Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

What we're experiencing today is yet another episode in what I would only describe as a cynical sloganeering effort. There are really two different types of slogans that we've experienced today. The first one we heard for quite a bit in the previous speech. We used to hear three-word slogans a decade ago from the opposition, and now it has been reduced to two words: 'no plan'. But the irony of this, and the immediate rebuttal of it, is in their own speech, whereby they say that there's no plan and then spend their entire speech trying to critique all the various things that we're doing in our plan. So I just want to get that one out of the way from the outset. Those opposite rail on with great outrage at all of the different things we're doing and say how terrible they are. You can't say that and at the same time say that there's no action and there's no plan.

But the second element—in fact, the more disturbing one, because it reflects where they're really coming from intellectually—comes from a quote from the Leader of the Opposition where he said, 'Just like Reagan, we will wind back government intervention.' That's what reflects where they're really coming from, because they oppose every step of the way all of the things that we're doing. They come into this parliament and say: 'Of course we support action on climate change. Of course we support everything we can do to support the transition and investment.' They say that time and time again, when they did nothing for a decade, and yet they vote against or carp about every single measure we put in place. If given the reins of power again, they really will wind back all of the things that we have done over the last year—things that were so overdue and things that are already making a difference.

One of the earlier speakers said no-one with an engineering background or who claims to be economically rational could support the things that the government is doing, things like setting long-term targets for investors, things like strengthening the safeguard mechanism or things like putting in place a capacity mechanism. I could line up almost every Nobel Prize winner in economics over the last 50 years talking about exactly these kinds of sensible, rational market interventions. I could talk about just about all the regulators of utilities, both in Australia and around the world, who, time and time again, stand up and support the kinds of policies that we are putting out.

In fact, it's the very opposite. When things like the safeguard mechanism come into the public for debate, it's the regulators, the economists, the public policy think tanks and, in fact, the business community that all line up and support those measures. When the safeguard mechanism was brought for debate in this place, each of us had any number of stakeholders from all of those realms. I could line up the economists. I could line up the regulators. One of my earliest jobs was working in an economic regulator of utility networks. I could line up all the people who could talk about externalities and the need for regulation and about the fact that you need to put in place the right regulatory mechanisms to encourage long-term investment.

I could talk about the fact that the Business Council of Australia, Australian Industry Group—all these groups' members, leaders, CEOs and directors are having to make long-term decisions based upon a world in which climate risk is rising. All of these people came out. They support setting long-term targets. They support strengthening the safeguard mechanism. They support the capacity mechanism. Those opposite claim, 'Nobody supports what they're doing, and we're going to want it back,' as if that's a panacea. Then, in an intellectually dishonest way, they conflate price rises that are clearly coming from the illegal and immoral war in Ukraine with things that this government is doing, which are in fact starting to solve a problem which had laid untested and unsolved for a long decade. Those opposite have in fact laid bare their true position. They will wind back all of those things that the government has done which are having such a positive impact. That's why what they're suggesting is so dangerous. Then, as earlier speakers have said, we did face a short-term spike as a result of the war in Ukraine, and this government put in place short-term price caps and compensation for households.

The Secretary to the Treasury said that the most significant element of the package is the Energy Price Relief Plan, which is projected to reduce headline inflation by three-quarters of a percentage point. Clare Savage, on multiple occasions, has said that it put a significant downward pressure on prices. Those opposite clearly give some kind of dishonest support to some of the elements of our package, but it's very clear they will unwind things which are working, which are necessary and which are long overdue.

See this speech in context