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 need for certainty in energy policy.

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

This week there is no more important question before the parliament than the question that I think people across the community—households and businesses—are asking, and that is whether all of us in this parliament will step up to take serious action to deal with a deep energy crisis that is gripping this nation. The crisis has become very, very deep indeed. As we have heard in the parliament over the last couple of days, and as households and businesses know only too well, wholesale power prices have doubled in the four years of this government. As we know, across the country retailers are now feeding those wholesale power prices increases into household power bills. AGL, the biggest retailer in New South Wales, for example, is lifting power prices by 16 per cent for households across our largest state. All of that is at a time when wages are flatter than they have ever been. All of that is at a time when hundreds of thousands of workers who work Sunday retail and hospitality shifts will be losing their penalty rate entitlements in the next couple of weeks. And all of that is at a time when this government continues to insist on removing the energy supplement, designed to deal with high energy prices, of about $360 per year for all new pensioners in the country.

The Prime Minister told us yesterday and tried to tell us again today that the only reason that wholesale power prices are going up is because of gas prices, particularly because of moratoria on gas exploration in Victoria—understandably, I guess, from his point of view politically, not wanting to talk about what is happening in New South Wales about gas exploration.

I want to talk more generally about the real reason for household power prices going up. The Energy Council has been very clear, as has every expert body that has looked at this over the last couple of years. Power prices are going up primarily because of policy paralysis—policy uncertainty that has gripped this nation particularly in the four years of this government. You do not need to look any further than a presentation that the minister made to the coalition party room yesterday. It was a PowerPoint presentation headed 'Finkel review into the future security of the National Electricity Market.' In that presentation to the coalition party room the minister, who is at the table today, included a graph saying 'wholesale prices at record levels'. In the next slide in the PowerPoint, which was helpfully provided to people by the members of the coalition, the question was posed, 'How did we get here?' The minister, quite truthfully and admirably, said, 'Policy uncertainty which is holding back new investment'. I do not understand that to be a public document, so I seek leave to table this document as well.

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

Is leave granted? Leave is not granted.

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

That is a great disappointment. We know exactly what is happening here. Wholesale power prices are going through the roof because this government is gripped by policy paralysis—and has been so for four years. Four years ago it knew what to do to get into government and tear down and dismantle the previous Labor government's energy and climate policy framework. But it had no idea what to do then. It introduced this safeguards mechanism, which is so universally ridiculed that they do not even bother modelling it anymore; the Energy Market Commission said it does not even bother to model that; the existing energy policy this nation has is so ridiculed that it is not even modelled as an alternative anymore.

And, of course, they went after the one energy policy that was supposed to be bipartisan at the 2010 and 2013 election—and that was the renewable energy target, which the former Prime Minister tried to dismantle. That caused investment to plummet by 88 per cent. And according to the ABS, which reported on jobs data in the renewable energy industry a few weeks ago, it led to the loss of one in three jobs in the renewable energy industry over the last three years—some 6,000 jobs.

And the minister has talked about the gas market. For four years, people have been warning about supply shortages to the LNG export operations in Gladstone. For at least two years the Labor Party has said there should be a national interest test introduced around gas exploration and gas export. And up until the last few weeks, when they suddenly got the idea, this government has said: 'It's all working fine; just leave it up to the market.' Well now, suddenly, they realise there is a seriously deep gas crisis fronting this country.

To the minister's credit, and to the credit of state and territory governments, the Energy Council tried to break through this last year and appointed the Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, with a very eminent panel of people working with him. We welcomed that. State and territory governments, Labor and Liberal alike, welcomed it. It is a credit to the minister that he tried to break through this. It was on the back of a specious campaign by the Prime Minister about the causes of the blackout in South Australia in September; but we will let that be a bygone and talk about the positive aspects of this process.

Last week the Business Council, other business groups, the ACTU, ACOSS and environment groups all had a clear message for this parliament, and it was that all members of this parliament should give full and fair consideration to the Finkel report—not rush to judgement, not do the knee-jerk responses that have too often characterised this parliament's responses to energy and climate policy for at least a decade. And we are committed to giving that full and fair consideration. We have said the market recommendations, the governance recommendations, have a lot to commend them; we want to study them more carefully, we want to engage with stakeholders, but they have a lot to recommend them. The generator reliability obligations are a sensible next step in us considering how we roll out the greater threshold of renewable energy into our electricity system. We want to talk to stakeholders more about how that might be designed.

And we have said we are open to a clean energy target. This is a big shift for Labor. Unlike the coalition we took a detailed energy policy to the last election that included a commitment to an emissions intensity scheme—a scheme which, since, has been supported by the Business Council, pretty much every business group, every energy company and every expert body from the CSIRO to the Energy Market Commission. Notwithstanding that we actually had an election policy, we have said that we are open to putting aside that policy and talking about a clean energy target instead—not because we think it is the best policy but because the Prime Minister says to the nation it is the only one he is willing to talk about.

There are no red lights for Labor in the Finkel report. We are willing to engage constructively with the government, with state governments and with other stakeholders about it being implemented. But I tell you we will not be party to a sham that seeks to rig the definition of clean energy to include new coal-fired power stations. Let's take a reality check on where the Australian electricity market is up to on coal. More than three-quarters of electricity in the National Electricity Market was generated by coal in the last full year. That is why Australia produces twice as much pollution per megawatt hour as the United States or the OECD. We need to reduce our reliance on coal, not increase it. Fiona Simson, the National Farmers' Federation president, said as much recently in response to Finkel. She said: 'It is inevitable that, as a nation, we will move away from coal fired power generation as assets age.'

The clean energy target sets no impost on existing generators. Unlike an EIS, which was our policy, which imposed a direct price on incumbent coal generators, this clean energy target imposes no impost on even the most heavily polluting coal generators. There is no prohibition in the Finkel report on building new coal-fired power stations. Unlike Canada and the United Kingdom, where you simply cannot build a new generator that emits more than 450 kilograms per megawatt hour, there is no prohibition in Finkel. Now they have a small problem—no-one is willing to invest in it—but there is actually no prohibition.

But apparently members in the coalition party room want to include unabated coal-fired power in the definition of clean energy. You just cannot rig that definition. It would make a mockery of the Finkel process. As the Chief Scientist himself said yesterday, it would be surprising to include new, unabated coal-fired power as clean energy. The whole scheme would be impacted by a decision like that. It is quite clear the modelling that underpinned the Finkel report did not include unabated coal-fired power being included in the definition of clean energy. You just have to ask the man and the woman on the Clapham omnibus—it does not pass the laugh test to include new, unabated coal as part of clean energy. I urge members in the coalition party room to take a deep breath, do what energy groups, business groups, unions and ACOSS have asked and give this report full and fair consideration before you rush into rigging the definition of clean energy.

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

Before I call the minister, I will remind honourable members on both sides of the house that only one person at a time should speak during the MPI. I call the Minister for the Environment and Energy.

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

I would have thought the member for Port Adelaide would know better. I would have thought that he would have looked in his own backyard in South Australia and understood what a bad energy policy looks like. And it is spelt Labor—L A B O R.

The member for Swan, the member for Boothby, the member for Maranoa, the member for Goldstein, the member for North Sydney, the member for Hume, the member for Grey, the member for Bennelong—they are in this chamber because they care about good energy policy. And good energy policy depends on a technology-neutral approach. Good energy policy places a premium on energy affordability. Good energy policy places a premium on energy stability and reliability, and good energy policy is consistent with our international agreements, which we take seriously.

In South Australia, in the member for Port Adelaide's own electorate, Adelaide Brighton—450 workers—lost its power for 36 hours. The CEO of Adelaide Brighton said, 'Can't I just expect to be able to keep the lights on so that I can run my own business?' And so did other businesses: BHP at Olympic Dam; Arrium steelworks at Whyalla; and the Nyrstar smelter at Port Pirie. Like the fishermen at Port Lincoln, the cafe owners in Mount Barker and the small businesses in Stirling—right across South Australia—they expect that the lights stay on and that the prices are affordable.

But unfortunately the ideological approach, which is: put renewables first, second and third, without the necessary backup, without the necessary storage, without taking into account the frequency control and ancillary services, the stability and the inertia that you need when you take out synchronous generation from the mix—that is what Jay Weatherill's big experiment looked like. Unfortunately the member for Port Adelaide described 1.7 million people losing their power and $500-plus million lost to his state as 'a hiccup'. The member for Port Adelaide should come into this chamber and apologise to his fellow South Australians. Today in question time, we also found out that the member for Port Adelaide went on the Insiders show in May this year and was asked directly, 'What did you know when you were in government about the LNG export industry and its impact on domestic gas prices and shortfall?' He said: 'We didn't get any advice. We didn't know.' Well, today in question time we found a smoking gun—or maybe even a bazooka!—and it showed that the Australian Energy Market Operator's report in 2012 warned of shortfalls under the heading 'LNG export market'. Then we found, even more embarrassingly—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

We will get to the member for Shortland—we will do him slowly! We know that not only was there this AEMO report—this bazooka—but also there was an energy white paper in 2012 which specifically said that there would be 'transitional pressures' on supply and higher prices as a result of the LNG export market in which, when you were in government, the final investment decisions were taken.

Prime Minister Turnbull is cleaning up Labor's mess. That is why he has put in place export restrictions, because we need to get downward pressure on gas prices. We know that in 2014 gas was setting the price of electricity nine per cent of the time, but in May 2017 that figure was 24 per cent. We know that gas prices have tripled in the last five years, and we know that this is a critical part of the energy mix to get electricity prices down. But do you know what is another important part of the energy mix? Those on the other side dare not mention its name—it is kryptonite for the Labor Party! It is coal. Coal is a critical part of our energy mix, making up more than 60 per cent of today's national electricity market. Under Dr Finkel's plan—which he explicitly says is not about the inputs but about the outputs—he has created a system in which coal will be consistently used throughout the decades and will provide more than 50 per cent of the supply up to 2030.

The member for Shortland is looking down now, because the member for Shortland knows that, on the Labor Party's policy, he is sacrificing over 300 jobs in his own electorate in Vales Point. Dare I say, he probably personally supports that power station but, unfortunately, he sits on the other side of the House in opposition—for good reason!—supporting a party that wants to see the forced closure of coal-fired power stations. We know that that side is stuck between their blue collar and their green thumb. We know that that side, on the other side of the parliament, joined with the Greens not that long ago in a motion in the Senate to force the closure of coal-fired power stations. I look across to the member for Wannon, and he cares about the workers in the Latrobe Valley. So does the member for Gippsland. They care about the workers at Loy Yang A, at Loy Yang B and at Yallourn. But the member for Port Adelaide and the Leader of the Opposition do not care. They do not care about the 600 workers at Liddell, in the member for Hunter's electorate.

Mr Conroy interjecting—

He says it is not 600. Well, how many is it? How many workers are you prepared to sell down the river? Are you prepared to sell the hundreds of workers in your own electorate and the hundreds of workers in coal-fired power stations across Queensland and New South Wales down the river?

We recognise that you need to have an energy mix that is technology neutral. We recognise that we need more gas for domestic uses. We call upon these Labor state governments to drop their mindless moratoriums and bans on the exploration of conventional and unconventional gas. The disgraceful behaviour of Daniel Andrews in Victoria is pushing up the price for hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers across his own state, and for 80 per cent of households that are dependent in one form or another on gas, despite having 40 years worth of domestic supply. What about the Northern Territory? They are sitting on 180 years worth of domestic supply. What about other states across the country that are not developing the gas they need? We call upon them at the federal level to be more responsible and to bring gas in.

The other area we are focusing on in our energy policy is reining in network and retail costs, because we understand that networks make up about 50 per cent of the bill and retail costs are also a significant proportion of the bill. But what we will not do on this side of the House is pursue the mindless 45 per cent emissions reduction target that we see the Labor Party follow, without understanding its impact on costs and on jobs. We on this side of the House always come back to our values. Our values are about markets. Our values are about families. Our values are about free enterprise. Our values are about the power of the individual over the collective. And, ultimately, our values are about creating jobs not only for Australians today but for Australians tomorrow. Unfortunately, those on the other side of the House believe in their ideological emissions reduction targets that are based on demand destruction, not about creating new jobs.

As long as there is breath in our bodies, as long as we sit on the right side of the Speaker's chair, both in name and in place, as long as we are in charge of the government's coffers, we will ensure energy affordability and energy reliability as we transition to a lower-emissions future. We will put jobs first and foremost.

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

What a hopeless performance by the minister. It truly was like being flogged with a wet lettuce. Sadly, not statesman like, the minister is all tip and no iceberg. The truth is that he dare not speak to the workers. The most disrespectful thing you can do to workers is to lie to them, and that is what the coalition government is doing, because change is coming. The great Hunter Valley produces one-third of Australia's coal-fired power and the owners of those power stations have already set use-by dates: Liddell, 2022; Vales Point, 2028; Eraring, 2034; and Bayswater 2035. Those are the dates by which the companies have said they will close down. So the real debate here is how we look after the workers and ensure we get new investment. Those on the other side are doing a great disservice to those workers in those communities by pretending that nothing has to change. That contradicts their own language. Business as usual, which is their recipe, is a recipe for higher power prices and investment paralysis. Their own document, the Finkel review, has said that business as usual means a 10 per cent higher power price, which means households spending $175 more on average on electricity. That is the policy of the fossils in the Liberal party room. That is the policy of the member for Hume, and it is the policy of the member for Hughes: higher electricity prices—and he acknowledges it with a wave. He acknowledges with a wave that his policy is one of higher power prices and investment paralysis.

The graph that demonstrates the moral turpitude of those opposite is from their own documents. Their own Finkel report has a graph on wholesale power prices, and it demonstrates that in the four years they have been government—because they seem to forget that they have actually been in government for four years—wholesale power prices have doubled. That endangers manufacturing workers in this country and it puts greater cost of living pressures on households around the country. Why have they doubled? Because of policy uncertainty. The Australian Energy Council, the industry peak body, has said that policy uncertainty is equivalent to a $50 a tonne carbon price. This is the energy industry saying it, not us, not some mad hippies or mad greenies. The Australian Energy Council has said that the policy uncertainty under the government's watch, under the four years of their stewardship of the economy, is equivalent to a $50 a town carbon price. That is a great tragedy, and we have an opportunity to end it in this place if we grasp the nettle and if we actually fulfil our obligations as legislators and embrace the Finkel review.

We have said that we have moved from our well-considered policy around an emissions intensity scheme—a policy we took to the last election and tested with the populace. We have moved to a clean energy target. We said: 'It's the second best option, but if it ends the policy paralysis we'll embrace it. We've got an open mind about it. We'll talk you through the details and hopefully get some legislation that everyone can agree with.' That is because the industry needs certainty. But what do we get from those on the other side? We get climate change denialism and a rejection of markets. From the party of free markets, we get a rejection of markets. Instead, they want command and control. The government is building coal-fired power stations—what utter irresponsibility from the government. What do we get from them? We get quotes like this from the party room: 'Malcolm could lose his leadership over this if he doesn't listen to us,' 'Finkel in its current form is dead,' '20 MPs expressed serious misgivings,' and, as another MP said, 'It's a slaughter.' A lot of the usual suspects have not spoken yet. Another MP—hopefully not you, Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, because I know you reflected on leaks from your party room—said, 'This has shades of 2009 about it,' which is when they last rolled the member for Wentworth.

I am calling on the Liberal-National coalition to embrace markets for once, to embrace bipartisanship and to end the policy paralysis and the uncertainty that is destroying our energy system. I call on them to come to us, embrace Finkel and provide a long-term solution to the energy crisis that they have created, that they have caused and that they are now denying.

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

The member for Shortland, who spoke before me, is right: there are shades of 2009, when the Labor Party rolled their leader because they put forward the idea that climate change was the greatest moral challenge of their time and then they backed down from it, because they had a policy and then they did not have a policy. I had to reread the text of the matter of public importance today because it read like it was a matter that came from the government calling on the parliament to deliver policy certainty. Instead, we have a hypocritical argument from the opposition, because what is causing the greatest damage and the greatest sovereign risk in this country today for stable, consistent energy policy to deliver affordable electricity to Australian households and businesses is the Australian Labor Party. They are the people who constantly chop and change and want to increase regulations and restrictions which make it harder for anybody to invest with confidence. They are the ones who make it harder to invest with any confidence, because they are not led by reason, by markets, by evidence or by substance. They are led by the member for Melbourne and all of the other Greens friends that they have, who would rather lead the opposition on a path to economic ruin. They are the party who have always looked at prosperity by taxation, and that is what they are putting forward. The Prime Minister was 100 per cent right when he insightfully made the remark today that the policy of the Australian Labor Party has been to introduce a carbon tax and that they want the government to adopt their policy position. I can tell the Labor Party resolutely—right here, right now—that we will not be doing so.

What we are going to do is provide policy certainty by focusing on what we need to do to increase supply, and I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Environment and Energy for their leadership in this space. What we have seen from the minister's comments and reflections today, and since he has been the minister, is that he is somebody who is focused on how to increase supply into the marketplace to put downward pressure on prices. What we have seen is national leadership by the Prime Minister in increasing storage into the marketplace to turn the failures from the opposition's policy in their time in government into something that will be sustainable into the future. That has been the fundamental problem. They have put more and more renewables into the market—and there is space for renewables. I am somebody who is resolutely technology neutral. I like a diversity so that we can manage the challenge ahead of us as a nation, but you cannot do it without the proper storage mechanisms to make this type of technology viable and to compete on a level playing field with other types of technology to put downward pressure on prices, because we know what we have seen as a consequence when we do not.

We have seen the human cost, not just the economic cost, of what has happened in the state of South Australia, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves for leading the nation down that path. The consequence is that people lose jobs, that there is a lack of investment and that there are lost opportunities for South Australians to build their future. Go and tell people locked in lifts overnight of the human consequences of the policies that you have implemented, and you will see the folly of what you are putting forward.

We also need to congratulate Alan Finkel, the Chief Scientist, on his review. The Chief Scientist has done an excellent job in providing a report that provides the foundations for stable and certain policy into the future. His recommendations, particularly in following the leadership of the Prime Minister around battery storage, are most welcome in building stability and predictability into the marketplace. It is one of the best reviews into energy policy we have seen for at least a decade, certainly eclipsing all the times that the opposition was in government, because it has focused on how to deliver affordable, stable, reliable power.

That does not mean there is no room for improvement and recommendations in addition to that, and I have made my own commentary in that space and will continue to do so, about making sure that we get a broader scale of energy into the marketplace. But it says we need some key things: new renewables that must provide a minimum level of storage; large generators, regardless of type, that will be required to give three years notice of closures; and a clean energy target in its current form, which we preferred over an EIS and will provide the necessary certainty for investment in new generation. It is a start. It is not the end of the conversation, but they will destroy that conversation with their high jinks and politics.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have an historic opportunity to use the Finkel report to finally engage in a serious bipartisan discussion on resolving our energy and climate change issues, and we genuinely call on the coalition to join us to get this underway. It is disappointing to see on the coalition side so many troglodytes resisting this. If only we could capture and store them far away from responsible policy development! We still have the member for Warringah throwing hand grenades from the sidelines in a last ditch effort to defend his 1950s bunker. In fact, the member admits he has not even read the report. That is a clear sign that he has reached a terrible new level of intellectual bankruptcy. I guess it takes a fossil to love fossil fuels. Everyone knows this is simply the national interest being held hostage to the leadership ambitions and bitterness of two men. Mr Turnbull, it is leadership we need now, and the nation and the world are watching and waiting to judge you as a leader.

There is no equivalency or balance between Labor and the coalition to be confected in reporting on this issue. Labor are rightly proud of being on the right side of history through our genuine and sensible policy processes, including green and white papers, widespread consultation, examination of international lessons learned, and careful evidence based design. Then there have been our attempts to achieve agreement. We took on the Shergold recommendation and John Howard's policy to go with an emissions trading scheme concept. We engaged and achieved agreement with Malcolm Turnbull 1.0 on such a scheme, only to see that go down at the coalition version of the Red Wedding. We then offered to move to an emissions intensity scheme, supported by a who's who of industry and experts, as well as the National Farmers' Federation and the New South Wales Young Nationals, which was government policy for only a nanosecond, as brave, brave Sir Malcolm bravely turned his tail and fled, yet again.

Now again we are ready to talk, but the question is: talk to whom and over what? After four years of doing absolutely nothing to address the issues of planning for the new grid and managing the NEM, we have reached a critical watershed. We know that there is a need for measures to address the stability of the market and the orderly transition to renewables. Business knows this, and so too does the Snowy Hydro team. What business needs is broader policy certainty, not stunts like the PM standing at the Snowy Hydro pumped storage project site like some uninvited photobomber. The entire project, from the bid for the feasibility funding from ARENA to the investment in the building phase, has had and will have nothing to do with the Turnbull government. In fact, the coalition tried to kill off ARENA and has not played any role in the fundraising process for construction. It is, in fact, projects like this which will deliver the storage and synchronicity we must have. The shame is that this and other projects would have been much further along if the coalition had not destroyed the policy framework of the Clean Energy Future package in 2013—an act of rank vandalism—thereby strangling the investment flow that was underway. The image of them celebrating on the floor of this chamber over that act will be forever frozen in history, along with Neville Chamberlain waving his piece of paper, as an image of delusional futility, negligence and betrayal.

The damning evidence is in the Finkel report: the need for a strategic plan to manage the orderly transition from coal, the management regime to prevent the gaming of the system caused by privatisation, and the evening out of generation across the NEM, eliminating the challenges of intermittency. Certainty will free up investment and make possible the deployment of technology that might in fact help thermal coal achieve a gentler glide path while eliminating harmful emissions. There are technologies out there that can do that. They profess a love of coal and have done nothing to assist the industry survive in a decarbonised investment world. We have had a doubling of energy prices, with greater slugs to come. There are the perverse attempts by the government to remove the energy supplement—it was called that for a reason—that supported the most vulnerable pensioners, including those on veterans pensions, in our community.

The whole country is watching the coalition right now and saying, 'Get real, get on with it, get talking to Labor.' If you fail yet again to take on this policy challenge, you and the members who irrationally buried their heads in the sand will rightly stand condemned by future generations for your disservice to them and the vital national interest. Eternal shame will be forever yours, preserved right here in Hansard and in the chaotic energy landscape that you bequeathed, with all its tragic consequences.

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

The hypocrisy of those opposite knows no bounds. Firstly, let's start on their record—the record that they brought to this place over the years of the Gillard-Rudd-Gillard governments, with the great policy of the carbon tax—the $15 billion tax that they imposed on every Australian. The promise that Gillard made during the election campaign was that she would never lead a government that had a carbon tax. The heads go down on those opposite because they know that this was an impost on every Australian and it put Australians out of work. Now they come back into this place with a different philosophy, another philosophy on a 50 per cent renewable energy target. We could not even get the member for Port Adelaide to say that number before. He was too embarrassed to put the number out there. He was scared to say that we were going on a philosophical rant of 50 per cent renewable energy, and so he should be because he has a lot of friends in state governments who have gone down that track.

In my home state of Queensland, they are now talking about wanting to take up a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. We currently sit at 4.5 per cent. That is a 45 per cent increase in renewable energy. That is an amazing transition for any economy to undertake. It is not possible without significant damage to the people of Queensland, and that does not just stay in Queensland. We have the position in Victoria and in Adelaide in South Australia. We have already seen what has happened in South Australia. We have seen what happens when you get to 40 per cent renewable and what happens when the lights go out. It cost the people of South Australia $450 million the day the lights went out because there was nothing to sustain them, nothing to help them and nothing to keep the jobs going. There are 1.7 million South Australians that have nothing because of Labor.

But then you get on to gas. Anyone who understands how energy is priced understands that gas is central to that. In my electorate of Maranoa, we are the ones who are generating the gas. The Queensland Labor government have come in and exploited it, but, like pink batts and the school halls, it was a rushed policy with no concept and no understanding of where they are going to go, and no thought about where we may go as a nation and as a state. They went in and made sure that the gas reserves in Queensland are exported. What we are seeing now is that there is effectively no domestic supply from Queensland because we have a short-sighted Labor government in Queensland and we have one that is trying to be one here.

The member for Port Adelaide walks in at a timely moment. He talks about the virtues of the Labor Party and how they work strongly together. You need to get on the phone to those in Victoria and those in the Northern Territory who have a moratorium on gas. That is what you need to do if you want bipartisanship, if you want a solution to this. This is when leadership comes in—not platitudes and slogans but real action.

But are Labor up to that? They are not. They are up to false philosophies driven by the member for Melbourne and everyone in the Greens, because that is what they are worried about. Each one of them here is looking down because they know the Greens are coming for them. The Greens are coming for them because they have this ideology of 100 per cent. And you have done well; you have done well just to get to 50 per cent. But it does not make sense and it does not pay the bills, and that is the unfortunate thing. But there is no leadership. Gas can change where we are going right here and now. There are people hurting in the now, not just in the future, which is what Finkel is looking at. We need to look at the now, and gas is a key element of opening that up.

But let me finish on our friends in the Queensland state government. The minister spoke before about the cost of distribution: nearly 50 per cent goes to distribution. We have a Queensland state government that is controlling the distribution out of the coal-fired generators, three of which are in my electorate. They are controlling supply, which the ACCC have now become interested in. But the reality around the distribution costs is that the state government are taxing the people of Queensland by stealth. They are taxing them by stealth every time they send out a bill. They send out bills with fees and charges that are so significant that they are being disingenuous to everybody in relation to this. This lies at the feet of state governments just as much as it does at the feet of Labor.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the need for certainty in energy policy in Australia, and nowhere is this more important than in my electorate of Paterson. Certainty in energy policy is needed so that pensioners in Paterson are not sitting in the cold and dark, with a rug over their knees, rather than putting the heat on, so high is the price of electricity under this government. Certainty in energy policy is needed for businesses in Paterson, for manufacturers in Paterson, who employ the vast majority of our workers, who keep our economy strong and who are being held to ransom by high gas prices. And certainty in energy policy is needed for the workers in my seat of Paterson, many of whom are employed in the energy sector—the people who work in our mines, our power generators, who need to know what the future holds.

We need to know what this government is going to do. In four years, what have you done? You have shown absolutely no leadership on this and you have managed to erode every piece of good work that had been done. We need to face the fact that we are in transition; we must do our best to make it a just transition for all Australians. We on this side of the House are sitting down with stakeholders—business groups, environment groups, unions, consumer groups—and talking sensibly and seriously about the Finkel review, while those on the other side of the House bicker and squabble in the party room and probably pass around a lump of coal. Today we have extended the hand of bipartisanship, but they are too busy fighting in the party room and they know they cannot get the support from the people that they really need.

Certainty in energy policy is needed so that we do not see a repeat of 10 February, when at Tomago Aluminium, in my electorate of Paterson, we were forced to cut back production so the lights and the air conditioners of New South Wales would stay on. I hope you enjoyed that! Tomago supplies a quarter of Australia's primary aluminium, and it uses 12 per cent of the state's electricity. It supports at least a thousand people in my electorate, nearly 2,000 if you take contractors into account. As the heatwave hit on 10 February, Tomago had no choice but to cut production by 30 per cent. We need to create certainty for the likes of Tomago—for energy users, for energy retailers and for energy generators. Our manufacturers cannot keep paying the gas prices they are paying, either. And, finally, there has been a little glimpse of common sense from across the aisle. Our pensioners cannot keep paying the electricity prices they do either, and yet we are all faced with these increases.

In my electorate, we have seen one aluminium smelter close, in Kurri Kurri, and I do not want to see another one close because you lot cannot get your act together. Let me remind you: you have been over on that side for four years. What the hell have you been doing? Not very much. The energy crisis could lead to manufacturers closing their doors, and that is not good. It has already led to the doubling of wholesale energy prices over the last three years. What Australians, including the people of Paterson, want is energy policy certainty so that we can have lower prices, so that we can have investment in energy generation—that is really the key—and so that we can have lower pollution.

It is so important, because, as we said, we want to be on the right side of history on this. I do not want our grandchildren to say, 'What were you doing in parliament, Grandma, all those years ago when you were supposed to be making good decisions about our planet and you were sitting there not making the decisions?' You on the other side will go down as being not just on the wrong side of history but on the wrong gulf of history. I wonder who will play each of you in the movie. I tell you what: it will be a horror show.

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

The member for Paterson will address her remarks through the chair.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure someone good will play you in the movie, sir. Labor has said that we are open to being bipartisan and working with the government, because Australians deserve to have lower electricity prices. All Australians—all of us—need a plan for cheaper, cleaner and more secure power, and the Finkel review is a good place to start. Our leader has said, 'We want to work with you.' We need to end this. Seriously, people in Australia want an end to this. They watch the news of a night. Their children go to school and learn about this, and they say, 'When are we going to have something real done?' We are supposed to be leaders and adults, and so far all we are seeing is terribly immature behaviour from a group of people who do not want to face the facts about our world. I say to this lot: get over yourselves and put some energy back into the energy debate that is so sorely needed in this country—not just for yourselves but for everyone.

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

The member for Paterson is calling for certainty. The certainty that she is calling for is the closure of the Tomago smelter. That is the reality. When she talks to her grandchildren in the future, her grandchildren will be saying to her: 'Grandma, why did you impose a 50 per cent policy renewable target that ultimately led to the closure of the Tomago aluminium smelter? Grandma, why did you do that?' And she will say, 'Well, Granddaughter, I was pursuing an ideological campaign and I was prepared to sacrifice the jobs of the Tomago smelter on the altar of that ideological campaign.' That is what you will have to say, and that is fine. I for one do not want to pursue a certainty that means that, for example, those that work at Millicent at the Kimberly-Clark mill end with a certain future that sees them on the unemployment line. I do not want to see people in my electorate faced with the kind of certainty that the member for Paterson is quite comfortable with, which sees a massive deindustrialisation of our effort across this nation. What I want to see is a policy that backs Aussie jobs, and a 50 per cent renewable target does not do that.

How do I know that? I know that because I live in South Australia, and we have achieved a renewable penetration of some 42 per cent. I did not get the privilege of hearing the member for Port Adelaide earlier, but others have told me that he did not mention South Australia once—not one mention of South Australia in this debate. So to those opposite I say: why are you so embarrassed about the South Australian experiment? It is your experiment. It is effectively the real-time modelling of what you want to see. In fact you want to see it on steroids, because you would like to see it at 50 per cent rather than 42 per cent. But why are you so embarrassed? It is your policy. It is a 50 per cent renewable policy. We are well on the way in South Australia.

I will tell you why you are embarrassed: you are embarrassed because, like me as a South Australian in this place, you know that every time the station starts with, 'Are the lights on?' Those opposite have to deal with that as much as I do. I am sure the member for Port Adelaide gets asked at the odd barbecue or fundraiser in the state, 'So are the lights on at home?' We have to say, 'Yes, they are, but unfortunately they are very expensive to keep on,' because in South Australia we have the kind of electricity prices that you cannot fly a rocket ship over. I have employers who come to me on a daily basis and say: 'Tony, this can't be right. We've just got our offer for a new contract for electricity. It's over a 100 per cent increase. There must be some sort of error.' I say: 'There is no error. That is the consequence of a Labor government in South Australia that idealistically pursues an agenda with no focus on storage.' It was a government that thought, 'The Northern Power Station—let's blow it up.'

Relying so heavily on renewables means that when I go into homes to speak to pensioners on unrelated matters I see over in the corner a gas bottle and a burner. I think, 'Surely not?' So I work it into the conversation. I ask politely, 'What is happening over there?' They say, 'That's how we keep ourselves warm.' I ask, 'Why is that?' They say: 'That is because we cannot afford the electricity prices. We can't afford to remain connected to the grid.' Those opposite want to see pensioners huddled in a corner, as we see in South Australia, turning the Bunsen burner on to keep warm. This is the reality for South Australia. If you do not believe it, come with me. I will introduce you to these people. I will show you what happens when you pursue an ideological agenda and do not worry about the cost.

What do those opposite say? They say: 'Don't worry about jobs. It's fine. Let's pursue this.' The member for Paterson really does surprise me because she comes in here to represent smelter workers. She has a reasonably sized coal industry in her electorate. But she says, 'I want to pursue a 50 per cent renewables target.' You have to be kidding me! It beggars belief. The only certainty they are talking about is the certainty that unemployment will abound— (Time expired)

Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's talk about workers. Imagine, if those opposite can, what it is like to be a worker in the energy industry. There is policy paralysis from those opposite. There are constant headlines about the sector in which you work. Everybody has a view on it, and mostly the commentators do not really give the full picture. So when real workers wake up to headlines like 'Energy target on PM's back', 'Turnbull faces revolt on power' or 'Coalition in revolt over climate fix', how do you think it makes them feel?

While those opposite are busy tearing themselves apart over the Finkel review—well, actually, it has been for the last decade on this issue; they cannot decide whether a price on carbon is a good idea or not—the workers will be at the frontline of any efforts to reduce carbon emissions so that we can achieve the very modest Paris climate agreement target agreed to by this government. They have been left feeling vulnerable about their future. The reason for this is that when the then Prime Minister Tony Abbott abolished the carbon price he replaced it with nothing—not a single piece of energy policy.

If this government was willing to consider a bipartisan approach on the proposed clean energy target—and we have certainly indicated that we are up for the conversation—we could achieve a number of things. For a start, we would see lower power prices. That would be good for consumers both at home and in their businesses. When I talk to small businesses about overheads, they say the cost of power, which cannot be turned up or down, is crippling. With wages growth at all-time lows, the prospect of ever-increasing power bills is frightening, especially when losing the clean energy supplement, for many lower income people. We would also see certainty for investors, who have been driven away from the sector by the inability of those opposite to accept the need for policies to address climate change and energy security.

We have an energy crisis where no-one is making an investment and wholesale energy prices have doubled since 2013. They are the facts. That is because investors face such huge uncertainty and they cannot make investments until they know what this parliament is going to do around carbon pricing and emissions reductions in this country. It has been four years of paralysis—in fact, a decade of those opposite's indecision.

In a bipartisan way we could achieve some certainty for workers. In fact, we need to ensure that there is, as the Paris climate agreement mandates—the one that those opposite have signed—a just transition for workers in the sector. We cannot afford the unplanned, ad hoc approach that car industry workers or the Hazelwood employees went through thanks to those opposite.

Germany has done this well, starting way back in 1998, and their plan will see 130,000 coal industry workers transitioned, with none left behind. This does not just happen, and it certainly does not happen by sticking your head in the sand. But with a tripartite approach of employers, government, and unions, including the CFMEU, a bright, clear future for energy sector workers is possible. If we do not do this well, this is what is going to happen. I am going to tell you what Jason, a Hazelwood employee, said: 'I got a text message about 15 minutes before the announcement meeting commenced.' His reaction: 'I was silent. To be honest, I was numb. You couldn't really react, because you were just knocked for six.' That is what lack of planning does. This parliament has an opportunity to get this right.

The science is clear. The economics is clear. We need to price carbon. And this is not just me. A Labor MP who lives in a fragile World Heritage area is saying it. Even coal-fired generators are saying it. The list is long—and I will leave out the CSIRO and scientists—BHP, Origin Energy, AGL, the National Farmers' Federation, and every state government. Like us, they would prefer a different model, an EIS. But, like us, they are willing to see careful consideration of the Finkel recommendations. We would be in a much different position if the current Prime Minister had not been rolled by his predecessor, Mr Abbott, in 2009 and been able to agree to Labor's carbon pollution reduction scheme. Under Malcolm Turnbull, car prices are up, pollution is up and jobs are down, and no-one knows whether he has the guts to fix it. (Time expired)

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this matter of public importance regarding energy policy, which the member for Port Adelaide has brought forward. I like the member for Port Adelaide. He is a fairly relaxed sort of guy. He never causes problems. But his MPI has certainly brought along some passion into this chamber this afternoon, and it is good to see. I know he always has thoughts of his constituents in mind, and he should keep that in mind. But I did see that he did not mention South Australia during his speech—not once.

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

He is embarrassed!

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That might be because he is a bit embarrassed by it. Do not get me wrong: I am the first to agree that we do need certainty in energy policy, and I would say that we probably need it most in South Australia, where their target is 50 per cent by 2025 and is now standing at 41.3 per cent.

Mr Deputy Speaker Coulton, I know you are a bit of a rooster in your electorate, and there are plenty of people who would like to rename your electorate of Parkes the electorate of Coulton. But the member for Paterson is wrong in saying that they would get someone else to play you, because you would not play any part in that. You would not stand up, talking in the third person—about any movie, about your most disastrous time—or sit on a park bench and say, 'And I say to myself, Dasher', speaking about yourself in the third person. You would not do that on this side of politics; it is only those on that side of the game who want to be movie stars and talk about themselves in the third person. What a disgrace that was!

Anyway, South Australia, where Premier Jay Weatherill has admitted his $550 million favour, is where we need certainty in energy policy after the blackouts in September last year, which affected 1.7 million. And there were further blackouts throughout the state in December, January and February. Everybody holds up the South Australian model as a rolled gold standard for the Labor Party. And just to tell you what happened in the WA election—and I see the member for Burt here, and the member for Moore, who are both WA members—what happened was that the member for Cannington, 'Johnno the Commo', during the Labor commitment—

Opposition members interjecting—

Senator Conroy called him that, in public, and thanked him in his speech for being such a dedicated communist. Anyway, he made a commitment around the Labor Party' South Australian standard—a commitment of 50 per cent. It was so strong that he backed down from it within two days. That is how rolled gold the Labor Party is with their energy policy.

These blackouts in South Australia cost the businesses at least $450 million. They affected companies—BHP's Olympic Dam, 3,000 people; the smelter in Port Pirie, 750 employees; Arrium steelworks in Whyalla, 1,600 employees. At the AMEC conference we heard one of the speakers talking about the fact that under the Labor policy we are going to have companies like BHP at Olympic Dam having to bring their own power plants to their new projects. You cannot rely on the Labor policy, and everyone knows that.

Do you know where else we need certainty in energy policy? We need it in Victoria, where they have targeted 40 per cent by 2025. It is costing at least $14 billion and currently stands at 12.1 per cent. There is a long way to go. I would say that we probably need certainty in energy policy in Queensland, where there is an even more outrageous target of 50 per cent by 2030 and it is costing at least $27 billion. That is a lot of money. The Grattan Institute have described their modelling as 'magic pudding economics'. Do you know what the common theme is with these three examples—South Australia, Victoria and Queensland? They all have Labor state governments continuing to set reckless renewable energy targets with no thought spared for the economic disasters they are causing to their constituents.

I have a quote here—this is about the ALP policy—that says:

The lame claim that it is only when in government that the necessary facts to back up the targets can be found is, in my view, completely farcical. You can’t set policy on a wing, a hope and a prayer … Labor cannot out-green the Greens.

I wonder who said that? Graham Richardson, a former Labor minister, in The Australian, 6 January 2017. He is even calling out your own policies. He also went on to say: 'The farce of this policy has become obvious to all. Labor has no plan on how this target would be reached. Sadly, Labor is playing games with people's lives.' They need to get on board and show bipartisanship with the Liberal Party.

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

The debate has concluded.