Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

How many groups does it take? We have had the energy groups, the business groups, the unions and ACOSS ask this government to give the Finkel report its full and fair consideration before rushing in and rigging the definition of 'clean energy'. But no, that cannot happen within this Turnbull Liberal government, because they are so divided when it comes to what clean energy even means. That is why, four years later, we are still in a situation of policy paralysis on clean energy, on the cost of electricity prices and on a way forward for investment in our country. So many groups have urged you, as a government, to stop this paralysis and to take some action to resolve this crisis. Labor have made it very clear that we are open to a clean energy target, and that is a big shift for Labor.

Despite all of that good will, despite all of the encouragement from all of those groups, including the opposition, this government simply cannot get their house in order; instead, they leave this country in a state of absolute paralysis when it comes to investment. What is the outcome? We have lost thousands of jobs that could have gone into that growth in renewable energy over the last four years. After all of the work that has been done by the Chief Scientist, we leave ourselves in a situation where we just do not know where this government is going to land. What we do know is that there is a situation of the tail wagging the dog. You have former Prime Minister Tony Abbott out there talking about his dislike for the recommendations in the Finkel review when he has not even read the report! He has not read the report but, because of his ideological beliefs against renewable energy, he has already decided, along with buddies such as George Christensen, to bag it out and try to lead the coalition into not supporting it.

The idea that you can change the definition of something, that you can decide that clean energy has to include coal, is just bizarre. To have a definition of clean energy that includes new coal power stations just to placate the Tony Abbotts, the George Christensens and the Barnaby Joyces of this world makes a complete mockery of the seriousness of the work that the Chief Scientist, Dr Finkel, has done with his panel over the last number of months. I cannot understand where this government is coming from, but one thing does seem very clear and that is that we are not going to land in any space or time of certainty soon. They are simply too divided on where to go forward in relation to climate policy, so much so that I have just learnt today that Lord Howe Island has a plan for renewable energy to reduce its massive reliance on diesel power generators that it has provided to the energy minister. Its plan is for two wind turbines—just two—on Lord Howe Island to reduce its reliance by 70 per cent on diesel power, but it has been rejected by Minister Frydenberg. Let's look at what minister Frydenberg said: it would have 'clearly unacceptable impacts'. 'Clearly unacceptable impacts' is his take on it. He also said:

Government considered the proposed wind turbines would create a considerable, intrusive visual impact.

This is the environment minister, this is the energy minister, and he is basing his decision on the visual impact of two wind turbines on Lord Howe Island, when 92 per cent of the locals on Lord Howe Island support this proposal. They do not want to continue to rely on diesel generation. In fact, Chris Murray, who has lived on the island for 58 years, has said so very clearly, yet all we get from this government is a refusal of the benefits of renewable energy. (Time expired)