Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure of leadership in energy system modernisation.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We rise very enthusiastically to talk about this matter of public importance, the government's failure of leadership in energy system modernisation. In opening, we reiterate how proud Labor is of its record in government on renewable energy. Over six years its record was extraordinary. We became under Labor, as a nation, one of the world leaders in renewable energy. Over our six years in government we went from a position of there being 7,400 households in Australia with solar panels on their roofs to 1.2 million—1.2 million households were freed from the shackles of the electricity grid; a democratic revolution. Wind power in Australia tripled over the course of our six years in government. We became a world leader in utility-scale deployment of renewable energy. In just 2013 we approved in government the largest PV solar farm in the Southern Hemisphere and the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere. Jobs in the renewable energy sector over a six-year period tripled—during a period including the global financial crisis jobs in this sector tripled. Unsurprisingly, carbon pollution levels from one of the most emissions intensive electricity sectors in the world started to reduce for the first time in history. In just one year, 2012-13, carbon pollution levels from the electricity sector, responsible for fully one-third of Australia's pollution footprint, went down by 7½ per cent. Unsurprisingly, billions of dollars of investment flowed into Australia through this renewable energy revolution. In 2013 the leading index on investment around the world in this industry, the Ernst and Young Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index, rated Australia as one of the top four destinations for renewable energy investment in the world—up with the powerhouses of China, the United States and Germany.

This government's record could not be more different if they tried—and they have tried very hard. Only two contributions have been seen in energy policy from this government—a regular refrain that coal is good for humanity, and attack after attack after attack on the renewable energy industry. They did not waste much time starting. In spite of the fact that the former Prime Minister, Prime Minister Abbott, promised at the 2010 and the 2013 election to keep the existing renewable energy target in place, after another infamous radio interview with Alan Jones—I do not know what Alan does to them when they go on air—Mr Abbott walked away from that six-year commitment of the Liberal Party and sought to abolish the renewable energy target.

Unsurprisingly, investment confidence collapsed. In just one year investment in this industry collapsed by 88 per cent and thousands of jobs were lost. We plummeted in the investor rankings—I know my friend the assistant shadow minister will talk about this. We went down to No. 39 as spenders in renewable energy. A country with the best renewable resources of solar, wind, wave, geothermal in the world, we plummeted to 39th!

We finally restored a bipartisan position around the renewable energy target. In the meantime pollution went up by five per cent in the electricity sector in just two years. Generation in brown coal, the heaviest polluting form of electricity generation, increased by 10 per cent under Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Turnbull. That was followed by a series of attacks on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and ARENA, which I am glad Labor has resolved. But still we have no renewable energy policy beyond 2020. To most observers, this simply boggles the mind: a country with the natural resources we have and with the mines and the innovative businesses we have which are ready to invest and ready to continue to push the envelope in efficiency and effectiveness of renewables technology. It boggles the mind that a government that talks about jobs and growth, a government that talks about innovation and a government that talks about being open for business has turned its back so squarely against this industry.

A wave of tens and tens of billions of dollars of investment and jobs is sweeping across the world, through every one of more than 150 nations with a renewable energy target. Last year, for the first time in history, investment in renewable energy exceeded the combined investment in coal power, gas-fired power, hydro power and nuclear power, and it will never be different. China built 50 gigawatts of renewable energy in 2014 and built another 50 gigawatts in 2015. For context, that is the size of Australia's entire electricity system. Last year we were fairly happy with the fact that we added one gigawatt of solar to Australia's electricity system. The United Kingdom, where the sun shines—as far as I can tell—three days a year, added four gigawatts. Such is the loss of investment confidence under this government in this industry.

People held out some hope that things would change with the change of Prime Minister. There was a great sense of hope, but there were some mixed signals. There was a backdown by the new Prime Minister on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Mr Turnbull praised South Australia as a leader in clean energy very openly during the election campaign, and we did finally reach an agreement over recent weeks to preserve the work of the Renewable Energy Agency. But the last fortnight for the Prime Minister has been a shocker—it has been a shocker.

What happened in South Australia was an unprecedented weather event—an unprecedented event. People will have seen the photos where the winds and the tornadoes tore down 23 extraordinarily large and robust steel transmission towers, tripping generation across the state. Now the Deputy Prime Minister gave us the benefit of his deep understanding of electrical engineering and meteorology. In the middle of the storm, while emergency services workers were still putting themselves in danger's way to protect the South Australian community, he decided that he would play some politics. There used to be a protocol that said you do not play politics while people are in danger's way and while the emergency services personnel and the army are still doing their work. I am sure the member for Wakefield will talk about his electorate. The Deputy Prime Minister gave us the benefit of his conspiracy theories; and it was all about intermittency; it was all about the wind blowing too hard for the wind generators to keep blowing.

Frankly, that is just rubbish. It has been made very clear by people who know even more about this thing than the Deputy Prime Minister, if that is possible to believe. After the delivery of the Energy Market Operator's report at the end of last week, the Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel said:

If you had a natural gas generator there, and the voltage was collapsing, and the frequency was collapsing, that natural gas generator would have taken itself off the grid just as rapidly as the wind farms had taken themselves off.

And AGL—which has the largest coal fleet in Australia and is not just a renewable energy company, said:

AGL has safely run its wind turbines in South Australia for the past eight years and is confident that when generation does not degrade the reliability of the electricity system.

This is just a premeditated attack by the Deputy Prime Minister on renewable energy and, given this man's approach to climate and energy policy for more than a decade, we should not be surprised.

The real concern though is that it was echoed by the Prime Minister. We have been alive on this side of the House to the challenges involved in our energy system: the need to decarbonise it; the need to ensure there is a good, orderly replacement of the coal fleet—which is frankly getting too old to continue to operate for much longer—and the challenge involved in generation becoming much more distributed. But this is an opportunity as well. Only in the last few hours, the Queensland government released an independent report about its renewable energy target for 2030, which the Prime Minister has described as 'unrealistic' and 'unachievable'. According to this report, that target would lead to $6 billion in new investment in that state and more than 6000 new jobs every year over the decade from 2020 with no impact on either the reliability of the system or prices. In saying that, it echoes the conclusions of the review panel that former Prime Minister Abbott set up to review the national renewable energy target.

Renewable energy is not just cleaner; increasingly it will be the cheapest form of electricity available and a form of electricity in which Australia has a competitive advantage. Bloomberg New Energy Finance released a report in recent weeks showing that the levelised cost of solar power in Australia is substantially lower than that of America, Europe, China and India. This government needs to recognise the transition is underway. The Deputy Prime Minister might not like it, but the transition is happening in any event. This government needs to shake off the ideology and sit down and apply its mind to some serious transition policy that secures Australia's energy system into the future.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to lead the discussion on this MPI on behalf of the coalition. Anyone thinking of investing in Australia or in South Australia would be particularly disturbed by the speech that they just heard from the member for Port Adelaide. Nowhere in the 10 minutes he spoke for did he address the problems of cost and reliability of energy. In his own state over the last few years, there has been a doubling of the households that have had their electricity cut off. The South Australian Council of Social Service's Executive Director, Ross Womersley, said about the increasing disconnections in South Australia:

We have the highest electricity prices in the nation in South Australia. We have the highest unemployment in South Australia …

They also have the highest renewable energy target and—surprise, surprise—they have the highest number of households that have had their electricity disconnected.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You wait until they privatise the state electricity network, mate.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hear the member for Wakefield. What concern do you show for the constituents in your electorate that have had their electricity cut off? What do you say?

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Plenty, plenty. I will get to you.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your state has more electricity disconnections than any other state in the country. What do you say to households that have their electricity cut off that cannot cook their food or warm their house in winter? What do you say, member for Wakefield? What do you say to households who have had their electricity cut off and students cannot study at night and people cannot take a hot shower?

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Doesn't that happen in New South Wales?

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do you say to them? Nothing. We hear a duck egg. This is what—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hughes will address comments through the chair and the members on this side will remain silent.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The importance of this debate goes to the cost and reliability of electricity. What was concerning about the contribution of the member for Port Adelaide is that he appears not to have even read the Australian Energy Market Operator's report. His comments show that he is in complete denial.

We know what happened in South Australia. South Australia is parasitic on the energy supply of brown coal from Victoria. We know that the interconnector that they have there is only able to handle about 600 megawatts. We know what happened during the event. Yes, the storms came through, but, seconds before they did, close to 300 megawatts of electricity from wind farms cut off instantly.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that's not true. It's just not true.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Through you, Deputy Speaker: the member for Wakefield obviously has not read the report.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have read it. I've got it here.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you should read it, because that is exactly what it says.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're a dill.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For anyone to draw a conclusion from this report when it clearly says that this is a matter still being investigated—

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wakefield will withdraw.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And the member for Wakefield is warned.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Port Adelaide also went on about Labor's wonderful efforts in solar. Well, the Grattan Institute recently put out comments on Labor's 'wonderful' effort, and I will quote directly from the Grattan Institute report. The Grattan Institute are hardly on our side of politics. They said:

… lavish government subsidies … means that the cost of solar PV take-up has outweighed the benefits by almost $10 billion. By the time the subsidies finally run out, households and businesses that have not installed solar PV will have spent more than $14 billion subsidising households that have. Australia could have reduced emissions for much less money. Governments have created a policy mess that should never be repeated.

The member for Port Adelaide comes in here and boasts about that—'a mess that should not be repeated'!

Looking at the cost of renewable energy, if the member for Wakefield is right and the costs are lower, that is absolutely fantastic because that means that we do not need the RET. We do not need any subsidies if the member for Wakefield is right.

The member for Port Adelaide, at his heart, is a central planner. He wants to control what form of energy should be generated in this country. We see the absolute unmitigated disaster that that has caused in his state. Only today, Manufacturing Australia has released a statement about how energy policy failures threaten manufacturing and threaten jobs:

Last month's power outage in South Australia was extremely damaging for manufacturing in that state.

It follows previous incidents in South Australia this year that have led to both supply outages and extremely high energy prices.

The lack of stability and high power prices in South Australia are threatening both existing and future manufacturing investment in a state already reeling from automotive closures.

We have a high standard of living in this country. We are able to afford hospitals, schools, roads, infrastructure and aged care. The expenditure that we are able to put out is the envy of many places in the world. The reason we can do that is that one of the great competitive advantages that our nation has is the low cost of energy. But the policies of the Labor Party threaten that very competitive advantage and they threaten the wellbeing and prosperity of our country. We must have a low-cost energy base if our country is to go forward. We need to look at all options for energy. Labor's 50 per cent renewable energy target would require close to 5,000 new wind turbines across the nation at a sum that Bloomberg calculates at over $40 billion. That is almost $2,000 for every Australian citizen. What would it achieve? It would simply achieve higher energy prices. We would see more Australians having their electricity disconnected and we would see more and more Australians jobs sent offshore as a result of this crazy and uncosted policy.

When we think about energy modernisation in the future, it is worthwhile looking at the figures from the International Energy Agency. They have done some calculations about where we stand in relation to the world supply of energy for solar and wind. Their 2015 report had solar's contribution to the total supply of global energy at not one per cent but 0.1 per cent—one-tenth of one per cent. And yet, if we invest billions and trillions of dollars worldwide and follow the plans of the Paris agreement, they estimate that by the year 2040 solar energy generation will be at 0.7 per cent of the world's energy supply. That is their estimate. Wind is currently 0.4 per cent of the world's energy supply. Less than one-half of one per cent of the energy generated in 2013 was generated by wind. If we go down the track of this renewable energy target and roll out tens of thousands of wind turbines around the country, where will that have us by the year 2040? The International Energy Authority give us the numbers. They estimate we will get to 1.7 per cent of the world's energy supply.

Whatever we do in this area, we must put energy security of the nation first, and we must make sure that we are providing all Australians with low-cost, affordable and abundant energy—that the lights are not going to turn out. We need to do it for households, and we also need to do it for industry. If we are going to have a prosperous future and if we are going to make any attempt at bringing our budget back to surplus and having the revenue base to pay for all the things that we do, we must maintain our competitive advantage in energy.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Nothing symbolises the complete abandonment of climate change and energy policy by this government better than the fact that the first speaker for the government was the member for Hughes. I sat in this chamber only two years ago and witnessed a speech where the member for Hughes said that taking action on climate change increases cancer in Western Sydney.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does! Do your research!

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hughes.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the calibre of the government's energy spokesperson. This is a man who denies the science of climate change, based on the fact that he read diary of Watkin Tench, a First Fleet officer, which recorded that it was hot when the First Fleet landed in 1788. The scientific basis for the government's energy policy is that a First Fleet officer said it was hot in January in Sydney. Stop the presses! This is the calibre of the government. What a pity, what an absolute shame and disgrace, that not only is the member for Hughes their first speaker, he is also chair of the government's backbench committee on environment!

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Suck it up!

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He is a man who denies the science of climate change, a man who draws false links around climate change causing cancer. This is the great tragedy of the government, the great tragedy of the great pretender, the Prime Minister, who has abandoned every single conviction he had on climate change. And what is the cost of this?

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's the cost?

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Barker and the member for Hughes.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know that 60 per cent of the world's solar PV cells are based on technology developed at the University of New South Wales, in the member for Kingsford Smith's fine electorate? Yet, because of the obstinacy and the stone-age thinking of the Howard government, we got very few jobs out of it, despite our world-leading expertise. Sadly, it is being repeated now by the Turnbull-Joyce government. The government's absolutely stone-age thinking on renewable energy is leading us down the same path. As the shadow minister talked about before, we have fallen from fourth to 39th in investment in clean energy. We have been overtaken by paragons of clean energy investment like Myanmar. For example, our clean energy investment is one-fifth that of Mexico, who are ninth on the league table. The great pity of this is we will miss out on jobs, we will miss out on a future for our kids, and we will see a much higher cost of transitioning our economy.

We have 27 gigawatts of coal-fired generation in this country, and the fleet is getting very old. In Victoria the average age of that coal-fired generation is 40 years. In New South Wales it is 34. We desperately need to see retirement of some of that capacity. But, because of the stone-age thinking of the government, it will not be replaced by clean energy that has been developed here, will provide jobs here and will allow us to transition our economy. What will happen is we will see delays, we will see a higher cost to the government, and our kids and our grandkids will bear that cost. If you have look at every single industrial revolution in our globe's history, the truth is it was the countries that developed the technology that took the greatest advantage of it, whether it was steam power and textiles in Britain, whether it was chemicals and steel in Germany and the United States or whether it was electronics in Japan and the United States. It is the countries that develop the technologies that are best placed to take advantage of those industrial revolutions, but because of the Luddites opposite, led by the Prime Minister, we will not take advantage of it.

The great tragedy is that it could be very different. Only as late as 2011, now Prime Minister Turnbull professed a need for us to decarbonise the energy sector to make it a net zero emitter by 2050. He has completely abandoned it in a dirty deal with the hard right of the Liberal Party, with the Luddites of the National Party, with the Joyce-Christensen government that keeps him in power. He stays in power by selling out every single principle. And it is not just the Liberal Party that will suffer—it will be our kids and our grandkids—as we fail this nation. This needs a serious debate. We are taking it up, and all we are getting is denial from the member for Hughes and the Prime Minister.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to get up and speak on this motion and, particularly, to talk about leadership.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're from Victoria! You should know better!

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lalor.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes down to it, the type of leadership that our opponents would like to follow is the leadership of South Australia, and particularly Jay Weatherill. You, our opponents, want us to follow the leadership of Jay Weatherill, where you have the lights turned down because you cannot keep them on, because you do not place any value on energy security, investment in the sector and making sure that we have energy for the 21st century.

When you look at what actually happened in South Australia, where they have a 20 per cent renewable energy target, when they had the recent blackout, we had mobile phones going out, we had lights turned off, and we had people who had to sleep in lifts. The ALP vision for energy security in this country is reminiscent of North Korea, not of the rest of the Australian mainland. This is the problem with the ideological approach of the Australian Labor Party today. They are not actually interested in delivering for people or putting people first. They are interested in pursuing an ideological goal that has no sense of understanding or awareness about what ordinary Australians need.

Look at what people need. They need stability and certainty in the energy network. They need security of supply. As my good friend the member for Hughes rightly pointed out, what they also need is to be able to afford energy. People might remember the recent AEMO report that talked about the problems in South Australia's energy supply in the recent blackout.

Members opposite might like to take the time to go and read a report they produced only a few months ago. AEMO produced a report that highlights that one in four families find it difficult to keep the lights on, to be able to pay electricity bills. The people who are worst affected are lower-income households, the people they claim to represent. What a farce. When it comes down to it there are so many people across this country who are struggling to make ends meet—even people in my electorate of Goldstein, where you get pensioners who have to deal with the consequences of energy poverty. Their solution is to make it worse—increase prices and make it harder for them to afford to pay their bills. But it is not just that—it is not just an issue directly around price. It has a flow-on effect to jobs—those young aspirational people who want economic opportunities in their lives.

I would like to draw your attention to a report that recently came out from Manufacturing Australia. Their press release on 11 October states specifically:

Last month's power outage in South Australia was extremely damaging for manufacturing in that state.

…   …   …

The lack of stability and high power prices in South Australia are threatening both existing and future manufacturing investment in a state already reeling from automotive closures.

That is the future they want to project—one where people cannot afford power and industry has a shutdown to achieve their ideological objectives.

It is not just that. Then there is the Australian Energy Council. The list of groups complaining about Labor Party policy continues to go on. In their press release today, the Australian Energy Council said:

Transforming the Queensland electricity system will require a multi-billion dollar investment over decades. It's not magic. This will have to be paid for either by consumers or Queensland taxpayers.

That is the cost of going down this ideological approach. It pushes the cost onto those who can least afford it and onto the taxpayer overall.

The Australian Energy Council press release states further:

Policies that directly intervene in commercial decisions risk undermining investor confidence and will not attract the necessary investment in new generation.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry in a press release yesterday said:

… use of these intermittent energy technologies impacts on the National Electricity Market, so we need a national approach.

But that is not the one they are prosecuting—the ideological one where they look at how to increase the amount of renewable energy in the market, without any sense of understanding about the cost or the impact on ordinary Aussies.

ACCI further said:

State-based renewable energy targets can confuse and distort the national market, driving up costs for consumers without necessarily improving environmental outcomes.

Some states have announced aspirational targets without making clear how these targets will be met …

And that is what they are talking about. Big boasts and no delivery. (Time expired)

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Wednesday, 28 September, I was sitting in my house in the Barossa Valley and we prepared for the storm, because you saw on Facebook and on the news reports that there was this gigantic whether event heading towards South Australia. It was pretty clear that it was going to cause some disruption to community life. So, there I was and at around 5 o'clock the power went out so we lit the combustion heater and settled in for the night. We did not lose mobile coverage straight away, so there I was sitting on Facebook and I noticed that Senator Xenophon had basically given the government of South Australia about 45 minutes of blackout before he came out and blamed wind farms. There he was, running at record speed—he must sprinted to the Canberra studio from wherever he was in Canberra—straight into the arms of Chris Uhlmann to say that it was the fault of wind farms. He put the finger on the wind farms. You have to say that there was no interest in the evidence and no interest in rational inquiry. He rushed to judgement. Why? Basically, to get his head on the TV, because that is all he cares about—being part of the media cycle, dominating the media cycle. So, there was Senator Xenophon and his new conservative party, the Nick Xenophon Team, absolutely rushing to judgement.

The Liberals had a choice at this point. The Prime Minister could have been a statesman and could have done what was standard operating procedure for a weather event, which is what this was. He could have come out in support of the emergency services workers, the utility workers who were still out there in the weather trying to connect power, the volunteers, the army and the community, and basically suspended partisan politics to clear the airwaves for disaster related messages. That is what you should do—leave it to the premier and the emergency services minister to conduct the emergency end of what was a very serious weather event in South Australia.

Instead, the Liberals, Senator Birmingham, Mr Barnaby Joyce, Mr Josh Frydenberg, the Prime Minister and others all followed the pied piper of South Australia down this sort of wormhole of blaming renewable energy. That is why we have this ridiculous debate going on in the public about whether it was a wind farm or renewable energy, like solar—at least the member for Hughes had the courage to mention solar. Most of the others did not blame solar, because they know it is popular. What does the actual report of the energy regulator say? It says:

The weather resulted in multiple transmission system faults. In the short time between 16:16 and 16:18, system faults included the loss of three major 275 kV transmission lines north of Adelaide.

Mr Kelly interjecting—

As the member for Hughes says, it then goes on to talk about the wind generation disconnection. It says:

The uncontrolled reduction in generation resulted in increased flow on the main … interconnector—

At Heywood—

to make up the deficit.

This resulted in the Heywood Interconnector overloading. To avoid damage to the interconnector, the automatic-protection mechanism activated, tripping the interconnector. In this event, this resulted in the remaining customer load and electricity generation in SA being lost (referred to as a Black System).

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hughes is warned.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then it goes into the restoration of the power. This is the report. It is quite clear what happened: no storm; no blackout. It is that simple. Whatever issues there may be in generation—which are faced by electricity grids around the world—we know there is a solar and battery revolution coming down the track whether you like it or not, member for Hughes, because the world is going to move on without you. You can be in this chamber, sprouting your ridiculous, inane ideology until the cows come home, but this is coming down the system.

We could have been having a civilised, non-partisan debate about how to handle a weather emergency, and we could have been having a civilised, rational debate about the electricity grid, but, unfortunately, what we are having is a debate with the member for Hughes, who, just by us all being in the room with you, makes us more stupid because we have to listen to you. You are that demeaning to this parliament. You mislead this parliament with your stupid ideology, and I have to say(Time expired)

Mr Pasin interjecting—

What does he want me to withdraw?

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The unparliamentarily comment which you made about 10 seconds before you sat down.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which one? The one where I said he is stupid?

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Wakefield will withdraw.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw the word 'stupid'.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suppose stupid is as stupid does, but in any event—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw it—he did open himself up to it, with respect. What we saw on 28 September in South Australia was the triumph of ideology over reality. What the member for Wakefield and I share in common, and I do not think we share a lot of things in common, is that we are proud and parochial South Australians. I do not think either of us wants to see the lights out. I do not think either of us wants to deal with the kinds of jokes and quips that I am sure he got from his interstate colleagues, as I did.

The Prime Minister, in this chamber, not an hour ago, put this debate into context. He said that the people of Australian want us to ensure that the lights are kept on—that is a pretty basic requirement—that electricity is affordable and, in what is—as the member for Wakefield correctly points out—a carbon constrained future, we will need to do it in a way that ultimately reduces emissions.

What I want to talk about is the fact that electricity in my state of South Australia is now at historical highs. The member for Port Adelaide will not disagree with me. We are at historical high levels. It is now, effectively, in the long-term average, twice the cost of electricity in Victoria and twice the cost of electricity in New South Wales. How does that affect average, ordinary constituents in my electorate of Barker? As you heard me say in the party room, I spent my formative years moving water pipes around our irrigation property alongside my father and brother. To be fair, I think it is as noble a profession as this one, but do you know what it does? It gives me empathy with the horticulturalists in my electorate in the Riverland. As such, I receive their Central Irrigation Trust newsletter.

The Central Irrigation Trust is an authority that is responsible for managing, as members on this side heard in the party room, infrastructure to ensure water is taken from the mighty Murray River to properties, and, obviously, electricity is a significant component of this. I thought I would read from their newsletter: 'The CIT believes it is important that it alert its customers to the likelihood of significant water price increases impacting on the 2017-18 financial year as a result of increases in electricity generation costs.'

The newsletter says the CIT—a fairly conservative organisation not prone to hyperbole—recently renewed its pumping station energy contract for the coming 12 months. It continues: 'This contract, unfortunately, is $1.3 million higher than we paid in 2015-16 and $600,000 more than we anticipated. Whilst the CLAT has reviewed its 2016-17 budget to mitigate where possible the cost increases, should retail electricity prices remain at current levels in 2017-18, there will be no option but to increase water consumption prices between 15 and 30 per cent to recover the increased costs.'

'What the heck,' you might think, but these are the people that put fruit and vegetables on your table. These people are operating in a regulatory requirement in South Australia—thanks to Jay Weatherill—which is not only the highest cost, in terms of regulation, not only the highest taxing environment, but they now need to face electricity prices that are twice the cost of states like New South Wales and Victoria. Do you know who pays for that? The consumer pays for that. If we come into this place and want to talk about cost-of-living pressures, let us have a real think about cost-of-living pressures. Your vegetables will be more expensive. Your milk will be more expensive.

On the night of the blackout, I was eating in the Murray Bridge Hotel. We were by candlelight, and I received a phone call from a distressed dairy farmer. Have a listen to this. This is someone who is dealing with commodity prices that are putting him out of business, and because of the blackout he could not milk. Do you know what that does? That means he gets one less milking this month. Less money. He is more likely to have to walk off that property. And why?

It is because—

An opposition member interjecting—

Those opposite can keep laughing about it if they like. He is going to walk off that property because you are driving up the cost of electricity. The member for Port Adelaide is running defence for Jay Weatherill. It will not save him, mate. He is gone.

Cathy O'Toole (Herbert, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was born and bred in Townsville in North Queensland. When Cyclone Yasi—a category 5 cyclone—hit our north coast in 2011, numerous houses were destroyed, phone lines were down, and people were without power for weeks. During that time, not one member of the coalition came out and blamed the coal industry for the power outages. So why is this government so set on creating the renewable energy bogeyman, even though experts agree the statewide blackout was the result of a massive storm inflicting large amounts of damage to transmission infrastructure? No-one blamed the coal industry for the severe damage Cyclone Yasi caused, and no-one should blame the renewables industry for the damage in South Australia. Instead of showing true leadership during a very difficult time for South Australians, the government chose to scaremonger. The coalition have been at war with the renewable energy industry for many years now. They fail to understand the importance of the term 'transition'. The term itself does not mean that we leave one industry behind, but rather have a plan to move successfully into the future.

This balance is imperative when it comes to Queensland, where terrific things are being achieved when true leadership is shown. We are seeing a completely new industry being brought to Queensland with the Palaszczuk government's mandate on biofuels. Through this initiative, we are seeing our sugarcane farmers in the Burdekin region branch out into new crops. But it has become very clear that this government has no plan for the future, has no ability to adapt and will continue to bury its head in the sand when it comes to sustainable energy in the future. The government says it wants a national approach to renewable energy but refuses to provide any support to renewable energy post 2020. The government says it wants harmonised renewable targets post 2020 but is only willing to contemplate targets of zero.

Just two weeks ago, the federal resources minister, Matt Canavan, called renewable energy targets 'certifiably mad'. He said:

The Queensland Government may as well promise to build an alpine skiing resort in North Queensland. That has more chance of happening than Labor’s renewable energy target.

Minister Canavan, as the only one of the two of us who actually resides in North Queensland and is proud to be a North Queenslander, let me tell you that this target is real and achievable.

Today, the Queensland government released their independent task force report on their 50 per cent renewable energy target. This government should be interested to learn the expert panel concluded the 50 per cent target is economically and technically feasible—not 'extremely unrealistic', as the Prime Minister has previously stated. Further, it will not negatively impact electricity security, and it will create over $6 billion of new investment and over 6,000 jobs by the year 2030. This is the future the Turnbull government rejects. I am not saying in this place today that we will leave one industry behind. We cannot currently leave our mining industry. But we are currently a transitioning economy, and there needs to be room for both industries and a clear plan for the future.

It is very well known that Central Queensland and North Queensland are rich with minerals. We have mines in Mount Isa and Collinsville and, until recently, we had Queensland Nickel. However, our largest untapped resource is our glorious sunshine. On average, Townsville has sunshine on around 360 days of the year. We have so much sunshine in Townsville that we are colloquially referred to as 'Brownsville'. Our sunshine has the ability to create thousands of new jobs and bring investment to our region. Just last week, Sun Metals released plans to invest $460 million over the next five years in the region, which will involve the construction of a 100-megawatt solar farm designed to power the refinery and sell electricity to the grid. It will also include a second stage of expanding Sun Metals's Townsville refinery, using cutting-edge technology to provide a 25 per cent increase in zinc production.

Only a Labor government has the vision and history to deliver a sustainable future. Under Labor, renewable energy boomed and Australia rose to one of the four most attractive destinations for global renewable energy investment, along with China, the US and Germany. It is a very different story under the Liberals. These are issues Labor take very seriously, and we are continuing to work on detailed policy to meet our challenges: clean energy transformation, energy security and a just transition for workers and communities. That is why we have a policy to invest in the latest renewable and other technologies, to achieve a target of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030, to plan for the orderly closure of the dirtiest and oldest coal power stations and to achieve a just transition for workers and communities. Only Labor have a true commitment to the renewable energy industry.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not surprised that the member for Port Adelaide has brought forward the issue of energy, particularly in South Australia, in this place. South Australia has suffered some terrible losses in the last two weeks and continues to suffer losses today as some of our biggest employers and the bigger users of electricity remain out of production. In that case, I mention BHP up at Roxby Downs, Nyrstar at Port Pirie and I think OZ Minerals at Prominent Hill is still struggling to get back on line.

But I am surprised that he has fallen into the trap of protecting Tom Koutsantonis and the state government. Muhammad Ali used to have a method when he was in the boxing ring; it was called 'rope a dope'. Tom Koutsantonis has certainly found his here in the federal parliament, because they are, in fact, defending the indefensible. This team in South Australia is going down. They will be judged on their poor management of the South Australian electricity system. They will be judged on the fact that they ignored the warnings that have come over time about what would happen in South Australia if they drove the base load generators out of business before they reached a stage where the renewable energy sector was able to supply a stable and fully reliable load.

Australia has a very good target for renewable energy; it is 23 per cent by 2020. It was only in the second half of last year that the Labor Party in this place supported that new target. But they seem to have a different target now. I think that, during the election, I heard it was about 50 per cent. So there you go. They did not stay with that target for all that long.

This is 23 per cent for all of Australia's energy users. But in that time the South Australian government has targeted investment in this area—and you could say, 'That's well and good'—to the point where we have 41 per cent of our electricity load, on average, now being delivered by wind. Some would say that is very smart of the state government, but they have not heeded the warnings about the instability in the grid, the frequency becoming variable, if you like. It is like having thin electricity: it is not always there when you need it. And so many of our industries and our households need reliable electricity.

It is all very well to move to renewable energy, and I support the moves to renewable energy. But they have to insist on storage. There are mechanisms, there are some technologies coming onstream at the moment, and there are a couple of projects that are looking at investing in my electorate. The federal government is doing a powerful amount to ensure that these investments come off, particularly through the renewable energy target. I think they offer some possibility for the future. But we cannot expect to attract new investment to South Australia. We cannot expect people like BHP to continue to reinvest in South Australia when, as the member for Barker has just pointed out, our electricity prices in the last six months have doubled. Our wholesale electricity prices in South Australia in the last six months have in fact more than doubled. For the householder, over the next 12 months this will mean that they are likely to face increases of around 15 to 20 per cent in their electricity bill. It will take them from around 30c a kilowatt hour to around 35c or 36c. That is going to be pretty tough to wear, particularly for people on low incomes.

You can imagine: these high-end energy consumers that actually buy at a small marginal rate above the wholesale cost—maybe 8c or 9c a kilowatt hour—are likely to see, because of that shift, an 80 per cent increase in their cost of electricity. In fact, they already have. If a business like Nyrstar or like BHP that buys electricity not in the millions but in the tens of millions of dollars a year faces an 80 per cent increase on the bottom line or an 80 per cent increase in electricity bills, we have a serious problem—they have a serious problem. If we want industries to keep investing in South Australia, that needs to be addressed. It is a crisis point at the moment. I suspect that there will be a severe backlash for the South Australian government for mismanaging this transition. (Time expired)

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Around two weeks ago I paid a visit to an old schoolfriend and her mum on a Saturday evening. This friend has been living in London for 10 or 15 years but had flown back to care for her mother, who was in late-stage cancer. It was both a sad and a happy occasion. It was just as the storm had been raging for a couple of days. My friend's mum and I had a special bond. When my friend and I were at high school her mum actually used to try to set me up with her daughter as a future wife. It was not to be. Her name was Wendy, the same as my mum's name. So we always had a special bond, and I was very sad to receive a text message late last week saying that she had passed away. But it was lovely to spend that evening with her and the family. She was a feisty woman. She had been a teacher, a pioneer for equal pay for women teachers, and she used to be a Liberal voter, early in her life, until that equal pay stuff came to pass. But she was a very fair woman from middle Australia and always had a great interest in politics. She turned the conversation, as we were sitting there, to Malcolm Turnbull, and she used our time to express her profound disappointment as she, like many of us, had hoped for better.

I confess to the House that I, in my time as a public servant, out of politics, actually quite liked the Prime Minister. I used to not dislike him when I heard him on the radio. He often made sense, and you would sometimes—I know it is heresy!—find yourself nodding, thinking, 'Yeah, okay: that kind of makes sense; I can go along with that.' Or maybe he just was not as completely gross as many of his colleagues. But when we were talking, I said to my friend's mum that each side gets a turn, and you hope that they stick to their convictions and do some good things for the country. But she expressed to me her bitter disappointment at his failing prime ministership and how in her view, being a student of politics, he had sold out all of his core beliefs. She touched on marriage equality, education, the environment and the republic, and she summed it up as perhaps someone with the clarity and wisdom of a dying person can do: 'Julian, we are not seeing his policies; we are seeing his character.'

In my view, the Prime Minister has surrendered to the extremists in his party on every issue he ever believed in—or said he believed in. Energy security and renewable energy are, sadly, no exception. Australians have every right to be deeply and bitterly disappointed. You may remember the quote from the current Prime Minister, who said that he would not lead a party that is not as committed to effective action on climate change as he is, or the more pontifical quote:

Now you can look at the targets, 50 per cent the common sort of rubric rule of thumb is to cut emissions by 2050 … I promise you, you cannot achieve that cut, you cannot achieve it without getting to a point by mid-century where all or almost all of our stationary energy, that is to say energy from power stations and big factories and so forth comes from zero emission sources.

We heard about his praise for South Australia's renewables during the campaign. We heard about his time as the environment minister, preaching about technology and renewables and how these things can provide base load power. We thought we had a new style of politics—intelligent, reasonable leadership, thoughtful and evidence based.

I am new here; this is my third week. I was actually quite stunned in question time on Monday when the Prime Minister was asked a simple question—we were all here: 'What is the government's policy to support renewable energy projects after 2020?' And he had no answer—no commitments, no policy, no targets, no plan—zip. He waffled for a bit, then he chucked to the Minister for the Environment and Energy.

I went to university with the Minister for the Environment and Energy, and he is a very lovely guy. We have a lot of mutual friends. He is perfect for the modern Liberal Party, because he does not really believe in anything in particular. So, he is perfect for this portfolio. He came into parliament, as the Victorians would know, as sort of a wet Lib—fairly progressive—but now he has tacked to the right, so who knows where he will end up.

But to summarise the points that have been made: this is not a new thing. This has been generated by the storm. The storm, however, is just the latest excuse in an ongoing ideological war—the irony of being lectured about ideology by those opposite!—on renewable energy. They tried to abolish the target. And I will finish by talking just briefly about investment stability and certainty. We heard a lot about investment stability and how we need certainty for industry to invest. We agree that industry needs confidence to invest, and certainty. And Labor compromised. There is no shame in difficult compromise. We took a hard decision to compromise and provide that certainty for industry in the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target. For reasons of energy security, climate change and the economy, in terms of new investment and jobs, we deserve better. We look forward to seeing the government sitting down and engaging in a rational debate, not pursuing their rabid ideology against renewable energy.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I proudly rise to speak on this matter of public importance and in support of this government's leadership and initiative in the space of energy systems modernisation in this country. When talk about the Australian energy market, we have to remember that it was this coalition government, back in 2001, who first introduced the Renewable Energy Target. Back then, our renewable sectors only contributed eight per cent of our entire energy market. Today, with our government's initiatives in both clean energy and research and development, we have increased renewable electricity supply to 15 per cent. The coal industry used to provide 80 per cent of our overall electricity market; today it has fallen to 60 per cent. By 2020 the renewables market will have increased more than 23 per cent, an ambitious but achievable target.

The opposition seems to take issue with this government taking the reins and delivering outcomes that marry up not only on our international obligations in transitioning to a low emissions future, but are also economically viable and, more importantly, are actually delivering responsible, reliable and efficient energy to all Australians.

Recent events in South Australia demonstrate the case for a pragmatic approach to modernising our energy systems and balancing the pace at which we transition our energy markets. We must be doing our job, because the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Energy Council, Manufacturing Australia and the Grattan Institute all support this government's approach in providing stable, reliable and affordable energy. I am pleased to note the significant investment by this government through ARENA's grant funding as a key measure of support for the renewable energy industry, in particular Australia's large-scale solar PV industry, and facilitating our government's ability to meet that target.

In fact, in my rural electorate of Maranoa in Queensland, an electorate covering more than 42 per cent of the state, we have more than enough access to the sunshine. ARENA recently announced large-scale solar PV funding for 12 projects, two of which are in my electorate and are expected to commence construction as early as December this year.

The first is a $21 million investment in the Darling Downs Solar Farm in the southern part of my electorate, which will be constructed by Origin Energy in Dalby and will not only generate 110 megawatts of solar energy, but will deliver 550 new jobs to the Dalby community. The second is a $1.3 million support to the Longreach solar farm in the central west of my electorate, which will generate 15 megawatts of power and provide around 75 new jobs to the community of Longreach, a community significantly impacted by drought. Not only do we have these two projects ready for construction, we currently have a large-scale solar farm of 90 hectares in Barcaldine also underway in the central west of my electorate, where the energy generated will provide energy for more than 5,300 homes.

These projects are invaluable to the future development and modernisation of the solar industry in regional and rural Australia. The work that is being undertaken here will provide invaluable information on developing large-scale solar in areas located on the fringe of electricity grids, areas which can be disadvantaged by power outages brought about by network constraints, and of course the need for further infrastructure.

I think the opposition needs to convene with their state counterparts and reiterate the importance of a harmonised national approach between the state and federal governments to meeting our renewable energy targets. For example, this government is committed to reducing our emissions by 26 to 28 per cent by 2030, a target which is responsibly based on 2005 levels, and we remain on target to meet and beat our 2020 emissions reduction target by 78 million tonnes.

But in my home state the Queensland government has set a renewable energy target of 50 per cent by 2025. We know, and the federal Department of Environment and Energy has found, that the impact of the Queensland state government's target will be absolutely detrimental to the people in my home state, from the family households to farmers and other small businesses, community groups and organisations and larger enterprises in Queensland. If that irresponsible Renewable Energy Target remains in place, the Queensland state government will have to answer for their role in causing extreme electricity cost to Queenslanders, particularly those who are least able to afford it. If any government fails to consider the budget in this process, there will not be any money to provide supplements or compensation to anyone impacted by exorbitant electricity prices. Responsibly managing a diversifying renewable energy market means working with mother nature and our state and territory counterparts to provide efficient and effective primary and secondary energy sources.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has concluded.