Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Families and Communities) Share this | Hansard source

The subject for debate is the need for government to take immediate and meaningful steps to reduce electricity prices for all Australians. I hope there isn't anybody in the chamber who disagrees with that proposition. I don't find myself in agreement with Senator Bernardi very often, but that is a question that I think we do agree on. I think Senator Bernardi and I would disagree on almost every other question about how that's to be achieved. Before I go to the substance of that disagreement and why I disagree with him, I want to make some remarks about Senator Macdonald's contribution just now. The essence of his contribution is that the Commonwealth has no role in energy policy. What an ahistorical, silly, irresponsible attitude to take on one of the most substantial policy issues facing the nation. What a ridiculous contribution.

When I say ahistorical, I will invite Senator Macdonald to have a look at the history of what he has called, tellingly, the national electricity market. Australia's electricity market is actually quite remarkable. It comprises the world's longest interconnected power system. We are a big continent with a small population that's highly concentrated, and the way that we've managed that is to build quite a remarkable national market which sees energy flow from all over the country to where it is needed. To do that absolutely requires a national perspective.

I'm not entirely surprised that Senator Macdonald, with his typically parochial attitude, comes in here and says, 'This is a matter for the states.' But that is not the historical record. The NEM was absolutely developed with the involvement of the Commonwealth. It is a product of COAG negotiations and there are a range of institutions that answer directly to the Commonwealth minister in relation to energy. Senator Macdonald's contribution was, simply, factually wrong. That has been the case since 1988 when the national energy market was initiated.

On the question of the development of renewables in this country, I will also give some credit where credit is due. The Renewable Energy Target, the instrument which drove the investment in renewables in South Australia that Senator Macdonald likes to complain about so regularly, was initiated by John Howard's government. It was initiated in 2001. It is an institution that has had bipartisan support in recognition of the fact that the contemporary environment requires us to transform our electricity system. The truth is that we are now in a position where renewables present the cheapest form of power available to us. When combined with other mechanisms, such as storage and gas, they present an opportunity for reliable power that is significantly more affordable than investing in new coal-fired generation, which is the proposition put before us again and again by the climate deniers on the coalition backbench and just occasionally their frontbench, as Malcolm Turnbull learnt to his cost and insufficiently for him to keep his job, apparently. Those on the other side will not rest until they've got a climate denier and a coal enthusiast in the top chair. They've got that in Scott Morrison, haven't they? He's a guy who was willing to go into the chamber, fondling in a weird kind of way a lump of black coal. What a disgrace!

It represents a complete rejection of the economic advice. It represents a rejection of the advice provided by all of the government institutions whose exclusive focus is on understanding the nature and the dynamics of the electricity system and the electricity market and providing advice on that. Their advice, consistently, is that our path ought to be renewables. It rejects the advice from industry. I have sat on inquiry after inquiry where industry has come before us and said, 'For heaven's sake, all that we require to resolve the situation in the electricity market is certainty about carbon pricing and then we can get on with the job, because we know that we have technology that can meet the future needs of households and business and we can do it in an affordable way.' That is what the government has been told by business. That's what we've been told by business. It's what parliament has been told by business. More than ample advice has been provided to this crowd about what the path forward ought to look like, and they will not heed it. They choose not to heed it because they would prefer to engage in a culture war that speaks to a narrow part of their base than to deal with the information and evidence before them. They would prefer to deal with a loopy dream about the future of new coal-fired power stations than to deal with the advice provided by industry, by economists and by technologists. They would prefer to play politics than deal in a serious way with the policy questions that are before them.

What's become clear now is that, in its fifth year of office, the government has no energy policy. Mr Morrison walks in here, his first day on the job as Prime Minister in the parliament, and what is his energy policy? He doesn't have one. He's able to tell us what it's not, because the NEG is dead, just like the clean energy target is dead and the emissions intensity scheme is dead and the CPRS is dead—all serious attempts by the policymakers in our national institutions to develop a coherent energy framework and all killed off, one by one. Every serious policy instrument was killed off by the knuckle draggers on the other side, by the people who will not support those who seek to make a policy. So we are well into the fifth year of this government and Mr Morrison doesn't have an energy plan. He said the NEG is dead. He's going to head off to the party room tomorrow. I don't think there's any indication at all that he's going to take a new policy to the party room tomorrow. He'll probably stand up and mouth the same meaningless platitudes that I heard in question time today about how they want low prices. The thing is that we know what's required for low prices but it's news that this crowd doesn't want to hear, so we find ourselves without an energy policy at all. One thing we know about it is that it's not going to be the NEG. And it's also not going to deal with climate change.

Again I say this: every serious, credible industry player acknowledges that our energy system is going to need to become less carbon intensive and that the cheapest way for the Australian economy overall to meet its emissions reduction goals is to make changes in the energy sector. Making changes in the transport sector is expensive and difficult, making changes in the agricultural sector is expensive and difficult but making changes in the energy sector is actually affordable. All the modelling shows this. And yet the coalition come here, rule out changes to the electricity sector and make no commitment at all about how they're going to treat emissions that come from farming and transport. And I say this to those on the other side who might have constituents with an interest in farming or an interest in transport: what do you think is going to happen if you fail to reduce emissions in the electricity sector? How do you think the Paris commitments are going to be met? The natural and logical consequence of not doing anything in the electricity sector is that you have to work harder and lift heavier in those other sectors. No-one's being honest with those constituents about that question.

This is a farce. It is nowhere close to a coherent energy policy, it is nowhere close to a coherent climate policy, and it will have real consequences for Australia. What industry has said is that they just need certainty. They need a clear energy policy framework so that they can get on with planning their investments. As it becomes apparent that certain plants are going to close because they are 25, 30, 35, 40 years old and absolutely at the end of their life, we need industry to step up and make new investments. And they can only do that if they understand what our commitments are in terms of emissions reduction in the electricity sector, how that is integrated into the way that prices operate in the National Electricity Market and what the return will be on their investment if they do step up and invest. They say they're ready to do it. All they need is an integrated policy that will deal with climate and energy, but for five years they've been asking and for five years they've been waiting, and five years in they've still got nothing.