Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

It is utter nonsense to say we are having a carbon pollution reduction scheme to reduce our emissions when coal-fired power generators create half our emissions from the energy sector and we are going to sandbag them. We are going to keep them polluting because we want to have a reliable energy supply, but there are other forms of power generation—new technologies in particular—which are capable of generating energy. These technologies will be kept out of the market because of the decision to keep the coal-fired generators pumping.

We have covered this before, but it is worth repeating that the deal has increased the ‘money for nothing’ to the coal-fired generators. There is no economic justification for it. All the government says is that we have to have a reliable energy supply. If we have to have a reliable energy supply, it does not follow that it has to be coal-fired power, but now we have $7.3 billion on the table. The deal with the coalition has fallen over, but the government says, ‘We will leave this additional compensation, for which there is no justification, on the table anyway.’ How ridiculous is that?

It is appalling that the government has extended the period over which this compensation is paid from five years to 10. There was no need for that other than that it was a deal with the coalition. Now it stands even though the coalition does not want the deal anymore. Is it any wonder the coal-fired power stations are so excited? Those companies are so pleased—they want this deal locked in and the government is prepared to do it. The deal actually requires these companies to keep polluting in order to get their compensation. It actually prevents the exit of generators from the energy market where this would be likely to breach power system reliability standards and, of course, they will say that it does. They have all been threatening to turn off the lights if they do not get this compensation.

As well as that, they get even more than the $7.3 billion—a low emissions transition incentive. That is on top of the free permits they are getting. When they install this new low emissions replacement generation, they still get the remaining scheduled compensation payments. There is no way to see that other than as a windfall gain. Then there is the fact that the windfall gains test has been changed to apply to the last three of the 10 years assistance, rather than to the last two of what was previously five years assistance, and the test only applies to half of a generator’s allocation in this three-year period, not to the whole allocation.

That is an outrageous gift to the multinational corporations who are running coal-fired generators. The high level of assistance locks in coal-fired generation out to 2020 and is one of the most toxic parts of the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme because it does not reduce carbon emissions. It locks them in out to 2034. The government’s own modelling shows these emissions do not fall until then. How outrageous is this? We should all be completely opposed to it.

The government still has not provided any figures on what that $7.3 billion becomes if the reduction turns into a 15 per cent reduction on 2000 or if it turns into a 25 per cent reduction. Just how much are we going to be forking out to companies to continue to pollute, when, for years, their share price has reflected the risk associated with a carbon price? These companies have known it was coming. This is rent seeking. This is a craven cave-in to coal-fired generators. There is no other way you could describe this. It is disgraceful public policy and a disgraceful transfer of wealth from the public purse. It ought to be opposed.