Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

It is relevant to the debate we're having now, because Senator Rennick has offered a range of anecdotal observations about what all this means for regional communities, but the National Farmers' Federation say, 'We support the passage of these bills, noting that they are framework legislation that can provide business certainty.' They talked a lot, actually, about how industry was ahead of the government that you all participated in. They said:

One—

of the things—

we've already articulated in the submission and which is the most longstanding is the red meat sector CN 2030, so carbon neutral 2030, which they are all advanced on in an implementation context. I think the number as at yesterday was a 59 per cent reduction from 2005 levels … The second one is grain growers have an aspiration of a 15 per cent reduction in emissions intensity. That's specifically focused on the nitrous oxide issue … The pork sector have a 2025 ambition for carbon neutrality.

There's the Farmers Federation talking about the industries in their sector, all of which are on a journey to net zero. But we have the National Party questioning whether making that transition is something that should be happening. It's already happening. It's already happening in the industries that you claim to represent, and it speaks to the isolation and the strange position that you have all got yourself into. So determined were the coalition through your last decade in utilising this issue in a base way for narrow political purposes that you actually lost track of the people that you suppose to represent. It was all on show. It's all been on show in the Senate inquiry and in the discussion around this bill and this process.

Senator Canavan put a series of questions about power prices and his views. Of course, the entire country is still coping with the mess left by Mr Taylor. Mr Taylor as energy minister presided over an utterly chaotic energy policy that left investors and businesses totally confused about their obligations. I can't tell you how many private conversations, how many people, have offered up the insight that they are relieved to be in a position where they can actually talk about the climate transition, the challenge facing their business and the way that business and government will partner to meet that great challenge.

So I'm reluctant really to contemplate in any serious way the contributions from a group of people who appear unclear about who they represent and who appear to be unwilling to concede the mess that they left for the sector. However, I will go to the specific issues that were raised by Senator Canavan. He speaks, of course, about our proposals for the power sector. The modelling suggests that, if we pursue 43 per cent and we implement the arrangements around transmission, we will see a significant increase in the penetration of renewables. The facts are that that will put downward pressure on power prices, because any assessment that examines the levelised cost of energy will show that firmed renewables offer the cheapest possibility to put new-generation capacity into the system, cheaper than any of the proposals pursued by you and certainly cheaper than the propositions that you never implemented for new generation—billions of dollars promised for new generation; none of it ever actually delivered under the programs championed by the National Party—downward pressure on prices as a consequence of the program that we are implementing. I know they don't want to hear it, because the mess that they left behind is embarrassing.

Opposition senators interjecting—

But this government will get on with tidying up the great big mess that you left behind and delivering to Australians the energy system that they require.