Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Gee, as you know, this is an important issue for the people that we represent, because right now they cannot pay their power bills. It doesn't matter whether you are representing the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker; it doesn't matter whether you are representing a large organisation like Alcoa; it doesn't matter whether you are in the outback, on the coast or in the city—quite simply the cost of electricity in this country is far too high. We find ourselves surrounded by natural resources, by gas, by coal and by water. We can utilise those resources, as we have done in the past, to generate cheap and reliable electricity. But we find ourselves surrounded by decisions, particularly driven by state ideology, which are not based on engineering and physics.

South Australia is the prime example. You do not need to go and reflect; you do not need to engage a consultant. You can simply look at South Australia, which is the test case for this nation. A 50 per cent target for intermittent wind and solar has resulted in the most expensive electricity in the world, and it is unreliable. As an engineer, I know one thing: if you can find me a solar panel that will generate in the dark, I will be 100 per cent supportive. But what we find now is that the mix of our generation capacity simply has not been planned well enough, and all governments should accept responsibility for those decisions and those errors.

We find ourselves in a position where we have an ageing fleet of coal-generated power stations across the country, and we should absolutely place the responsibility for that where it lies. That responsibility lies with state governments. This is not a Federation issue. The National Electricity Market, in my view, has been a complete failure. It has not driven new investment, but it has made some organisations and some state governments very, very rich. They have robbed money from consumers. Look at the Queensland state government: they own every retailer in town north of Gympie. There is only one. It is owned by the Queensland state government. They own all of the poles and wires. They own 70 per cent of the generators. They are robbing $1.1 billion every single year from the pockets of electricity consumers in my home state, in my home town and in my electorate. They should be accountable and responsible for those decisions. They set the price. It is not the federal government.

We find ourselves in the position where action needs to be taken. I commend the Minister for Energy, Angus Taylor, on the decisions he has taken already to focus on price and reliability, because without them the lights will go out. It is that simple. I spoke in this place in 2015 against the Renewable Energy Target for a couple of very simple reasons. My view—and can I say in my considered, educated, skilled and qualified view—was that it would put up the price of electricity and it would be paid for by the poorest people in this country: the ones who cannot afford to put solar on their rooftops, the ones who rent, the ones who do not get the opportunity to reduce the price that they pay every single year. And that has been the case. We find ourselves in a position now where our economy, where our nation, where our businesses, where our people and where our seniors cannot afford to pay their bills. That is not helping us to drive jobs growth. That is not helping the nation, it is not helping the economy, it is not helping businesses and it is certainly not helping our exporters.

I have a foundry in my electorate which has been there for over 125 years. The biggest issue they have right now, in terms of their viability, is the ability to pay their power and gas bill. They have been training apprentices and trainees for over a century. They have been the driver of people with skills and with trades into our economy for over 100 years, and they find themselves on the brink of disaster because they cannot afford to continue to pay.

So in this place we need for put aside our ideological views. We need to stand up for what is necessary to build a better country, and that is cheap energy. Intermittent wind and solar have their place, and there are lots of places where they will help and reduce the cost, particularly where there is an engagement, for example, with diesel generation, because that is a stored fuel. But we should take those opportunities where the physics and engineering say that it will drive down the price. You cannot run this country on an intermittent supply through wind and solar. It doesn't matter what you may or may not believe in terms of your ideals—this is purely engineering and physics, and we have to make decisions based around those things. As a government, we need to decide how to drive that, and if the states don't want to get on board then we should dismantle the National Electricity Market.

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

Is this motion even relevant? The simple fact is that here we have a motion praising the LNP government's National Energy Guarantee, and now the NEG has been scrapped. Surely this motion is no longer relevant. We have no idea what energy policy the LNP are supporting, because they are creating policies on the run. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was elected because of his climate change and renewable energy stance. Then, due to government in-fighting and a lack of action on energy, a completely watered-down NEG was agreed to by the LNP—but then Prime Minister Turnbull lost his job, it seems, due to the NEG policy. Is anyone else confused about this? I surely am.

Meanwhile, LNP members opposite are changing energy policies as quickly as they are changing leaders, and it is the Australian people who are suffering with high energy prices. Right now, Australia is left without any energy policy. I can't even stand here today and debate the LNP government's energy policy, because there isn't one. The NEG is off the table. But I will stand here and debate this government's continuous attack on a just transition. Whether the LNP like it or not, renewable energy is more affordable, and it certainly provides cheaper electricity prices than a coal-fired power station. This is a fact. According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, the cost of electricity from a new high-efficiency, low-emission coal-fired power station is $134 per megawatt. This is compared to solar, at less than $80 per megawatt. Coal-fired power stations are so uninvestable that none of the major banks or the finance or energy industry will provide any funding or loans to any new coal-fired power station—yet there are LNP members who still spruik the merit of coal-fired power stations. Renewable energy is real and it does deliver.

Even though there are LNP members who say their party is 100 per cent supportive of coal, once again, the facts are clear: members opposite, including the Prime Minister, do not support coal. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has stated:

These new HELE plans would produce energy at an estimated two and a half times the cost of our existing coal-fired power stations.

That was the Treasurer's 'Guaranteeing the essentials – a foundation for fairness' address to the Australian Industry Group in Adelaide in July 2017. Again, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has said on coal-fired power stations:

…let's not think that there's cheap new coal, there's not.

…   …   …

…new cheap coal is a bit of a myth.

That's his speech at Wombat Hollow Forum, 12 August 2017. Then there is the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Matt Canavan, who claims to be the biggest coal supporter, but in actual fact is quoted as saying, 'Due to the significant reserves of baseload power in Central Queensland with Callide, Stanwell and Gladstone power stations, constructing another local coal-fired power station wasn't a top priority.' Minister Canavan has eloquently summed up the LNP's views and action on energy—not a top priority. Whilst the member for Hughes and the member for Dawson continually give false hope to the people of Central and Northern Queensland by making grandiose promises that they know will never be delivered—that is, a new coal-fired power station—and whilst the LNP are changing leaders and flip-flopping on their own policies, Australians and businesses are suffering. This lack of policy is felt deeply in regional areas, and there isn't a regional energy policy or strategy nationally, either.

In 2014, Townsville missed out on a multimillion-dollar project that would have created more than 150 jobs, all because the then Abbott government made renewable energy uninvestable by lowering the national Renewable Energy Target. In 2014, Meridian Energy shelved plans to develop a hydropower project in North Queensland. The chief executive, Ben Burge, said:

…the federal government's protracted efforts to reduce the renewable energy target have made long-term capital investments in energy assets in this country nearly impossible.

This was a huge missed opportunity for Townsville, and we cannot allow this to continue to happen.

Where the LNP have failed, Labor will deliver. That is why federal Labor has committed $200 million towards hydro on the Burdekin Falls Dam. Labor is getting on with the job of delivering on policies, with our plan to transition Australia's energy system to 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. Australians are sick of the LNP government's lack of action on energy. My message to the LNP Morrison government is: you say you are getting on with the job, so let's see some action and get over the words. You have the numbers, so get on with the job and start doing your job. Develop energy policy and govern this great nation.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you know what, Deputy Speaker? I think Australians have had an absolute gutful of this debate and the delay that has been the energy debate for successive governments, including Labor.

This is the same Labor who want to introduce a 50 per cent renewable energy target. If we want an example of how not to do things: when I was an apprentice carpenter, I made a mistake once and I got a kick up the backside from my trade school instructor. Then I made the same mistake twice, and the foot was even harder the second time. If you want to look at stupidity and why we shouldn't be doing things, look to the South Australian model. Just like success leaves clues, so does stupidity. Why would you do something like South Australia? Why would you try to replicate what they have done there when it has been nothing other than an abject failure? But that is exactly the path that Bill Shorten, if he ever became Prime Minister, wants to lead us down. It would be an absolute travesty.

On this side of the chamber, we are focused, firmly and squarely, on getting the cost of energy down. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his appointment of Angus Taylor as the Minister for Energy—as he called him, 'The minister for getting energy prices down.' Before Angus came on board, we were doing a reasonable job at getting energy prices down. I know that those opposite want to keep talking about how prices have gone up, but let me tell another little story. I was having a chat with my wife the other night about an investment property—a commercial property—that we have. Since we changed from AGL to Alinta Energy we have saved nearly $300 a quarter in energy bills. That's not just from the previous month, that's from the previous year. So we're comparing apples with apples for the cost of air conditioning, the climate and the weather, and we are saving nearly $300 a quarter.

I say to the good people who may be listening out there: if you are with AGL or another current energy provider then shop around, because chances are that you can save yourself hundreds of dollars by shopping around. I know it's a pain in the backside to do it—I know it's difficult and that we're all busy—but it's worth it. It's in everybody's interest to shop around, because you can get some terrific deals out there. If I had known just how good a deal I could have got I would have shopped around a lot earlier.

Getting back to the great job that I know Angus Taylor—the Minister for Energy—will do: for almost three decades, he was a guy who followed the national energy agenda very astutely. As a consultant in the agriculture, infrastructure and resources sectors, the minister has seen the critical importance of affordable energy to our nation's prosperity. At a local level he founded or advised many small start-up businesses in the agriculture sector, so he understands the importance of energy costs and reliability to business of all sizes.

As a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, the minister researched the competition policy which will be so vital to getting the energy market working in Australia. He did a fantastic job as the Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation and he excelled in the role of Minister for Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity just as he will excel in this role. He takes over from a minister, now the Treasurer, who had already made important progress in facing up to this difficult challenge.

We have already turned a corner on power prices, with reductions announced in Queensland, New South Wales and, believe it or not, South Australia from 1 July 2018. Through the minister's and the former Prime Minister's tough actions, we secured more gas for Australians. This has driven down the cost of wholesale gas by as much as up to 50 per cent. Some of us know that the price of electricity is linked to the wholesale price of gas, so we should start to see significant reductions in our electricity costs. And, if we don't, we need to start whacking the retailers because the retailers are gouging the market. I encourage everybody to shop around as much as they can.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They say that timing is the essence of all great comedy. Well, the member for Hughes has truly outdone himself with the motion before the House today. Despite the National Energy Guarantee being used as a stalking horse to destroy Malcolm Turnbull's leadership during the last parliamentary sitting week, and despite the current Prime Minister declaring the National Energy Guarantee to be 'dead' just this weekend, the motion before the House sings the praises of the NEG, including the extraordinary claim that the NEG 'provides certainty for investors in new and existing power plants'. Monty Python's dead parrot sketch was less absurd.

Australia's energy crisis, a situation where we see the extraordinary trifecta of rising carbon emissions, rising prices and falling reliability, is entirely the creation of the dysfunction in conservative politics in this country. Labor has attempted to be a responsible partner in solving this crisis in the national interest. At every step of the way we've been willing to work with the government to find a genuine solution to the energy crisis. We were willing to work with the government on the emissions intensity scheme. We were willing to work with the government on Chief Scientist Dr Alan Finkel's clean energy target. We were willing to work with the government on the National Energy Guarantee. But at every step of the way a coherent national energy policy has been made impossible by a Liberal Party lacking leadership and unity, and consumed by personal hatreds and ideological obsessions.

Now we hear that the Morrison government will abandon any pretence and any attempt to reduce emissions in the energy sector at all and will focus exclusively on price. Putting to one side the moral cowardice and policy incoherence of this position, what are we supposed to make of this claim in light of the government's previous statements on the NEG? If you believe what the current PM and his deputy said in their previous roles, the NEG was all about reducing consumer prices. Indeed, they constantly cited modelling claiming that the NEG would reduce consumers' power bills by $150 a year. Yet, in their new roles, the PM and his Treasurer are abandoning the NEG and these lower prices in the name of lower prices! I guess that $150 of consumer savings goes the same way as the $500 of savings we were promised by the Abbott government for ripping up Australia's previous energy policy or the member for New England's $100 roast lamb. It's all just a nonsense.

In 2009, after being ousted as the leader of the Liberal Party, Malcolm Turnbull despaired:

… on this vital issue of climate change we—

the Liberal Party—

are not simply without a policy, without any prospect of having a credible policy but we are now without integrity. We have given our opponents the irrefutable, undeniable evidence that we cannot be trusted.

He was right nine years ago and he is right today. Ousted again from the leadership of the Liberal Party over climate change and energy policy, Malcolm Turnbull in his farewell speech as Prime Minister said:

In terms of energy policy and climate policy, I think the truth is that the coalition finds it very hard to get agreement on anything to do with emissions.

It's difficult for the Labor Party to be a responsible partner for the coalition when they can't even agree with themselves. The troglodytes in the coalition party room have a veto on energy policy in this country. It makes it difficult for sentient human beings in this parliament to engage with them—no ideas, no policies, no hope.

Labor has real policies with real outcomes for all Australians. The core of our plan is our 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. This target will drive up investment in renewable energy, including in firming technologies like batteries and pumped hydro. Labor's policy will create almost 30,000 new renewable energy jobs, and Labor's policy will exert downward pressure on power prices for households and businesses. Our policy will reduce pollution and deliver real action to tackle climate change. Where Labor is for renewables, innovation and lower prices, it's clear that the coalition is just for coal, the status quo and the higher prices driven by the chaos and dysfunction of conservative politics in Australia.

When the Prime Minister presented each of his ministers with an Australian flag lapel pin, really he should have given each and every coalition MP a lump of coal like the one that he brought into the chamber—a lump of coal to remind the Australian people whose side the coalition is really on: the side of ideology and idiocy, as was so aptly put by the former Prime Minister. They were the parting words of the coalition's former leader as he gave up on his former colleagues and flew the country for a New York holiday.

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

As the member for Goldstein, I will never get those last five minutes back. Deputy Speaker, what are we talking about today? We are talking about what we are going to do, as a parliament and as a government for this country, to make electricity prices more affordable. In the words of the new Prime Minister, we are for Australians. We are on their side.

Let us remind ourselves who is affected by the debate around energy: it is, of course, the pensioners, who go from payment to payment, fortnight to fortnight, making sure that they can afford to pay their contribution towards their energy bill. In many cases, including in the electorate of Goldstein, they have to live in a single room of their house during winter or summer, because they can't afford the heating or cooling for the whole home. They understand the consequences of electricity prices. They understand, in their lived human experience, what it means when you have bad government policy—the legacy of our opponents—that has driven up electricity prices year after year.

We are talking about those businesses in the south-east corridor of Melbourne, across Dandenong, that, for instance, consume a large amount of electricity as part of their activities. There are the die-casting businesses that contribute components to our new defence industries, as well as car component manufacturers all across the world who have to liquefy different types of metals as part of their die-casting process, or who consume huge amounts of energy in producing their products, and who have experienced year-on-year increases in their wholesale electricity prices—and, in some cases, have had to sign contracts of 200 or 300 per cent over future years. These are the people who experience the human consequences of high electricity prices. And it flows on to the number of people they can employ, the jobs they can create and the opportunities they can provide for constituents within the south-east corridor of Melbourne, and that is replicated across the whole of this great nation.

This dates back particularly to the era where the former Labor government dramatically increased the obligations on the Renewable Energy Target, forcing highly expensive, unreliable energy into the market. We have continued to live with the legacy and the commercial consequences ever since. And the focus of this government has been: how do we deal with the consequences and the legacy of bad Labor policy? It's like dealing with the consequences after the long era of tariffs and protectionism, where the market has become so distorted and so perverse, rewarding the wrong incentives and doing little to reward the best, lowest cost outcome for consumers. The task for this government has been: how are we going to address this and fix this?

While we have been doing it, and dealing with these real consequences for the Australian people, what have we seen the irresponsible opposition do in the meantime? They haven't said, 'We've learned from our errors and mistakes or from the punishment pensioners have experienced because of our bad policy.' They have not turned around, admitted their errors and accepted responsibility for the consequences of their policy. They have said: 'No, no, no; we know better. We're going to double down. What we are going to do is turn around and say: "No, no; the Renewable Energy Target isn't big enough. Rural obligations aren't big enough. We're going to keep forcing in electricity, regardless of whether it's cost-competitive or not, whether it's reliable or not, or even whether it cuts greenhouse gas emissions or not."' Those opposite have put ideology ahead of the practical application for Australians. We have seen them make increasing commitments to cut their emissions without any understanding about how that's going to be done. And that is not just in the energy sector. They have no understanding of the impact it will have on agriculture, land use and land clearing policy, the impact it will have on transportable energy, or the impact it will have on future emissions in the industries where so many of the people that they claim to represent—that they falsely claim to respect—work.

At every point, this government has said, 'We will seek to solve these problems for the nation and for the people of Australia.' What we face at a state level is obstruction from the Queensland and Victorian state Labor governments. Now is the time to put an end to it, and we are doing so. (Time expired)

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the motion we're dealing with today was first proposed on 18 June this year, the government's National Energy Guarantee, the NEG, was spruiked as a policy device that would lower prices and bring certainty to the electricity network. The then Prime Minister, the former member for Wentworth, was lauded for getting his party room's endorsement of the NEG. It was said to be a boost to his leadership. However, since then, if you believe the commentators' opinions—something which I have to say I normally take with a grain of salt—that same NEG has now brought an end to that leadership. Years from now, when people look back on this rather unusual and unstable period in Australian politics, a common thread will be the amount of navel-gazing and policy uncertainty in this place and how at odds and out of touch it was with the problems faced by the wider nation.

The supposed big debates of the last decade have for the most part been isolated to this building. While we have squabbled in here, the experts, the industry and the public have made up their mind and moved on. Examples are numerous: broadband, marriage equality, the funding of education, and of course climate change and energy policy. The Australian people deserve better from their government, and their disgust is borne out in the numerous polls and surveys. We must stop the bickering and reach a consensus, bipartisan policy on energy to drive down costs for households and businesses and to mitigate the effects of greenhouse gases on our climate.

Last year the House Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy, of which I'm a member, produced a report called Powering our future: inquiry into modernising Australia's electricity grid. The message was clear from the submissions received, and in both public and private hearings: in Australia and overseas, a well-functioning grid needs policy certainty. Policy certainty will address pricing and supply. Policy certainty will allow investment in power generation and provision. It will allow further research. It will make the provision of alternative methods of power generation possible by funding research and implementation. Certainty will provide the stimulus for investment in both plant and innovation to supply Australian businesses and consumers with affordable, accessible power. Conversely, continual policy uncertainty guarantees that businesses will not invest and may make choices to locate overseas. Last year the committee heard evidence that the inability of this government to provide certainty in energy policy over the last decade has placed the equivalent of a $50 a tonne carbon price on electricity generation.

Australia has long been at the forefront of embracing new technologies, from televisions to computers and mobile phones, and electricity has been no exception. The take-up of rooftop solar has risen exponentially in the last decade. Some of this growth obviously was helped by subsidies from previous federal and state governments, but that growth has continued well after the subsidies have disappeared. It seems there are many reasons for the continual trend, bill reduction always being a primary concern, but a wish to provide cleaner energy and a lower carbon footprint are also determining factors. With well-thought-out policy settings, the amount of generation behind the meter can be assessed, modelled and then incorporated into planning for the grid and for future production to ensure stability.

Last year the committee also heard evidence that innovation of behind-the-meter generation can negate the need to build extra power generation, such as new large-scale power plants. I'm aware of an initiative led by the organisation ShineHub, called the Sydney Community Solar Program. The initiative is looking to buy solar rooftop and batteries on behalf of consumers in the hope of creating Sydney's biggest virtual power plant. Their primary selling point is they are getting on with real solutions, instead of waiting for politicians who waste their time squabbling in corridors. While an exciting and innovative initiative, which I will keep a keen eye on, it is a sad indictment of this parliament. The initiative also points to the need for a clear approach from government with support from all sides of politics, underpinned by equity. We need an approach that ensures consumers, particularly those on low incomes or renters, are not left to shoulder grid costs as those more able to afford rooftop solar and battery leave the grid.

For the Australian public and industry, the most important function of the electricity grid is to provide reliable, dependable power when they need it. The government needs to provide certainty of policy so that businesses can get on with the provision of reliable generation for Australia's future needs.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.