Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes Government policy inaction is driving up electricity prices, and a Clean Energy Target is the solution to crippling policy paralysis;

(b) observes that the Government refuses to act, citing any and all excuse to delay, when everyone knows it is internal Coalition division and the weakness of the Prime Minister that are really to blame; and

(c) recognises that Australians deserve real leadership on energy and it is clearer every day that they will not get it from Prime Minister Turnbull.

Now, I think we don't get that from the Prime Minister because he really is a weak Prime Minister. Even the issues that this Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, saw as important some years ago—he has now abandoned those values and abandoned those principles because he wants to cling to power as the Prime Minister of Australia. So his own personal ambitions have pushed aside any values that he once had.

We see the government set about trying to resolve the issue of high electricity prices. What it did was it asked the Chief Scientist to prepare a report and give recommendations on exactly what the government should do. Dr Finkel, the Chief Scientist, developed a report. Dr Finkel delivered that report. The key recommendation in the report was to introduce a clean energy target. That was the most fundamental issue and the most powerful recommendation that was there. But it is something this rabble of a government, under a weak Prime Minister, doesn't have the capacity to deliver. That's the problem: there is absolutely no capacity to deliver.

You just look at the report in the Financial Review, going back to 13 June this year. Phillip Coorey, one of the main political analysts and reporters in this country, said:

Malcolm Turnbull has been hit with a stronger-than-anticipated backlash over plans to introduce a Clean Energy Target in a battle which is fast becoming a test of his leadership, Liberal sources say.

It goes on to say:

… only four or five MPs had spoken in favour of Dr Finkel's key recommendation—

this was in the coalition party room—

while about 22, including Tony Abbott, were against, and four more unclear.

I'm not surprised that members of the coalition are unclear. They are really unclear about most things. It goes on:

Chief complaints—

this is in the coalition party room—

were that the CET modelled by Dr Finkel did not classify so-called clean coal as a low emissions source and there was widespread scepticism at his forecast that his CET would deliver lower power prices than doing nothing.

You had people arguing in the party room of the coalition that they shouldn't do anything on this and they should do nothing, while you have got working-class families, with kids, battling to pay their power bills. This just shows you how out of touch, weak and unfocused this government is. It goes on:

"It's a slaughter," said an MP inside the meeting "and a lot of the usual suspects haven't spoken yet".

It goes on to say:

… the prospect of doing anything at all regarding a CET is now in serious doubt.

Well, we know that because the government has had this report now for some time, and it is in no way capable of delivering, even though Labor have said that we will work with the government to deliver a clean energy target in the interests of ensuring that we can do something about reducing power prices in this country. Coorey says:

Both Nationals and Liberals spoke against the plan, despite it promising to lower electricity prices and the government yet to do any design work.

So it hasn't even looked at doing any design work on this. This is a government that really is only a government in name. They are doing no governing, they are weak and they are incapable of delivering reduced power prices in this country.

The Financial Review goes on to quote Senator Cormann. He said:

The biggest cost…tax that we could impose on consumers and taxpayers would be to do nothing.

It was actually Senator Cormann who was saying that we've got to do something about this. But Senator Cormann is being ignored in this debate as well. He said that, without policy certainty, prices would continue to go 'up and up and up.' This is one of the most effective politicians within the coalition putting a warning out to his colleagues in the coalition that, if they don't do anything about this, prices would go 'up and up and up'. It even beggars belief that we have the finance minister having to tell the coalition party room that, if they don't do anything on this, power prices will go 'up and up and up'.

It goes on to say:

…CET with bipartisan support would restore investor certainty to a volatile and dysfunctional energy market, resulting in lower prices. The most expensive option in terms of power prices would be to do nothing, Dr Finkel said.

The person who the coalition asked to do a report, Dr Finkel, is being supported by Senator Cormann, the finance minister, who is saying that we have to do something about this. But hour after hour after hour of division within the coalition party room couldn't bring about a resolution to say, 'Let's get on with the job and reduce power prices for the Australian community.' This is not in the national interest. This weak government is not in the national interest.

Then the Prime Minister is reported to have stressed to the party room that the CET did not prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power stations. What planet is this Prime Minister on? No-one wants to invest in new coal-fired power stations—nobody! Yet, to try and appease the opposition to a CET in the party room, the Prime Minister is talking about building new coal-fired power stations. Then he changes his mind on that, and then the National Party bail him up and he's off down that road again.

The energy sector and the experts believe that even if coal is included in the scheme there is no interest in building a coal-fired power station, if only because they are more expensive than renewable energy. This coalition is in an absolute bind. This government just cannot get its act together to operate in the interests of the Australian community. This government would, through its own ideological approach on power prices and on climate change, force ordinary Australians to pay more and more for their power. They are an absolute disgrace.

Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, doesn't have a clue about how to deal with this issue, because the extremists in the coalition will do anything to stop a proper, measured, scientific approach to dealing with power prices in this country. This is the same Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who said that he would not lead a party that is not as committed to effective climate action as he was. He said that before they ditched him, and then he clawed his way back, knifed former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, became the Prime Minister, and he is now captive of the climate change deniers, the unscientific rabble that is the coalition party room. The party room is lording it over a weak and ineffective Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who is a huge disappointment to people who thought that this guy, who was on Q&A with a fancy leather jacket, would do something—that this cool character with the leather jacket would actually make a difference.

Well, the cool character in the leather jacket is an absolute captive of the extremists in the coalition. He is weak, he is ineffective and everyone knows that he is a massive disappointment. It has been reported that he's got an identity crisis. Well, you have to get an identity before you can have a crisis. What is this guy's identity? He just goes from one thing to another—capitulates on one issue of his values and one issue of his principles; it's just capitulate, capitulate. That is the Prime Minister we have—a Prime Minister who would force the community to pay $122 million for a postal survey instead of standing up to the lunatics in the coalition who will never agree that everyone should get equal rights in this country. Households are battling to pay their bills, just being ignored. The man who led the campaign for a republic won't bring a republic debate, won't talk about a republic, because the extremists in the coalition have complete control.

You only have to go back to look at why we're in this position. It is because the coalition is led by nose by former senator Barnaby Joyce, who was a Kiwi at the time he was in here—a New Zealander—making speeches about $100 lamb roasts. Remember that? He was creating fear in the community about doing something in relation to climate change. Why was he doing that? He was doing that because he was being funded by the mining sector in this country. He was being given massive support and the National Party were being given support by the mining industry in this country. What is the result of that? We are all facing higher and higher power bills because of his incompetence and his bending the knee to the climate change deniers. It's been a decade of stupidity from the coalition. There was even someone who wrote a thesis about climate change. It was Mr Greg Hunt, the ex-environment minister, claiming that it would be $1,300 a tonne. What did ABC Fact Check say? That it is untenable. It is just a nonsense.

I worked in Liddell power station for seven years as a maintenance fitter. I went there in 1974, two years after it was opened. I worked there until about 1981. In those days, in 1972 when this power station was built, Donny Osmond was No. 1 in the charts with Puppy Love. That is how long ago it was when Liddell power station was commissioned. Don Maclean was up in the charts with American Pie, and—Senator Nash would like this—the pipes and drums of the military band of the Royal Scots Dragoon were in the charts with Amazing Grace. The P76 was out there. Remember the Leyland P76? That is when Liddell was built, yet we have a Prime Minister saying we should extend the life of that power station over 50 years. It just beggars belief. The AGL chief executive has said, 'I'm not keeping it going.' I know about some of the problems we had when I was as a maintenance fitter there, trying to keep the boiler tubes decently intact. And I know how the turbines played up and how the turbines have been closed down on a number of occasions over the last year. I know the problems that are there. Yet we have a Prime Minister who wants to keep Liddell power station going.

I like Liddell. I must say, it was great. I was a union delegate at Liddell. We had good wages and conditions. We had good camaraderie. We had bosses that were awful, but we fought back. Even so, those workers deserve a proper move from a power industry that's not going to get any investment to a situation where they can get new jobs doing work in new areas such as clean energy. There was a report in The Singleton Argus today from Elise Pfeiffer. She sounds like a very good reporter; it's a very good article. It says:

In a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange on Wednesday, AGL yet again insisted it does not plan to sell its ageing Liddell power station nor keep it open beyond the set date of 2022.

Instead, the energy powerhouse is assessing its ability to replace the coal-fired station with a mix of energy from solar and wind, and fill its capacity gap with a mix of load-shaping and firming, from gas peaking plant, demand response, pumped hydro and batteries.

That's what the future is laying out. That's where I want the kids of the people I worked with at Liddell power station to be getting their jobs. That's what they should be doing. That's where the young kids who are listening in now should be getting jobs: load-shaping and firming, hydro, batteries, wind power, solar power. That's the future of this country. Yet the coalition are so backward, so incompetent, such troglodytes that they cannot understand what the future is. It goes on to say that the more economically viable position is the one I've just described, and that is opposed to spending millions on upgrading a 46-year-old plant.

Mr Andy Vesey said:

It will require a significant investment and so, you know, if you're thinking about extending the life of a plant like that for 10 years, let's say, the level of investment would be significant …

And the question we have to ask if we're going to make a significant investment in generation, would we do it in an older plant which is less reliable with higher maintenance costs or should we be making that investment in new technology which aligns with what we believe is the future which will be a greater value long term to our shareholders and customers.

The other thing at Liddell power station is that, when the power station was built, Denman Shire Council was the council that entered arrangements about the build with the then state government, but there was no agreement about the clean-up costs, so whoever ends up with that power station will have hundreds of millions of dollars of clean-up costs. These are issues that would have to be factored into any sale price and factored in by anyone who thinks they would take that over.

I will finish on this. A recent report said the coal-fired power stations, Bayswater and Liddell, were creating huge toxic problems—30 toxic substances that have serious health impacts on the communities of both Singleton and Muswellbrook. Why would we keep that going, when AGL are saying there are different ways to do this? I was not a great fan of privatising the power industry; I'm not a great fan of what's happened. Combined with the incompetence of the coalition and Malcolm Turnbull, all it has led to is this crisis.