy bills. The energy price relief plan put temporary caps in place in the electricity and gas markets. This will reduce the impact of forecasted electricity prices to an estimated 23 per cent rather than the 36 per cent forecast in December. This is saving money for millions of Australians. And here's the thing: the member for Fairfax voted against it. The member for Flinders voted against it. They come in here for this MPI, talking about the effects of power prices on Australia, and every single one voted against the most substantive thing that has been proposed and actioned to do something about it. Every single one voted no.

The second thing the government has done to support Australians with higher power prices is direct rebates. We have put in place rebates that help 5½ million households and a million businesses across Australia.

The third thing we've done is energy efficiency measures. The budget contained a $1.6 billion energy savings plan, and this is important. By supporting increased energy efficiency in Australia, we kill two birds with one stone: firstly, we get energy prices down; secondly, we help with our emissions. And Australia has a long way to go on this dimension. We rank 58th out of 63 countries on energy use per capita. Our homes are largely inefficient. We know that upgrading an average house from a one-star rating to a three-star rating can reduce energy bills by 30 per cent and significantly reduce emissions. That's why our plan had a significant $1.3 billion investment to establish the Household Energy Upgrades Fund and $300 million to support upgrades to social housing, helping around 60,000 properties save up to one-third on their energy consumption annually. This is a measure which reduces emissions, cuts power bills and helps those in need.

So what has been the impact of these policies? We've seen the default market offer in New South Wales, which I represent. There has been forecast a 21 per cent increase as opposed to the 40 per cent increase that would have occurred in the absence of the government's intervention. The 1.6 million people who also benefit from the rebates negotiated by the Treasurer won't see an increase at all. They will see an eight per cent decrease in their energy bills—a decrease. Nowhere in the rhetoric from the other side have those opposite talked about the impact of the government's actions on power bills. Throughout this entire MPI, none of them have acknowledged the significant savings that people across Australia will benefit from as a result of the government's swift action in this space. South Australians would have experienced a 51 per cent increase. Instead, they will get a 24 per cent increase as a result of the government's action. Again, those who are receiving rebates in addition to that will have a three per cent cut.

Clare Savage, the energy regulator, said recently that if it had not been for federal intervention last December there would have been a rise of 35 to 50 per cent. This is the consequence of the government's action. This government understood this problem, responded to the concerns of Australians and took action—action which was rejected and opposed by the other side of the House, action which they voted against, action which is saving Australians money on their power bills.

Finally, what is their alternative? Their alternative is no action to cut the price of coal and gas and no increase in supply. Their alternative is nuclear energy, which everybody, from the CSIRO to AEMO, acknowledges would be the most expensive form of power. It's not a response. It's about the politics of delay.

See this speech in context