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

We have heard about the climate wars, but we are in our first ever Finkel fight. What we have is a government that is divided, that is not looking towards the future and that is not capable of conducting itself in the normal manner. What used to happen is that governments used to ask for reports to be created. They would appoint a person to do it. They would then get the findings. They would read the findings and adapt the findings. The executive would then push it through their party room and implement it. But what we have here is a totally different model of government. We are in a parallel universe now.

I was reading one of Phil Coorey's articles on 13 June: 'Coalition MPs revolt against Clean Energy Target'. Extraordinarily, in this article he refers to the fact that Mr Abbott is leading a group of determined MPs who are apparently opposing this report. It says:

Mr Abbott, who had not read the Finkel report, slammed the CET on Monday as a "magic pudding" and "a tax on coal".

It is an extraordinary thing. Now we do not even read the reports, apparently. A former Prime Minister is opposing this report without even having read it. Think about that for a moment. In the ordinary processes of government, you would normally expect your opponents, if they want to oppose the report, to have at least read it. But no. That is not what is happening in this country.

Joe Aston points out that Mr Abbott is something of a weathervane on policy. He points out all of his inconsistencies over many areas, not least climate. I can remember when Mr Abbott, the member for Warringah, actually said that the Liberals should pass an ETS to get it off the agenda. Imagine if we had taken his advice then. It would have been implemented, and Australia would have been better off. We would have had an electricity sector that was not plagued by investment uncertainty. We would have investment certainty for those participants.

But, not content to be a weathervane on policy and not content to not read reports and yet oppose them, he is also fighting with members of the government. We have this ABC report on 14 June: 'Finkel review: Tony Abbott and Craig Laundy clash over energy review after party room meeting'. I would probably be backing the publican in that fight. I think some people would back the boxer, but I think I would back the publican. I think he probably would have dealt with a few belligerent customers over the years. And there is no more belligerent customer than the member for Warringah, Mr Abbott—absolutely no more belligerent sort of character around the place.

He is like a cross between Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. That is who Tony Abbott is. He is this country's unthinking populist opposition. That is what he is. He should never have been made Prime Minister—a mistake that the people admit and a mistake that the coalition party room admit now. That is why they knocked him off. This is a matter of record of history. You went into the election promising us adult government and stable government. What did we get? We got a change in prime ministership, and not just prime ministers but treasurers and three defence ministers—a revolving door in the National Security Committee of Cabinet. How many other ministerial changes? I have lost count. We are about to have another reshuffle and probably another leadership contest. Let's be honest about it. That is where this is heading.

This man is a menace to the body politic. He is an absolute menace. Why do people listen to him or give him the time of day in the coalition party room, allowing him to wreck the government? Clearly, the Prime Minister is sick of it and has struck back: 'Glib answers and one-liners are of no assistance in keeping Australia's energy secure and affordable.' That is certainly true. But it is time for Malcolm Turnbull to finally face down Tony Abbott and end the division in this government—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

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

The Prime Minister and the member for Warringah: those two need to sort this out. It would be preferable if they sorted it out in opposition, because only one party can deliver this country energy stability, security and certainty, and it is the Labor Party. It is about time this minority government got on with falling to bits so the rest of us can get on with good government.

Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My mother used to always tell me if you cannot think of anything good to say do not say anything at all. Perhaps that could be a lesson for the member for Wakefield. She also said you do not make yourself look good by running other people down.

An opposition member: She sounds like a nice lady.

She is a nice lady; you could learn a lot. I actually want to talk about something that is more important to the Australian people than just a political rant like we have just heard, and that is gas. We do have a requirement for very important gas in our electricity mix, very important gas for our households, for our businesses. But there is a great concern, at the moment, about the price of gas becoming almost unaffordable for businesses. Our competitive advantage in Australia has always been access to cheap energy. We do not have cheap wages but we have cheap energy. If we take away our competitive advantage we inhibit our capacity as a nation to lift the standards of living.

I want to touch on gas, because gas is the quiet issue that has not been discussed so much when the focus of the week has been on the Finkel review. I want to point out something that has always been very passionate to my heart: ensuring that our natural gas is there for Australians, first and foremost. I talked about it in my maiden speech in 2013 and it is something that is, clearly, becoming the focus. There are two ways to ensure we have affordable gas for Australians. One is to open up supply, to increase the total volume of gas that comes onto the market. We do need to do that.

I am pleased to hear that the federal government, in the last budget, announced an additional $90 million to support increased gas exploration. To find ways of getting that potential gas exploration to market, the federal government has announced $5.2 million to support a pre-feasibility study to put two gas pipelines in, one of those from the west and one of those from the north. Ultimately, it does make sense if we can link those into the Moomba gas grid. Mildura, in the electorate of Malley that I represent, does source its gas from Moomba. That is very important.

The other thing, in how we bring gas into an affordable realm in the short-term, is to restrict exports. This goes against what a free marketeer would usually argue, but it is clear that we have a short-term problem that we need to address, whilst we structure ourselves for a long-term solution. The short-term problem we need to address is to put some downward pressure on gas reasonably quickly.

The figures we need to aim for are about $8 a gigajoule. In turn, that will bring electricity down to $75 a megawatt-hour. It can be done. It should be done. And I commend the interventionist policy that the Prime Minister has announced about export certificates to ensure that gas is, first and foremost, put on the market for Australians. Those are the figures, at $8 and at $75, for gas and power. We will maintain job security in Australia. We will maintain manufacturing in Australia. That is really what we should focus on.

It also needs to be said that we have to have a very real conversation with our state governments around some of their moratoriums. We have to ensure we have best science, but we should be looking at how we can develop and use that gas resource in Victoria. I am sure that in a modern-day society with very good technology we can maintain aquifer integrity for our water supply. But we can have that debate and that discussion, and bring people along on the journey. But it is perhaps easier to bring them on the journey if they know that that gas has been made available for Australian industry.

We need to have that discussion, particularly with the Northern Territory, where there are substantial amounts of gas, to bring that gas supply into the marketplace—and, of course, with New South Wales. The classic example, and I know the Deputy Speaker will agree with me on this, is the farmer who is anti-gas but who is spreading urea on their farm. Urea, of course, is a derivative from gas. We have to have that very real conversation about what natural gas brings to both our agricultural sector and to our manufacturing sector, as well as to our households and to our standard of living. We are doing two things: the short-term solution, while also investing in the infrastructure we have for the long-term solution. We do need the state governments to get on side and, ultimately, if we do that we will address the energy concerns we have at the moment.