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

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. In light of the recent state-wide blackout in South Australia and the importance of energy security, will the minister outline to the House the advantage of a national approach to electricity market policy? Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches?

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Barker for his question and acknowledge that, with more food manufacturers than anywhere else in the country, his constituents know well what is the pain of an ill-considered energy policy. Constituents in his electorate are paying nearly double the price of electricity as those just over the border in Victoria. Whether you are watching a game of cricket under the lights at the MCG or the SCG, whether you live by the beach on the Sunshine Coast or whether you work at the steelworks in Whyalla, you are on the same national electricity grid. For that reason, we need a national approach, which will help us stabilise the energy system and create an affordable energy system as we transition to a lower emissions future.

All those hard-won reforms are now at risk by the unilateral action of Labor state governments and the Labor opposition. We have a 50 per cent target here, from federal Labor. We have a 50 per cent target from Queensland Labor. We have a 50 per cent target from South Australian Labor and a 40 per cent target from Victorian Labor. Do not take my word for it; these are the words of the Grattan institute:

Unilateral action by states or territories is likely to distort the implementation of national policies and increase costs with no net environmental benefit.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, representing more than four million workers, has said:

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

Just yesterday, the Queensland Labor government released a report into its 50 per cent target. In that report, it said, remarkably, fancifully, that it would actually lead to no closures of coal generators, even though it projected that coal power generation would go down by a third. It remarkably said that this would be cost neutral, even though we know they want to increase by tenfold renewable energy, and also we know from previous modelling that it would cost upwards of $27 billion. They went against the words of their own Queensland Productivity Commission, who called on the state government to work with the COAG Energy Council as 'an alternative to pursuing independent action'. So it is now up to the Leader of the Opposition to stop sacrificing energy security on the altar of his ideology. We all believe in reducing emissions. We all believe in renewable energy. In fact, this Prime Minister has a realistic target of 23½ per cent by 2020. But what we will not do is compromise the affordability and the energy security of Australians right around the country.