Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The Democrats will be supporting the Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. This bill implements a number of changes, including the Gas Pipelines Access (Commonwealth) Act 1998 and the Trade Practices Act 1974 in relation to the conferral of functions and powers on the National Competition Council and the Commonwealth minister under the cooperative gas access regime. It amends the Trade Practices Act 1974 to accommodate incentives for new pipelines in the cooperative gas access regime which were recently introduced in the South Australian parliament, and it allows the Australian Energy Regulator to apply to the Federal Court for a disconnection order. It amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the Australian Energy Market Act 2004 and the Trade Practices Act 1974 to correct certain incorrect references in relation to the application of the cooperative electricity regime. Finally, the bill repeals the Pipeline Authority Act 1973.

As I understand it, these amendments have the support of the states and the industry, and I must say that it is good to see the federal government and the states working jointly through the Ministerial Council on Energy to make improvements to the gas regime in Australia. Gas will, of course, play a very important part in the early mix of low-carbon-emitting energy sources as Australia aims to achieve that 60 per cent reduction of 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. However, this is only part of the job that needs to be done with respect to energy reform in Australia, and it is our view that this government has monumentally failed in delivering Australia a sustainable energy policy for the future.

The debate on greenhouse gas emissions and climate change has been around for more than three decades. Over a decade ago, most countries joined an international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to begin to consider what can be done to reduce global warming and to cope with whatever temperature increases are inevitable. The federal government showed some promise early on with the announcement in late 1997 of the establishment of the mandatory renewable energy target, known as MRET, to help foster the renewable energy industry in Australia. But since then, the government has abandoned any sensible policy on energy. It was not until 2004, less than two years ago, that this government produced an energy white paper—its blueprint of how future energy goals would be met.

The Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee examined the government’s energy white paper in 2005. The report of the Democrats-chaired committee, Lurching forward, looking back, criticised the energy white paper, saying that it did not go far enough and it lacked a viable time frame for success. The paper did not contain effective planning for the future needs of Australia in energy supply, in greenhouse emission reductions or in alternative renewable energy development. The report made a small number of achievable recommendations, none of which, as I understand it, have been implemented.

This government continues to refuse to ratify Kyoto, an international and legally binding agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, and instead opted for the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which has no price signals, no targets and no real plan for reducing greenhouse emissions. In late 2005 the government signalled it was looking to carbon capture and storage from coal-fired power as a primary means to address greenhouse emissions. Then, of course, earlier this year the government announced major funding for so-called clean coal technology. This is despite evidence that underground storage is expensive and highly risky as the technologies are unproved in the context of stationary energy generation, not expected to be developed and available for implementation until the middle of the next decade and will lead to an increase in energy costs.

And this year the Minister for the Environment and Heritage blocked two wind farms for very suspect, spurious reasons. This action has effectively brought to a halt any further investment in wind power in Australia. The chief executive of ActewAGL, Mr John Mackay, said on ABC radio:

Unless ... Federal Government ... stops playing politics at a local level, any wind farm, including ours, has got to be a doubtful proposition ...

If this was not bad enough, the whole renewable energy industry is under threat because the government continues to refuse to expand or increase the mandatory renewable energy target which it established nine years ago. This was supposed to raise Australia’s renewable energy generation to 12 per cent of the total electricity production, but of course it has gone backwards—it is now, even under MRET, lower than it was before MRET began. That is because, instead of increasing our renewable energy by two per cent progressively, a fixed target of 9,500 gigawatt hours was established, which turned out to be a gross underestimation of what two per cent might look like in 2010.

Only last month the Senate inquired into a government bill that makes minor changes to MRET. Every business and industry representative unequivocally said in their submissions that renewable development had now stalled because sufficient projects already exist to fully deliver the 9,500 gigawatt hour target. All of them called for an increase and an extension to MRET. But the government stubbornly refuses to do anything about this situation, proclaiming how successful it has been.

Then we have, less than four weeks later, the Prime Minister announcing an inquiry into nuclear power. Nuclear energy was not even a vague consideration in the government’s energy white paper, and that was just two years ago. How Australia can possibly plan for a reduction of 60 per cent in our greenhouse emissions by 2050 when it cannot even see two years ahead is anyone’s guess. But now, suddenly, after a visit to the US President, George Bush, our Prime Minister is talking about nuclear power as the way forward to reduce greenhouse emissions. I wish the many much more sound recommendations of the Senate inquiry into greenhouse issues a few years ago had received his undivided attention—the sort of attention that has obviously been paid to our great and powerful friends. Despite empirical evidence showing that nuclear power is not economically, socially or environmentally acceptable as a means to address climate change, our Prime Minister has set up a task force stacked with pro-nuclear members who may compare its viability against coal but not stray beyond that to renewable energies.

We have another bill before the Senate this week, the Fuel Tax Bill 2006, which is part of a package designed by Treasury—which knows so much, of course, about greenhouse—which will destroy the renewable biofuels industry in this country. I should also mention that we have various states implementing their own greenhouse gas abatement price signals and emissions trading schemes because the federal government refuses to establish a national scheme. In fact, there was a scheme put together by the Australian Greenhouse Office some years ago, and that would have provided the groundwork for us to proceed with a national plan. But no, it is not just gathering dust; it is very much in the too-hard and not-to-be-interested-in basket.

All in all, Australia’s approach to climate change is laughable and, frankly, an international embarrassment. If I hear the minister talking about how much has been done to reduce greenhouse gases and mentioning yet again the appliance labelling for water efficiency—which in fact the Democrats pushed the government into doing—as one of the key climate change measures I think I will scream! Climate change and our energy future is a very serious economic, social and environmental issue for Australia, and the federal government has no long-term sustainable plan to address it. The International Energy Agency has concluded that environmental sustainability is Australia’s biggest single energy policy challenge.

The issue of energy is being dealt with in at least six different departments by this government: the Department of the Environment and Heritage; Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources; the Department of Education, Science and Training; the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry; Treasury; and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade—and no doubt the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. We have various bodies responsible for research, monitoring and regulation of various energy related areas, such as the Renewable Energy Regulator, the Energy Market Commission, a number of CRCs, NEMMCO, ABARE and Geoscience Australia—and that is just to name a few.

But there appears to be no coordinated, holistic approach to sustainable energy solutions and implementation and no-one is actually delegated to undertaking independent research and public consultation within a national framework. In fact, the only body that was close to understanding those kinds of activities, the Australian Greenhouse Office, once proudly acclaimed on the world stage as the first such department in its own right, was shunted back into the Department of the Environment and Heritage as a mere division. We do not hear very much from the Australian Greenhouse Office now, as a result of that.

Both the Productivity Commission and the Business Council of Australia argue that the current lack of a long-term national policy framework on climate change is impeding investment decisions in Australia’s energy infrastructure. The Australian Conservation Foundation argues:

To reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage investment in our energy system we need a strong, nationally consistent policy framework that creates a long-term price signal for greenhouse pollution and consistently supports and drives the development and deployment of new low greenhouse technologies.

That is something the Democrats have been saying for a very long time. We agree that we need this strong, nationally consistent policy framework and we believe that what is sorely needed is an independent body that can plan and coordinate sustainable energy solutions.

To this end I will be moving a second reading amendment to the Energy Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 calling on the government to establish a sustainable energy commission. Australia cannot afford to keep addressing climate change in a piecemeal, faddish way. It is my hope that this evening the Senate, in particular the government members of the Senate, will support this amendment. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

        “but the Senate is of the view that:

        (a)    The Government should establish a Sustainable Energy Commission;

        (b)    The Sustainable Energy Commission should be responsible for:

              (i)    providing leadership and national coordination of sustainable energy policies,

             (ii)    conducting public inquiries and research on sustainable energy options and strategy,

            (iii)    advising government policy makers and stakeholders across government on sustainable energy matters,

            (iv)    monitoring and reporting on progress of sustainable energy policy and industry programs,

             (v)    monitoring international progress on sustainable energy policy, and

            (vi)    educating and disseminating information on sustainable energy”.