Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As my colleagues in this debate have indicated, the coalition supports a sensible renewable energy target and supports legislation which will establish the rules surrounding a renewable energy target. We do this, however, subject to the government negotiating with us to allow for the amendments that we have proposed and that we believe need to be addressed to make the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009 appropriate for Australia. I want to come to that later.

For a long time—in government and in opposition—the coalition have supported renewable energy. One reason for that is for the new generation of electricity generators out there. I want to alert the Senate to the work that Mackay Sugar is doing with renewable energy. Mackay Sugar effectively controls all of the sugar mills in the Mackay district. Mackay is one of the biggest sugar-growing districts in Australia and, indeed, the world. Mackay Sugar is a public company but is principally owned by the people of Mackay and the cane farmers of Mackay. They have a cogeneration project that I was pleased to go and have a look at when I went to Mackay with Senator Cormann’s Senate Select Committee on Fuel and Energy, looking into the ETS and renewable energy. Whilst in Mackay we had a look over Mackay Sugar and had a talk to the chairman of directors, the chief executive and other executives of the company. Mackay Sugar is proposing through a cogeneration project to put some 206,000 megawatts of renewable electricity into the Mackay grid every year. Some 33 per cent of Mackay’s power will be generated by the sugar industry in Mackay. They will, in doing this, save some 200,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases every year. This is a $100 million project, which will employ 270 workers during construction. It will have year-round operation, providing a reliable baseload power supply.

Many of proposals for renewable energy are about wind, about solar or about other areas where there is discussion about the reliability—24/7, so to speak—of the power supply. The Mackay Sugar cogeneration project will provide a reliable baseload power supply to that city. The renewable energy platform established will provide for further diversification into ethanol production. That can only be good. The whole business plan of Mackay Sugar ensures a cane payment structure to return projected profits to the cane grower shareholders in that area. So it is an exciting project. The project needs these bills to be passed to give it the impetus. Engineering design and specifications have been completed. Construction tenders are ready to be called. The Queensland Renewable Energy Fund has awarded Mackay Sugar a grant. Finance term sheets are well advanced, a grid interconnection agreement is well advanced and development and environmental approvals are in place. But it is important for the project to secure an acceptable power purchase agreement for electricity and for the renewable energy certificates produced each year. Negotiations with the short-listed electricity retailers have been suspended in recent times because of the recent downturn in the REC price.

The 20 per cent RET legislation, which the coalition supports in amended form, is critical for recovery in the renewable energy market, and this particular project in Mackay in Northern Queensland does depend for its immediate progress on the passage of the legislation. This is why it is so essential that the government is prepared to negotiate, unlike the attitude it adopted in relation to emissions trading schemes. It is essential that the government gets off its political high horse, stops playing politics with these things and negotiates sensibly with the coalition and other parties who have a view on the matter.

Media reports tell us that those negotiations have been going on now for a couple of days. On the radio this morning I heard Mr Hunt, the coalition’s environment spokesman, saying that negotiations are not finished yet, but they are going well. I urge the government to continue with that approach. Had the government adopted this approach in relation to the emissions trading scheme, it would not have ended in the disaster that it did for the government last week in this chamber, when there was a forlorn sight—it was a happy sight, as far as I was concerned—from government members. We saw Labor members looking very forlorn as they could not get one other senator to agree with them on that stupid, rushed and politically motivated emissions trading scheme.

If we are sensible in this country about good environmental management, good renewable energy, we have to work together to get the best of everyone’s ideas. It is very clear that all wisdom does not lie in the government. In fact, the fiasco of the emissions trading scheme shows that little of the wisdom resides in the government. It is fairly clear to most commentators—it is certainly clear to most people in this chamber—that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme put forward by Senator Wong and Mr Rudd was all about politics; it was nothing to do with the environment, nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions and nothing to do with saving the Barrier Reef, as they keep telling us. It was all about politics. Four separate Senate committees looked into this and the evidence was conclusive: there would be massive job losses in Queensland, there would be massive job losses right throughout Australia. I cannot yet understand how Labor members—who claim to be supported by and supporters of the union movement and the working families we heard so much about before the last election—could possibly be corralled into supporting the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme proposed by Senator Wong and Mr Rudd. I know that several Labor members were very uncomfortable about it. I think they, more than we, were delighted when the legislation was knocked off last week. Any Labor member who has any interest in the jobs of working families and unionists could not help but be concerned by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It was all about politics.

I remind the Senate that Australia produces less than 1.4 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Had the CPRS gone ahead, perhaps that 1.4 per cent would have been cut a couple of points. It would not have made any difference. Yet Labor senators were running around this country saying, ‘Unless we pass this bill, the Barrier Reef is doomed.’ What absolute poppycock. I am more concerned about the Barrier Reef because I live up there. I know the people who make a living from the reef; I know what a fabulous natural resource it is and how important it is to the marine ecosystem. I know all that, but passing that legislation last week would not have made one iota of difference to the Great Barrier Reef. To make a difference to the Great Barrier Reef you need the United States, China, India, Russia, Indonesia, South Africa, Columbia and Argentina to cut their emissions. By Australia making this Don Quixote approach, tilting at windmills, if we had gone to Copenhagen and said, ‘Look at us; we’ve passed legislation and because we’ve done it, China, Russia, India and the United States, you will all follow suit,’ how would we have looked? Ridiculous. Yet Senator Wong seemed to think that her great expertise, her worldwide recognition, would have been enough, with this legislation in her pocket, to get the rest of the world to agree. How egotistical can you get?

I suggested before that Senator Wong made a complete hash of this. That is quite clear when you understand that Mr Rudd brought Mr Greg Combet in to sort out the mess. I am aware that Mr Combet was dealing with the coal companies and with other resource entities to get a solution that did something meaningful in the emissions area but, at the same time, that did not cost Australians the tens of thousands of jobs that everybody, including the Labor Party, knew would be lost. I predict that Mr Combet will take a much greater role in future negotiations of an emissions trading scheme. I think Senator Wong has been irretrievably damaged by the mess she created in the emissions trading legislation. She recognises, I am pleased to hear, and I congratulate her therefore, her errors with the ETS and is now negotiating sensibly on this renewable energy legislation. I am pleased about that. I congratulate her and Mr Combet on talking to people and getting the best ideas from everyone.

What also concerns me both with the RET and with the ETS is that Labor members up and down the coast of my state of Queensland—and I assume this happens elsewhere as well but I want to talk about Queensland and Northern Australia—whose constituents are also vitally impacted by things like emissions trading and renewable energy, have been missing in action. They have been absolutely silent. Not a word has been raised.

There is Mr Trevor in the electorate of Flynn, based around Gladstone. Gladstone is a powerhouse of a city. It has a huge aluminium and alumina plant there, one of the most efficient and energy-efficient in the world. But, aluminium being what it is, it requires a lot of energy. What did Mr Trevor do to protect jobs in his city? He voted for a CPRS which would have destroyed that city. Also in that city is a very substantial power station, a power plant whose officials were biting their nails over the possible passage of the CPRS. Because it is a power station principally powered by black coal, they knew that they would be in all sorts of trouble if that CPRS legislation had gone through. And what did Mr Trevor do? Absolutely nothing.

Also in Gladstone is one of the world’s most efficient cement industry plants, a plant that I have looked at and I know that a lot of my colleagues have looked at. I think that Mr Turnbull has had a look at it too. It is a very substantial plant in Gladstone. They had proposals for a new section of that plant. It would have been an investment, if I remember correctly—and I do not have these details—of something like three-quarters of a billion dollars in Gladstone. Hundreds of jobs would have been created during construction, and in general operation there would have been new employment created. What did Mr Trevor do about that? He voted to shut that down. The cement company of course, looking to the future and understanding the Labor Party, cancelled that new investment. They put it on a long hold and they will not really look at it again until they can get some sense out of this government, until they know where this government is going. These real jobs in the city of Gladstone were destroyed because Mr Trevor would not stand up for his constituents.

And what about the next, northern seat of Capricornia, just adjoining Flynn? In the city of Rockhampton there is a cement plant. What did Ms Livermore do to protect the jobs of workers in that cement plant? What did Ms Livermore do to protect the 400 jobs that would have gone from Teys Bros abattoirs in the city of Rockhampton? We had evidence at the Senate inquiries that 400 people in Rockhampton would lose their jobs at the abattoir if this went through. What did Ms Livermore do? She voted for a piece of legislation that would have destroyed the jobs of 400 workers in that meat factory and workers’ jobs in other industrial plants in the Rockhampton area.

Let us go a bit further north, into the seat of Dawson. What did Mr Bidgood do to save the jobs of all of those working families, many of whom live in Mackay but work in the Bowen Basin coalfield? Had this legislation gone through, it would have decimated the Bowen Basin coalmining operations. We had evidence from any number of people about that—and I cannot go through them all; there are too many to list in a 20-minute speech—and company after company came to us and demonstrated to us the issues they had with the legislation. Labor members on the committee, I might say, asked questions and then went silent when they understood that these were not rent seekers out there seeking a bit more profit. They understood that the CPRS would have made those coalmines unprofitable and that coalmine investors are not in it just for the fun of it; they are in it to make money. If the mines became unprofitable they would shut them down and tens of thousands of fellow Queenslanders would be without a job. Yet not one Queensland Labor senator stood up for those people in the vote before this chamber.

I plead with my colleagues in the Labor Party who are from Queensland not to do the same thing when it comes to the renewable energy bill. Make sure that the very sensible amendments that the coalition are seeking are in fact adopted. My colleagues in this debate have indicated, perhaps at greater length than I am going to have time to do, that to get our support and pass this bill there must be a full decoupling of this RET bill from the flawed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We have been successful in securing the principle of decoupling but, as I understand it, the government’s proposals as I hear them in the news have not quite been achieved. But let us hope that Queensland Labor senators will ensure that. We need to make sure that the aluminium sector, which is so very important to Queensland, is also included in the framework for compensation, unlike what happened in the ETS, and I beg my Queensland colleagues to support that.

We also have to ensure that food processing is categorised for assistance under the RET. We are going to be seeking to eliminate loopholes in relation to the multiplication of RETs for industrial heat pumps and we are going to move that a portion of the RETs be banded and reserved for emerging rural renewable technologies such as baseload solar, geothermal, wave, tidal and biomass. There are a couple of other things we need, and I urge the government to get involved so that we can get this all passed this week. (Time expired)

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Family First support renewable energy because we believe renewable energy will be an important component of the future energy mix. However, Family First make a clear distinction between our support for renewable energy and our views on an emissions trading scheme. I also have to note that, while the renewable energy target has been on the agenda for a while, the report into the renewable energy targets was tabled only last week in the Senate, and to simply ram through the legislation—the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and a related bill—today is stupid, especially with major amendments still coming forward.

From Family First’s perspective, the driving reasons for renewable energy targets and an emissions trading scheme are totally different, and it is a fact which the Rudd government has arrogantly overlooked. The government’s ETS is based on reducing carbon dioxide emissions and is driven by the assumption that increasing carbon dioxide emissions are the leading cause of global warming. But the Rudd government has failed to provide credible evidence that Australia needs to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions; therefore, the renewable energy targets need to be driven by a completely different rationale and can no longer be driven solely by the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The only credible reason to support investment in renewable energy is that renewable energy will be an important component of the future energy mix.

Some countries, like Germany, have already invested big dollars in their renewable energy sectors and produced new technology. What role can and should Australia play in developing renewable energy technology? Which technologies are worthy of investment and why? By mandating renewable energy targets, we artificially create a viable renewable energy market. But, I stress, it is artificial, because the renewable energy sources for generating electricity are not financially viable on their own.

In Australia we already generate electricity at a very low cost by using coal as the energy source. For example, coal fired electricity is manufactured today at about $30 per megawatt hour, but solar and wind renewable energy cost upward of $60 and $70 a megawatt hour. As you can see, the cost of electricity would go up by 100 to 200 per cent if you wanted to use only renewable energy sources to generate electricity. That is double the cost. If you asked Australian families, ‘Do you want renewable energy?’ most families of course would say yes. But if you asked Australian families, ‘Would you pay 100 per cent more, in some cases 200 per cent more, on your power bill to have 100 per cent renewable energy?’ most families would say, ‘No, we can’t afford it.’ Can you imagine how much the cost of food and goods and services would go up if electricity prices went up by 100 and 200 per cent?

So, before rushing ahead and locking ourselves into high renewable energy targets, it is important to also consider the consequences they will have on Australian families, businesses and our economy. Too often, the impact on families is simply overlooked or ignored and lost in the argy-bargy of political point-scoring between the two big political players. While the Rudd government has been quick to talk up the benefits of artificially propping up a renewable energy market, little has been said about the flow-on effect of increased costs, which will ultimately be borne by ordinary Australian families—mums and dads and the next generation of kids.

We have already been told that electricity prices in this country will escalate. According to modelling performed by Access Economics, the proposed renewable energy target will cause average energy costs to rise by $12 a megawatt hour by 2020. I think that is conservative. This means power bills will skyrocket. This is hardly a small amount; it cannot be discounted and not really focused on. These are costs that will affect all Australian families and will particularly hurt those already feeling the pinch of the downturn caused by the global financial crisis.

Yet the Greens are arguing for bigger renewable energy targets. They obviously do not care about the impact on Australian families and worry even less about wrecking our economy, all for the sake of pursuing their extreme, green agenda. Let us be real: it is not the Greens that will look after families; it is not the Greens that will look after our economy—and thank goodness for that. So who will foot the bill for higher renewable energy targets? It is the mums and dads and their kids. So remember: the higher the renewable energy target is, the higher the price of power bills will be—fact.

And what about businesses that will need to pass on the cost impacts of higher electricity prices? This will flow on to food and other goods and services. Guess who pays again? That is right: Australian families—not the Rudd government. We currently have a renewable energy target of around four per cent, and the Rudd government wants to lift that to 20 per cent. Given that electricity generated by renewables is about 100 to 200 per cent more expensive than coal generated electricity, Australian families are going to foot the bill for subsidising the new renewable energy market. But why should mums and dads foot this very expensive bill and, effectively, pay a subsidy to private companies as they embark on risky renewable energy schemes? Mums and dads, not the Rudd government, are basically bearing all the investment risk in their family budgets, yet if there are any profits down the track mums and dads will get no benefit. It is the private investors who will make a killing. Why should mums and dads bear the risk? There is no accountability and it is a huge gamble.

Why should the government put all the risk onto mums and dads, especially given that mums and dads will foot the expensive bills in propping up these private companies for years and not stand a chance of reaping any of the benefits or profits? This is an important issue which the Rudd government has simply failed to address. I am really concerned that the winners from these big renewable energy targets will be the bankers and that the losers will be mums and dads who will be left to foot the bill.

One of Australia’s significant competitive advantages is our low-cost and secure electricity supply. We have enormous reserves of coal, which have helped us to build a strong and secure economy based on having low-cost electricity generation This is a huge competitive advantage for Australia and we must be careful not to lose that in any transition. Setting higher targets has the potential to put Australia’s economy at risk. I am concerned that the government’s renewable energy target bill poses a significant risk to Australia’s economy and a big threat to our trade-exposed businesses, particularly those in energy-intensive industries such as aluminium. Whilst the bill mandates that special assistance be granted to energy-intensive industries, in many cases this will still leave many businesses exposed and at risk. The last thing we want is fewer jobs or less growth in jobs, especially given that Australian families are footing the bill.

I would like to rebalance the risk and take it away from mums and dads and put it back onto the Rudd government, which is where it should be. Why should mums and dads foot the bill when they have no control over how the money is invested? Maybe another model should be developed where the government foots the bill and bears the risk. The government would then be held to account and would have enough clout to hold the new sector to account. If mums and dads are to be forced to pay substantially higher energy prices, maybe they should benefit directly from any profits. When the government of the day wants to develop a new industry that is a high risk and that will cost big bucks, the government or private business should bear the risk and not call on mums and dads to bear the risk. This point really has not been covered.

I would like to see the opposition show some backbone and some ticker and ensure that the legislation is either fixed or opposed. But guess what? The opposition has gone missing in action. Australia is in a very dangerous position at the moment in federal politics. Between now and the next election we will see bad policy pass through federal parliament because the Rudd government knows the opposition will roll over at the threat of an early, double-dissolution election. Come on Coalition, come on! Show some backbone, show some ticker and stand up for what is right. The opposition is in danger and can no longer be called ‘Turnbull’s party’; it can be called the ‘turncoats party’.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not know; it is always amazing—ta-dum! We are talking here about the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and a related bill. There is obviously a sense of people wanting to do the right thing, to move ahead and to try to get to a position where we can move towards using renewable energies. But we have to do that in a manner that does not put at risk the nation’s employment capacity or put extra cost on the farming sector, especially, and on working families or put at risk jobs in the aluminium and cement industries and in a whole range of other industries.

We were promised a proper decoupling of the bill. At the moment we do not have that. We have very much a hybrid form of decoupling. The aluminium industry has still not been properly dealt with. We see that the print media has been dealt with, and we know why that is: they were always going to be out, and good luck to them. Silica industries have been dealt with. But a whole range of other things have not been dealt with.

I heard Senator Fielding say something about the opposition having no backbone and that we are missing in action. That is interesting coming from a person whom you can never actually find when negotiations are required. He is just missing, full stop. It is like trying to talk to someone in North Korea: you know they are there, but you do not know what they are up to.

What the coalition is doing is in good faith trying to get a resolution on this issue. We obviously have huge problems with the emissions trading scheme, which will be an employment termination scheme and mean the destitution of regional economies. It will just be a new tax whereby Mr Rudd will be found in every facet of people’s lives. Wherever there is a power point, there will be a tax by Mr Rudd. Mr Rudd will be perched in every shopping trolley as there will be a new tax on the overheads for food. If you want to go on a holiday, Mr Rudd will be in the plane with you because there is a tax on aviation fuel. Everywhere you go and in everything you do, Mr Rudd will have a position in your life. What this will achieve we do not know because it will not actually change the climate.

We want to see whether these negotiations that are supposed to be held in good faith are concluded by the end of the committee stage of these bills and have actually dealt with the promise that the Labor Party made—that is, that there would be an authentic decoupling of the renewable energy target from the emissions trading scheme. If there is an authentic decoupling and the key industries have been dealt with, both the Nationals and the Liberal Party will do what they can to support this. But if there has not been an authentic decoupling, we will have a problem.

I know what the Labor Party are doing: they are using this as a form of wedge politics. They will basically go out there and say, ‘They won’t pass renewable energy.’ I suppose the argument for us to explain to the Australian people is that what they did in their CPRS, in their cunning little plan that will make our economy RS, was enmesh things from their renewable energy target with the emissions trading scheme so that you have to pass both in order to get either. That would be defaulting on the agreement they made before the Australian people that they would be fair dinkum in their decoupling of this bill. That is the negotiation process going on at the moment, and I commend Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt in their valiant attempts to try to bring this to a conclusion.

Our main concern is for carbon-intensive, trade-exposed industries, such as the food-processing sector, especially dairy. Dairy in its current form will have a huge cost put on it. It is not, by the definition delivered, a trade-exposed, emission-intensive industry. Regardless of that, the farming sector will be lumped with a huge new cost. They cannot hand it on through the retailers, because they will just lose market share, so the only ones who will pay will be the farmers. These people are already doing it extremely tough. Remember, farmers have the problem at the moment, especially in the dairy industry, that retailers are extracting a huge margin, but the price at the farm gate keeps going down.

It will be interesting to see whether the government wanted to ever truly grasp the nettle on that issue. I think that is something that all Australian people want to know: why are the farmers getting less when we are paying more at the checkout and, apparently, everything is fine? It is not fine. People are being exploited; farmers are being exploited. This issue has never been dealt with. There are not the courage and the conviction to take on the powers that be and the substantial union membership that is involved, through such things as the SDA. There is a huge flow of income from compulsory union fees via the major retailers, Coles and Woolworths, to the SDA, which, ipso facto, is a support mechanism for the Labor Party. I would imagine there is something approaching $100 million a year in union fees. This is why these people have so much market power and why they dominate the market and the political environment.

With the renewable energy target we really should deal with all forms of energy. The fuel that drives your car is one. With this bill we could move to things such as greater use of biorenewable fuels. We know that the price of ethanol is between 70c and 80c a litre. This is a renewable which would not force the price up; it would force the price down. It is so peculiar that we are looking at including such things as electricity, which will only force the price of the product in one direction, and that is up, but we are not concentrating more on something that everybody wants, which is cheaper fuel. We can do that by greater utilisation of such things as ethanol and biodiesel. That would force the price down. But, for whatever reason, there has obviously been a form of making sure that something that would deliver a benefit to the Australian people and the environment has been avoided in a substantive form.

What we look for as we progress through this issue is whether there will be authentic decoupling of this bill. That is really the crux of why this negotiation process goes forward. The government has said they will do it in good faith. Far from not having any backbone or being missing in action, the government and the opposition—and I think it is good for the Australian people to see this—are at the negotiation table. That is what the Australian people hope to see far more of in this chamber and in the process of the parliament.

The only person who is ever missing in action is Senator Fielding. It is always a mystery where Senator Fielding is off to. In fact, most of the time it is a mystery as to where he actually is. This is a person whose position on an issue changes like the weather—it changes from hour to hour. Maybe he should have changed his position to being open to negotiation as well. The form of negotiation that the Liberal-National coalition is engaged in shows the Australian people that we do not have a belligerent stance on the environment; it is one of trying to arrive at a resolution, except when that resolution gets to a point where you hang people out to dry. You cannot do that—hanging people out to dry for no real effect.

As we move forward with a renewable energy target we have to acknowledge that a lot of people around the world are not, and these are the people we are trading with. There is no sense in just closing down our aluminium industry—having it wander over to China or somewhere else where there will be none of these imposts. Not only would we lose the capacity to employ Australian families, not only would we lose the capacity to earn income domestically; we would become the one who imports the product and contributes to the problem to a far worse extent overseas. You want to make a clear statement about what is important when you want to reduce emissions. What do we do when we get to a position where we say, ‘If the aluminium industry stays in Australia, it is a far better environmental prospect than if it sets up in China, India or Vietnam’? What is the responsible thing to do if we are being completely honest with our approach to the environment? That would be to keep this industry in Australia with the controls that we have.

The Labor Party will go on voicing their moralistic bulwark about the environment. It is a deception, because they are not actually going to do anything for the global environment. They will not change the temperature of the globe by one degree. The impact of any of these propositions is so infinitesimally small. They have no effect on climatic conditions. What they do have a huge effect on is the capacity of working families to go home with cheques in their back pockets, the capacity of people to go to the supermarket and be able to afford the groceries in their shopping baskets and the capacity for them to have a sense of dignity in their lives, where they have some cold, hard folding stuff in their wallets so that they can participate in a comparable standard of living. But we will not do anything for our nation if we move everything we have in this nation to another nation. We just cannot go on like that.

When he became Prime Minister, Mr Rudd said, ‘I want to live in a nation that produces things.’ That was his statement. But now we are seeing all these moralistic laws, one after another, that do nothing more than remove our capacity to be a nation that produces things. To be a strong, successful nation that produces things in its own right, the best thing that Australia can do is advance the ideal of maintaining industry and not losing jobs. We will prove nothing to the world if we come up with these wonderful schemes of which the only effect is to destroy jobs. That will prove to the world that, if you go down the environmental path, you will render yourself destitute. That is not smart. We have seen what has happened in California. They had this wonderful ideal of a green nirvana, but they are broke. That is not a good recommendation to do business that way. People have spoken about Germany, with its renewable energy component, but the price of electricity there has gone through the roof. These are the issues. We have one extremely strong advantage in our nation: we have cheap power. We have to keep that advantage. The benefit of cheap power is that you can pay people more. If you have expensive power, you end up having to employ fewer people or pay people less. The only other alternative is that the industry closes down and goes somewhere else. I do not think that is the alternative we want.

The Labor Party talk about the green economy and green jobs—it is just terminology. When you ask people in the community, ‘Do you know anybody who’s employed in a green job?’ the answer is generally, ‘No, we don’t.’ Yet we are told that there are going to be tens of thousands of these jobs that will just arrive. We are not quite sure what they will be, but they will just arrive.

This renewable energy target legislation would be an open door to wind power, which is fine. It is easy to construct heaps of wind turbines—all across the landscape, everywhere you look: wind turbines. Of course, after a while, they will start to be an annoyance to people. A debate we are having at the moment is that people do not like wind turbines and find them to be a blight on the landscape. Everything has its time and its tenor and things turn against it, but, if wind turbines are all the renewable energy we have, what happens to the geothermal energy in northern South Australia and western Queensland? We have to ensure the capacity to develop that industry as we move ahead.

Why do we want renewable energy? We want to be carbon efficient. One of the most carbon-efficient forms of power is nuclear power. Last night and today, Paul Howes has been out there saying that it is madness that the Labor Party stick to this multiple position. They believe it is morally right to have uranium mines—first they choose an arbitrary number of mines that Australia should have and then all of a sudden they suggest we should have more uranium mines, so we can export uranium to countries all around the world, even to countries that produce nuclear weapons—but we are not allowed to use uranium to produce power in our own nuclear power plants. When will this complete discrepancy in philosophical positions be put aside? It looks like a farce. How can you have your feet in both camps? You either believe that uranium mining and everything to do with uranium is abhorrent and therefore ban mining it and everything to do with it—I would not support that; I think that is crazy—or you say, ‘Let’s take our nation to the forefront of nuclear technology.’ I think that move would be generally supported everywhere. The winds are changing—people are changing their position on this. And it looks even more ridiculous now when the head of the Australian Workers Union, Paul Howes, is screaming at his own party to wake up and smell the roses. He says this is where Labor should be if they want to be relevant. He has even laid down the challenge that either the Labor Party change the agenda or the coalition will change it when we get back into government. When we do, we will have the support of the AWU—we will have the support of half your own side.

I welcome Paul Howes’s contribution to this debate and I look forward to the Labor Party having some form of epiphany, dealing with the nutty Left, getting with the agenda and, if they are fair dinkum about reducing carbon emissions, developing a form of technology that will actually deliver that in spades rather than clinging to a 1954 Cold War mentality which the rest of the world has moved on from. In France, about 80 per cent of the power comes from nuclear power. Our neighbours—countries like Indonesia, India, China and Japan—are all using it, and Japan would have more reason than most not to. We had to get the technology for our latest reactor from Argentina. The United States, Britain, France and a myriad of European countries are all using it. Israel has it. The technology is developing around the world, yet the Labor Party insist that Australia be a world leader on climate policy. It is a crazy position. They talk about being world leaders, yet when the world is racing away from their archaic position they sit back and have internal party discussions about why we should stay mired in about 1954.

The challenge is there for the Labor Party. If they are really interested in reducing carbon emissions they have the potential to do it. There are people in their own party screaming at them to get with the program. Who is holding Australia back from this technology? As Paul Howes rightly pointed out, we can be the Middle East in our generation of wealth from nuclear energy. It would mean immense wealth coming into our nation. We could also embellish it and show how smart we can be as a nation by developing the technology to assist people around the world—to help those in surrounding countries to raise their standard of living by the development of technology from the product that we will most likely be exporting to them. But we cannot do it if we do not have a nuclear energy industry of our own. It is just lazy.

I see Minister Carr in the chamber. He is supposed to be the person leading the world down the enlightened path of doing clever things, but this is just ridiculous. Minister Carr knows in his heart that this is the way we have to go. We cannot just bog ourselves down.

The challenge I lay to the Labor Party today is that if you want to reduce carbon emissions, yes, let us look at renewable energy and do what we can but you must be authentic in your decoupling of the bill. And please get with the program. Change your party’s position and, if it is really important to save the globe, as you want to do, get with the program and bring about nuclear energy. If you do not do that, then you look completely and utterly hypocritical, foolish and perverse. None of the rest of the statements and arguments about being clever, being carbon effective, developing jobs and being a world leader stand if one of the greatest components of reducing carbon emissions is ignored by your own party.

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to rise in support of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009. These bills fulfil the Rudd government’s commitment to expand the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target Scheme to ensure that the equivalent of at least 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply is generated by renewable sources by 2020.

In April, the Council of Australian Governments agreed, following extensive community consultation, to the design of the Renewable Energy Target Scheme. That agreement represented a major step towards a low-emissions future for Australia. The RET Scheme, as it is known, will bring the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target Scheme and existing and proposed state and territory schemes into one national scheme, avoiding the inefficiencies and the unnecessary costs of there being nine different schemes operating around Australia in various jurisdictions. These bills are designed to ensure a smooth transition to a single national scheme. We should acknowledge the cooperative attitude of the state and territory governments in ensuring that we have an harmonious and effective transition to a national RET scheme

The RET Scheme contained in these bills will speed up Australia’s shift away from carbon based fuels and towards renewable energy technologies like solar, wind, tidal, biomass and geothermal power, and indeed, even others. It will help transform the electricity sector and drive the low-emission technology and the low-emission electricity generation this country needs if we are to tackle dangerous climate change caused by greenhouse gas emissions. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 increases the existing mandatory renewable energy target from 9,500 gigawatt hours, by stages, to 45,000 gigawatt hours in 2020. The new scheme will create a guaranteed market for additional renewable energy deployment, using the mechanism of tradeable renewable energy certificates that are created by renewable energy generators. This in turn will attract additional investment and create additional jobs in the renewable energy sector here in Australia.

It is pleasing that the opposition, or at least the Liberal Party, has decided to support this bill. I am still not clear what the position of the National Party is with respect to this bill.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Protecting industry and jobs, that is where we are at!

David Feeney (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The interjection has not created any clarity where doubt exists. During the hearings of the Senate Select Committee on Climate Policy, I listened to Senator Boswell hold forth day after day on the horrors of a renewable energy target, not just this RET but any RET. He assured us that a RET would be the ruin of every major Australian industry and every regional area. It would therefore seem to take a fairly spectacular backflip for the National Party, let alone Senator Boswell, to now vote for a RET. We will see what happens when it comes to a vote. Whatever the Nationals do, the Liberals say they are committed to the principles of the RET legislation.

On Monday, in the House of Representatives, Mr Greg Hunt, the shadow minister for climate change, environment and water, waxed enthusiastically about the great mirror fields of California, the potential of geothermal energy and the potential of wave, tidal and algal energy to contribute to Australia’s clean energy future. I agree with him about that and so does this government. So far so good. But then Mr Hunt made his fatal slip—or rather his fatal omission. He went on to say:

Clean energy is, with green carbon, one of the two most fundamental steps to dramatically reducing Australia’s net emissions.

Clean energy is certainly what this bill is about. Green carbon? Possibly. This government’s Clean Energy Initiative includes $2.4 billion for research and development of carbon capture and storage technologies. But we do need to remember that these technologies do not exist at a commercial stage at present. If they did, the whole debate about Australia’s response to climate change would be much simpler. At present, however, we do not have green carbon. We have black and brown carbon, and that is where our problem as a carbon-emitting nation lies.

But what was missing from Mr Hunt’s enthusiastic speech? What is the elephant in the room as far as the Liberal Party’s policy on climate change is concerned? Mr Hunt said that clean energy and green carbon are the two most fundamental steps to dramatically reducing Australia’s net emissions. In fact, there are three fundamental steps. The third fundamental step, the one that Mr Hunt could not bring himself to mention, is putting a price on carbon by means of an emissions trading scheme, such as the one contained in the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the CPRS.

We all know why Mr Hunt could not mention the need to put a price on carbon. It is because his leader, Mr Turnbull, has ordered his troops to vote against the CPRS bill, a bill that establishes an emissions trading regime for Australia. Mr Hunt himself voted against the bill. Every Liberal member of this Senate voted against it. The Liberal Party has repudiated its own policy from when it was in government, as enunciated by Mr Turnbull, then the environment minister, to establish an ETS and put a price on carbon.

Why has the Liberal Party taken this extraordinary step? It is because Mr Turnbull and Mr Hunt do not have the courage and do not have the will to take on the climate change deniers in their own ranks. They do not have the courage to repudiate people like Senator Minchin, who stated flatly here last week that he rejects the scientific consensus that harmful climate change is being caused by human activity. Senator Minchin said last week:

… this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming.

Senator Minchin, a lawyer with no scientific training, has stood in this place and contested the scientific consensus concerning anthropogenic climate change. He has put himself at odds with Australia’s Chief Scientist, Professor Penny Sackett; with the eminent scientists of the Royal Society; with the academies of science of all the G8 countries and with Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. And he has put himself at odds with Lord Stern, author of the Stern report. In fact he is at odds with the overwhelming majority of qualified climate scientists in almost every country in the world, all of whom have emphatically said that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main drivers of global warming.

Faced with this extraordinary display of climate change scepticism, what did Mr Turnbull have to say in response? I can answer that very succinctly—nothing is the answer, not a thing. What Senator Minchin said was an outright repudiation of Liberal Party policy and of the frequently stated views of Mr Turnbull and Mr Hunt that climate change is real, that it is being caused by human activity and that the Liberal Party does in fact believe in it. A leader with any courage would have sacked a frontbencher who so boldly defied party policy on a matter of such fundamental importance. But not Mr Turnbull; he dared not sack Senator Minchin, nor contradict him or even remind him of his own party’s policy. He has meekly allowed his party and its policies to be hijacked by climate change denialists like Senator Minchin, by the troglodytes of the National Party and by the right-wing populists of the Murdoch press such as Andrew Bolt and Piers Akerman.

Mr Turnbull does not have the reputation of a meek and modest man. So why has he allowed himself to be walked over so dramatically in this manner by Senator Minchin and by fellow members of the coalition flat earth society opposite? We all know the answer to that. He is a leader whose approval rating is 31 per cent, whose preferred Prime Minister rating is 24 per cent and who has only 17 per cent of his own party’s voters wanting him as their leader. He is a man who is much less preferred as Liberal leader than someone who has insisted he is retiring from politics, and he is in no position to take a strong stand on anything. Mr Turnbull is a leader on sufferance. He is tolerated only because there is at present no-one else. Australia and future generations of Australians must pay the price for Mr Turnbull’s recklessness and poor judgment in the forged email affair, which has now fatally undermined his public standing and his standing within his own party, and has meant that he has failed the test of leadership action on climate change.

I hear senators opposite cry: what has the tragic spectacle of Mr Turnbull’s humiliation at the hands of his own party got to do with the RET bill which is before us, a bill which the Liberal party is supporting? It has a great deal to do with it because the RET bill in fact could be characterised as a complementary measure to the CPRS legislation. It is a bill that will only be effective and ultimately achieve its purpose if there is a price put on the use of carbon based energy sources. The whole point of an ETS is to raise or create the price of carbon so as to create an economic incentive for individuals, companies and communities to make the shift from carbon based energy sources to renewable energy.

I would have thought a party which believes in the superiority of market forces over government prescription would readily grasp the point that the best way to get people to shift to renewable energy sources is to create a genuine market incentive for them to do so, not to simply bribe them with taxpayer dollars. For most of its history Australia has had some of the world’s lowest prices for carbon based fuels, particularly coal. Senator Joyce made this point moments ago. That has had its advantages but now we see its disadvantages as well. The main disadvantage is that a low carbon price destroys any incentive to move away from carbon, no matter what the long-term cost of burning carbon based fuels may be.

It’s not good enough for Mr Turnbull and Mr Hunt to tell us how much they support renewable energy and how much they support the RET scheme contained in this legislation. That support is meaningless unless it is accompanied by support as to an ETS, because without an ETS the RET bill will not be effective. It will not achieve its ultimate mission. Senators opposite cannot clothe themselves in virtue because they are supporting the easy part of the government’s strategy to combat climate change while dodging shared responsibility for the difficult part. They cannot claim in the parliament to be supporters of renewable energy or of effective action against climate change while at the same time they travel around the regions whipping up opposition against the very idea of an effective ETS, against the CPRS legislation put by this government into this parliament. Of course those opposite certainly cannot clothe themselves in the guise of people interested in action on climate change or interested in a renewable energy sector while they continue to do nothing against those articulating climate change denialist views within the coalition; and we know there are many.

The Australian people are not impressed by the Liberal Party’s double act on renewable energy and climate change. They are not fooled by the tactic of supporting the easy part while blaming the government for the hard part. The tactics of delay and obfuscation by those opposite have gained them nothing. What does this week’s Nielsen poll tell us about the Australian people’s views on this very important matter and, indeed, their views on this national debate? It tells us that 55 per cent of Australians want the government to reintroduce the CPRS bill into this parliament in November, while only 29 per cent share Mr Turnbull’s view that we should wait until early next year to see what happens at Copenhagen. Popular support for the Liberal Party’s strategy of delay, delay, delay is, of course, being fatally weakened because the Liberal Party has failed to articulate a view, a rationale, a plan. Only 12 per cent of Australians want the CPRS scheme abandoned altogether. Those opposite can be certain that we, the government, will be doing what 55 per cent of the Australian people want us to do. We will be bringing the CPRS bill back to this Senate in November. We will force those opposite to face up to their responsibilities. We will force them to stand up and be counted where the Australian people can see them—right here in the Senate.

Come November, the Liberal Party will have the unenviable choice of executing a humiliating backflip or of putting themselves in opposition to the express wish of the majority of the Australian people, putting themselves in opposition to action on climate change with all of the political consequences that will flow from that. These are consequences that I am sure those opposite are increasingly beginning to comprehend, political consequences that many a commentator in our newspapers is becoming ever more enthusiastic about modelling—modelling the political consequences of a Liberal Party decision to oppose action on climate change because they know it will shatter them. But I will have no sympathy for them as they face the unpalatable choice of either doing what they cannot stomach doing or facing the wrath of the electorate. This is a rod they have made for their own backs. They have chosen to play cheap populist politics with this issue, they have chosen to move around Australia undermining support and understanding of the government’s proposals in terms of action on climate change, and these factors have come back to bite them. The simple fact is that the Australian people are not as gullible as those opposite seem to think. In passing this legislation, we are passing what can be categorised as a complementary measure of our CPRS legislation, and the real test will come when we pass the CPRS itself.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to express my support for the government’s Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy Target Scheme as a whole. Australia should and can lower our carbon emissions by making more use of renewable sources to generate electricity. Currently the nation has a relatively high use of fossil fuels for its electricity, and that use accounts for over one-third of Australia’s emissions of greenhouse gases. This no longer needs to be the case. The government’s Renewable Energy Target Scheme will set us on a pathway to a low-pollution future.

In what I believe is a necessary and crucial piece of legislation, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill seeks to give effect to the government’s commitment to amend the existing Mandatory Renewable Energy Target Scheme with a national Renewable Energy Target Scheme, as well as increasing the annual targets for renewable energy generation. The national Renewable Energy Target Scheme will bring the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target and the proposed state and territory schemes in line with one another, thereby eradicating inefficiencies and avoiding the multiple administration and compliance costs that come from having a number of similar schemes operating across the country. We should of course congratulate state governments who have made the move to introduce renewable energy targets as well. State governments, unlike some of the opposition, understand the importance of acting quickly on climate change.

The federal Labor government has always been a government of action. We do not neglect issues and we do not fail to act. We are not divided on this matter and we are not dithering. We have a goal and we are going to get there. We are acting appropriately and in the best interests of the nation and its people. The government has shown initiative and drive in addressing the issues that face Australians and our environment. I was so pleased to be a part of this government when one of its first acts when it took office in 2007 was to ratify the Kyoto protocol. That early action set the tone and the framework for the government’s approach to matters to do with climate change and the environment. Since that early initiative, I am glad to note that we have acted decisively against the onset of global warming through the introduction of the ministerial portfolio of Climate Change and Water, and a number of subsequent pieces of legislation that are intended to fight the battle against climate change.

Last week’s vote against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme did not surprise me. I have come to expect nothing less from those opposite me, especially considering they sat idle for some 11 years, ignoring the science of climate change and ignoring the facts. In rejecting the CPRS bill, the coalition has forced the government to make some changes to our Renewable Energy Target Scheme. The climate change deniers opposite may have thrown a spanner into the government’s original plans, but they have not stopped us from taking the steps towards a lower carbon emission future and Australia’s low-pollution future. Today, with the anticipated passage of these amendments to the MRET Scheme, we will move a step closer to that low-pollution future.

The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 will amend the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 to implement the Commonwealth government’s election commitment to expand the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target Scheme, including increasing the target to 45,000 gigawatt hours by the year 2020. The goal is to ensure that a minimum of 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity will come from renewable energy sources by 2020. The amendment also mandates a review of the operation of the legislation and regulations underpinning the scheme to ensure that we are on track to meet our targets. It is very important that while we can set targets and legislation we do need to monitor closely whether we are achieving them.

The Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill covers the tax issues to do with the amendments. It amends the charge act to increase the shortfall charge potentially payable by certain liable entities—generally our electricity retailers and other large buyers of electricity. The shortfall charge should encourage greater compliance with the scheme as those companies who do not meet their obligations to purchase renewable energy certificates will need to pay the fee. In increasing the charge, this will act as a greater incentive for investment in renewable energy resources. Data published by the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator has shown that since the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target Scheme began in 2001, very few liable entities have needed to pay the shortfall fee.

The passage of this bill will aid the nation’s fight against climate change. The Renewable Energy Target Scheme will accelerate the deployment of a range of renewable energy technologies like wind, solar, biomass and geothermal power over the next two decades. Passage of the legislation will provide renewable energy investors with legislative certainty. As I have said before in this place, if there is one thing that industry and business in Australia want from government, it is certainty. It was very disappointing that the opposition, which claims to be the party that represents business, failed to give business that certainty when they rejected the CPRS bills last week. Obviously the best way for us to create certainty and tackle climate change would have been to pass the CPRS legislation in the first instance. However, that will not stop us from pursuing this portion of our plans to address climate change and reduce Australia’s carbon emissions. The Renewable Energy Target Scheme will help transform our electricity sector and drive the low pollution energy generation that we need. Australia really needs both pieces of legislation to effect that goal of a low carbon emission future.

The renewable energy target will increase investment in renewable energy, but Australia’s carbon pollution levels will continue to rise without an emissions trading scheme. While the renewable energy target bill was originally dependent on the passage of the CPRS, the government has split these bills. We have had to resort to plan B because of the intransigence of those opposite. So while it is not quite as sensible an arrangement in terms of assistance to industry, the option that we are debating here today is the right option to at least give business and industry some greater certainty with regard to the renewable energy targets. The decoupling of the CPRS and the RET bills should be seen only as an interim arrangement, and while it is a less than perfect way of tackling climate change, it is still a necessary and essential course of action. But we will be back, as senators from this side have said before me, to pursue the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. In November when those bills are returned to this place, we can only hope that the opposition sees sense or at least comes here with a position that is coherent and based on science, not on hysteria, division and a lack of leadership from those in charge of the opposition parties.

In the absence of the CPRS legislation, the scope and basis for the renewable energy target has had to be reconsidered. On its own the RET target will specifically affect those businesses that use a significant amount of electricity as part of their production process. Therefore, amendments are proposed to the bill to enable partial exemptions for those eligible emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities, as defined under the EITE Assistance Program in the CPRS legislation. In the absence of legislation to implement carbon price assistance, the RET is targeted at those EITE activities that are highly electricity intensive and therefore face a high-cost impact from the RET alone. Companies that will be eligible for interim assistance will be a subset of EITE activities that have previously been assessed as having electricity intensity above 3,000 megawatt hours per $1 million revenue. The government will undertake a formal data collection process to assess eligible activities, which are likely to include smelting silicon production and newsprint manufacturing.

The Rudd government are serious about delivering on their election commitment to Australians, a commitment made during the pre-election period. We committed to the public that we would increase the usage of renewable energy in Australia. The Renewable Energy Target Scheme will enable us to do that by taking a comprehensive approach to this issue. Across the country the RET Scheme will help transform the electricity sector. A further announcement earlier this week by Minister Wong in relation to the RET Scheme was made in order to assist existing waste coalmine gas projects to remain viable. The RET will be topped up and, in topping up the scheme, waste-coalmine-gas projects will be able to generate renewable energy certificates. That change was a result of the government listening carefully to businesses that will be affected by the renewable energy target legislation and indeed by the CPRS legislation. Throughout this process we know that the government has consulted widely, particularly with those industries that are going to be affected by all of our schemes to reduce our carbon emissions. I am very pleased to know that the minister, who has just joined us here in the chamber, has been actively out there supporting Australia’s industries during this incredibly important but also very difficult transition from a high-emission country to one that is concerned about the level of carbon pollution that we are emitting. As I said before, Minister Wong has taken bold and strong action to set the nation on a path to a different future, a future which takes into account the concerns we all have for our families and our children.

As a senator for South Australia, I know that the Renewable Energy Target Scheme will impact on my state’s burgeoning renewable energy sector, and South Australia is uniquely placed to take advantage of a low-pollution future. Our location, combined with our weather conditions, provides excellent opportunities for renewable energy sources. While only eight per cent of the nation’s population lives in South Australia, the state has around 58 per cent of the nation’s wind capacity. That has come about, I have to say, because of very strong support from the state Labor government for that new form of energy. Anybody from South Australia who travels in our regional areas looks with interest and pride at the wind farms that have been established in our regional areas. As a frequent visitor to the York Peninsula I know the importance of the establishment of wind farms there for the local farming community and the various small businesses that are located on the York Peninsula. I also note that a solar farm is already under construction near the outback town of Coober Pedy, which once completed will generate about 13 per cent of Coober Pedy’s total electricity requirements. Those are just some of the innovations that have already been adopted in South Australia. Similar sorts of schemes will be encouraged if the Senate passes this renewable energy target legislation today.

As I said at the beginning, the federal government is committed to creating and supporting innovation in the renewable energy sector, and these bills are part of the government’s multifaceted scheme and part of our policy to change the direction of power and energy supply in Australia so that whatever actions we take in the future will be taken with a mind to the future of the environment, to our nation and to a low-pollution future. We are leaders in the world, in many instances, in what we have done so far, and there is an opportunity for us to continue to be leaders in this very important public policy area. (Quorum formed)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is currently discussing the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009. My mind was set to think, ‘Well, if this is an amendment bill, there must in fact already be a piece of legislation in existence that this bill is seeking to amend.’ And in fact it is seeking to amend the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000. I was wondering, ‘Who on earth would have introduced this renewable energy legislation in the year 2000?’ Because, if you listen to those opposite you would believe that the Howard government did nothing in relation to renewable energy and trying to reduce our carbon dependent economy. But, yes, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 was in fact introduced by the Howard government. Its long title is ‘An Act for the establishment and administration of a scheme to encourage additional electricity generation from renewable energy sources’. The Howard government established this scheme for renewable energy in Australia. It is about time those opposite, and certain people in the media commentariat, acknowledged that fact.

The amendment bill we are discussing today is in fact building on that legacy of the Howard government—a legacy, I might say, which was very good and very strong in the environmental area. Let us not forget that the Liberal-National Party coalition was the first government in Australia that established a minister for the environment. So we can see that the coalition has a very proud history in this area. It showed vision and a genuine concern for the environment, dealing with it in a steady, sensible, secure way; bringing the Australian people, and most importantly Australian jobs and the Australian economy, with it. That is vitally important to consider.

Let us have a look at what we say in relation to this bill and what we have done in the space of renewable energy. It was the coalition that introduced the $8,000 solar rebate, and Labor then broke their election promise and means-tested it. It was the coalition that introduced the solar rebate, which the Rudd government then completely abolished without notice on 9 June. So, on budget night 2008, they means tested the solar rebate and on 9 June 2009 they completely abolished it.

Then have a look at the LPG rebate, a rebate that the Howard government introduced to help people with gas guzzlers to convert their vehicles from petrol to LPG, which allowed them to buy cheaper fuel and leave less of a carbon footprint. That was a good, practical environmental measure. What has Labor done to it? Slashed the rebate. Who can forget the completely dishonest and unprincipled campaign that the Labor Party ran against the introduction of biofuels? Remember that? Mr McMullan, for the Labor Party, said that it would wreck engines and that car warranties would be thrown out and completely shattered community confidence in biofuels, something which we as a coalition government were seeking to foster and encourage within the community.

Those opposite, those in the government, who seek to somehow suggest that they tread the moral high ground in relation to the environment should ask themselves the following fundamental questions. Who introduced the first greenhouse gas office in the world? Which government did that? It was the Howard government. Which is one of the very few governments that will be able to stand and say that they have met the Kyoto targets? It is Australia. Why? Because of the legacy of the Howard government. Who introduced solar rebates? The Howard government. Who abolished them? The Rudd government. Who introduced the LPG rebate for motor vehicles?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Howard government, Senator Brandis. Who is now reducing those rebates? The Rudd government. Which was the party that ran that dishonest campaign against the introduction of biofuels for our motor vehicles? It was the Labor Party. Let us get some of these facts on the record before we debate this issue further. As Labor recognise, they are amending and building on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, which the Howard government introduced and which for the first time in the Australian context established a scheme to encourage additional electricity generation from renewable resources.

We come to this debate as a coalition with a very proud record and we in fact support the overall intent of this legislation, which is to put in place a target for 20 per cent of the Australian community’s electricity to be generated by renewable energy by 2020. We say to the Australian people and to the government that our credentials are in place in this area. They are enshrined in tangible and effective actions, which the current government is now unfortunately desperate to deny but on which they are in fact building. May I add that they are building on them in the way that we too would have done, in general terms—and I will get to the details later—had we been re-elected.

But our approach to these things has been to deal with them in a stepped and stagged manner so that we can achieve a number of things. We believe that we need to assist in the transition to a lower carbon economy without mugging our economy and without mugging jobs. Seeing Australian jobs and Australian wealth being exported by too rapidly expanding renewable energy targets within Australia would have had a perverse environmental impact. What would have happened was that our major electricity users—such as the aluminium sector, the food processing sector, the pulp and paper sector, the concrete sector, and the list goes on and on—would have simply moved all their processing plants offshore to countries that did not have renewable energy targets. As a result the pollution put into the world environment would have in fact been exacerbated. The way to do these things is to move in a sensible, staged way to ensure that you do not have the loss of jobs and wealth along with an extra carbon footprint courtesy of us exporting our jobs. That is why we have always approached these things in a sensible, steady, staged and safe manner.

In principle, this legislation has our support. Those from Tasmania, such as you, Acting Deputy President Carol Brown, would be very well aware that Tasmania has a very proud record of renewable energy through the hydro-electric schemes. I say to my friends in the Greens—and I am not sure that there are that many of them, just quietly, but nevertheless I am speaking to those who might exist—that those who champion renewable energy should be mindful of the fact that it was in fact the renewable energy source of the hydro-electric commission that enticed my family to Tasmania. So renewable energy has a lot of answer for, in fact, because but for it I would not be in this place today. It goes to show that renewable energy does have its benefits. Senator Wong might be changing her mind and wanting to withdraw the legislation, but I am sure that we can negotiate our way out of that.

I point out that while we agree in principle with the legislation there are some matters that have exercised our minds and about which we have expressed genuine concerns. Those concerns are, in brief, that there needs to be a full decoupling of the renewable energy target from the flawed emissions trading scheme that the Senate wisely voted down. We also believe that more coverage of the aluminium sector, for both its existing renewable energy targets and its expanded target liabilities, than the 90 per cent already offered by the government for the latter is required. We also believe that food processing should be categorised for assistance under the renewable energy target. The coalition also seeks to eliminate a loophole in relation to the multiplication of RETs for industrial heat pumps. We believe that heat pumps should remain included but what could be considered to be somewhat of a multiplication of the RETs should be dealt with and rectified.

We also believe that a proportion of the RET should be banded and reserved for emerging renewable technologies such as baseload solar, geothermal, wave, tidal and biomass. This would allow for about 25 per cent of the additional 35,500 gigawatt hours of renewable energy being reserved for emerging technologies.

We also believe that renewable gas, or waste coalmine gas, should be recognised as a zero emissions source of energy, as it is in the United States and Germany. We as a coalition and my colleagues, in particular the Hon. Ian Macfarlane, our spokesman on energy and resources matters, and the Hon. Greg Hunt, our shadow minister for the environment, have been in detailed negotiations with the government and I understand that the government has made a number of concessions in relation to the areas that I have just outlined.

We look forward to what those negotiations have meant, because we have engaged in this debate—as we have in relation to the emissions trading scheme, might I add—on the basis that we want to do what is best for Australian jobs, for Australian wealth and for the world’s environment. Unfortunately we hear from others in this chamber, especially from the Greens, that somehow those objectives are mutually exclusive—that somehow you cannot have all three. But, as I have sought to point out on a number of occasions, you can in fact have all three.

We need to look after Australian jobs and Australian wealth. If these manufacturing plants, be they cement, food processing, aluminium production, zinc production in my own home state of Tasmania—the Rio Tinto plant at Bell Bay—and all the others that I have mentioned, were to move offshore because they were no longer competitive in the world market due to higher electricity prices, that would mean that those materials would be processed in countries like China, India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia and Vietnam which do not have the environmental standards that we do in Australia. As a result the world environment would be worse off. That is something that the Greens, unfortunately, have not been able to grapple with in some of these debates. They have not been able to come to an understanding that, if we simply price industries out of the world market, it will in fact add to the totality of the world’s, or human, carbon production and, as a result, be of detriment to the world’s environment.

So we can have protection of Australian jobs, protection of Australian wealth and protection of the world environment if we go down the track of a sensible, staged and safe process. We in the coalition started such a process way back in 1998 when we established the first greenhouse office of any government in the world—a very proud record. We then established the first renewable energy target for Australia, a first for our country, but we did it on a modest basis because we knew that industry and the community had to follow. To do it with a big bang would have literally meant a big bang for our economy, for jobs and for the world environment.

We have entered our discussions with Senator Wong and Labor in relation to this renewable energy bill with good faith and, as I have said, have been negotiating with her, those negotiations being undertaken by the Hon. Ian Macfarlane and the Hon. Greg Hunt—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong interjecting—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and the Hon. Andrew Robb. I thank Senator Wong for reminding me of that most important person, because he actually has responsibility for the emissions trading scheme and I of course represent him in this place on behalf of the coalition. We look forward to the outcomes. We believe those discussions are still taking place.

We look forward to the committee stages of this legislation, hoping that we will be able to come to a sensible conclusion for the benefit of Australian jobs, Australian industry and our environment. When I say ‘our environment’, it is not only Australia’s production of carbon that we have to be concerned about; it is also the world’s that we have to be concerned about, to ensure that we do not simply pass our pollution offshore. So we look forward to the committee stages because we believe that there is a sensible way forward with this legislation which will build on those very solid blocks and foundation first laid by the Howard government in 2000. In principle we support the bill, but we do have many reservations which, we trust, will be able to be resolved by amendment through the committee stages.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all senators for their contribution to this debate on the two pieces of legislation before the chamber: the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009, which have come to the Senate after passage through the House. I want to first acknowledge the work of all the officials within the government who have worked so hard to get the bills to this point and also the contribution of the Senate through its consideration of this legislation.

If the Senate passes these bills, it will deliver the largest increase in renewable energy in the country’s history. I want to go through briefly, in summarising this debate, a number of the policy issues that are contained in the legislation before the Senate.

But before I turn to that I want to briefly respond to two points that Senator Abetz made. Firstly, his proposition is that we should be congratulating, supporting or lauding the Howard government’s record on the environment, and he pointed to two issues. One is the establishment of the Australian Greenhouse Office and the second is the introduction of the renewable energy target. I want to talk about those two things because it was a step to establish the Greenhouse Office; unfortunately, it was a step that was followed by the government’s proceeding to ignore the reports and the policy advice of that office—particularly its approach to climate change policy. Senators may recall that I have mentioned in this chamber previously that this year we saw the 10th anniversary of the then Howard government first receiving a report—which I recall was from AGO; if it was not, there were certainly many other reports from there—in relation to the introduction of an emissions trading scheme. So it is one thing to establish an office that has ‘greenhouse’ in the title and it is another thing, in government, to introduce policy that is aimed at tackling climate change. I think that the judgement of history on the Howard government’s approach to climate change issues has not been, and will not be, good.

The second point that Senator Abetz made—and this is correct—is that the Howard government introduced the renewable energy target. My recollection is that it was Minister Hill that did that. It is to be acknowledged that it was the first national market mechanism to drive investment in renewable energy. But again that reform was not followed up in terms of subsequent reforms or subsequent policy decisions to preserve the benefit of that policy. In fact, the figures demonstrate that renewable energy, by the end of the term of the Howard government, had gone backwards as a proportion of our energy use. The then government ignored a range of advice about amendment of the renewable energy target to avoid that policy outcome and to improve policy outcomes. So, on the two issues that Senator Abetz raises I can say that it was not a bad start but that there was no follow-up. And that has been the unfortunate reality of the coalition’s approach to these issues in government.

As I said earlier, if the Senate passes this legislation the bill will deliver the largest increase in renewable energy in the nation’s history. It will be the largest increase in renewable energy in Australia’s history. This target, brought forward by the government, will deliver a more than fourfold increase in renewable energy by 2020. We went to the election with this commitment—a commitment to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity comes from renewable sources by 2020, and the bill before the chamber is brought forward in order to implement that election commitment.

The objective we are aiming for is that in 10 years time the amount of electricity coming from sources like solar, wind and geothermal, will be around the same or equivalent to that used by all Australia’s households today. In other words, our objective is that the renewable energy sector will provide around the same as all of Australia’s current electricity use. This is a remarkable transformation—one that is overdue. It should have occurred before but it does demonstrate that we can set a target, we can drive to achieve that target, and we can exploit the enormous range of renewable energy sources with which we are blessed here in Australia.

I am often asked about the future for electricity in Australia and I make this point: we have wind, solar, wave and geothermal resources. We want Australia, at 2020 or before, to be a world leader in these technologies. As the world moves to a global carbon constraint we want Australian businesses—Australian firms—to be placed to take advantage of the technologies that we have developed. To do that we have to drive innovation and investment in that sector today. This is about Australian jobs, Australian know-how and Australian innovation. It is good for the environment but it is also good for Australian business.

I welcome what I think is the coalition’s support for our renewable energy target. I suppose that I am glad, despite the history that I have outlined in terms of their failure to adopt this type of policy in government, that in opposition they appear to be coming around to the view that it is a good thing to support renewable energy. I again remind the Senate that whilst this bill is necessary to increase our investment in renewable energy in Australia, of itself it is not enough, because if we are serious about tackling climate change this nation needs to do much more. Even with this renewable energy target in place and even with one-fifth of our energy coming from renewable sources Australia’s carbon pollution will be 20 per cent higher by the end of the next decade—by 2020—than it was in the year 2000.

So, even with this massive fourfold increase in investment in solar, wind, geothermal, wave and other renewable sources, Australia’s contribution to climate change will be 20 per cent higher in 2020 than it was in the year 2000. So, you cannot tackle climate change only by investment in renewable energy. That is an important and key part of the equation—we need to drive that investment in our energy sector—but it will not be enough. The only way we are going to be able to turn around the growth in our carbon pollution that is causing, or contributing to, climate change is with a carbon pollution reduction scheme. The only way we are going to turn around the growth that is causing and worsening climate change is to put a firm legislated limit on the amount of carbon that we produce and make those who create the pollution pay for it. So I urge those opposite, who appear to have become supporters of renewable energy in recent times, also to join the bigger fight—

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We were there before you were, Minister.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that interjection, Senator Brandis. He says they were there before we were. I have acknowledged, Senator, that you introduced the first renewable energy target—you then failed to follow it up. You may have missed my introduction, but it is not enough to simply start a policy and then fail to take advice that is very clear about the need to adjust that policy to achieve the outcomes. What occurred eventually under you is that renewables as a proportion of total energy usage went backwards.

I urge those opposite who have become supporters of renewable energy in recent times to join this bigger fight, the fight against climate change, and, when the government next presents the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, I urge them to support that bill. I want to make this commitment again in this place: if the opposition come forward with serious and credible amendments—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

that reflect their party’s position, we will negotiate, and we have been doing so.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What do you think we’ve done?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will make the point, Senator Boswell, that you have put forward amendments and that your representatives in your shadow ministry and I, as the relevant minister, have been negotiating, just as we said we would. What a difference between the way in which the coalition has sought to engage with this legislation and the coalition’s abject, complete, refusal to engage with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

We have delivered on our commitment to negotiate in relation to the renewable energy target, as Senator Abetz said. I thank those shadow ministers with whom I have been dealing and I hope that we can resolve these issues through the committee process. I also thank Senator Milne, acting on behalf of the Greens, and Senator Xenophon for the discussions with me and my office on their views. This is the way we could have approached the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I again remind those opposite that, unlike in relation to this renewable energy legislation, they did not come forward with a consolidated position. The opposition did not come forward with any amendments that had the support of the party room; in fact, the opposition did not come forward with any amendments whatsoever.

I want to briefly address some of the issues which have been raised in this debate. I know a range of amendments have been moved and I suspect we will discuss those issues in the context of the committee stage. The first is the relationship between the renewable energy target and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the assistance available to industries. I want to make this point very clear as the relevant minister: the reason we put forward assistance to industry through the renewable energy target in a way that reflected the assistance under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was that we thought that was the best policy.

There have been a lot of allegations in this place and, I note, in the Senate committee report from a number of parties, including the Greens, about intention—sometimes governments actually do things because they think they are the right policy. That may come as a surprise to cynical people, but that is what governments do seek to do. We reflected in the design that we put forward in this legislation the reality that a range of firms in different industries said to us, ‘We need you to consider the cumulative cost of the carbon price as well as the additional electricity cost as a result of the renewable energy target.’ It was with that in mind that we took to COAG the proposition: ‘Let’s use the broader base and the architecture of assistance that we have put out under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and in the white paper after long consultation with industry. Let’s use those thresholds and that architecture and on that build exemptions or partial exemptions and assistance for the renewable energy target.’ Those opposite may recall that that agreement was taken to COAG in April 2009 and that is what was announced then. I note that there was no outcry from any of the parties in this chamber when that was announced in the COAG communique.

The government is in discussions with other parties in relation to this issue. We announced last weekend an interim de-linking arrangement that provides some assistance to industry until the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme comes into place. I make it very clear that that is a less than perfect way of tackling climate change and a less than perfect way of delivering assistance to industry. We still believe the best policy approach is to reflect the CPRS architecture for assistance because that gives industry a very clear understanding of the cumulative cost and the cumulative level of assistance. That is why we initially proposed that, and we remain of the view that the best way of providing assistance is to build on that which was set out in the government’s decision on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Senator Milne has suggested, amongst other things, an increase in the renewable energy target to 30 per cent. Obviously, the government is delivering on a commitment we took to the Australian people at the last election which will deliver a fourfold increase by 2020. This is a challenge but it is achievable and affordable and, as I said, it will drive investment in Australia’s renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and geothermal.

There has also been a suggestion that the RET, the renewable energy target, should be banded to ensure the deployment of less mature renewable energy technologies. I suspect this will be a live issue in the context of the committee debate. The way the government has approached this is to recognise that the scheme should encourage the deployment of renewable energy without picking winners within the target. The government’s modelling indicates that, due to the large size of the renewable energy target, it will in fact pull through a range of technologies, including wind, biomass, solar and geothermal. It is also the case—and this is important—that over time the carbon price will be the primary driver of renewable energy and will provide significant support over the next two decades in addition to the renewable energy target.

Our view is that there is a case, in terms of emerging renewable technologies, for other forms of assistance. We believe the best policy is to provide that assistance not via what is a market mechanism but via other policy mechanisms. I would refer those in this chamber to the 2009-10 budget initiatives, which include the Clean Energy Initiative, which includes about $1.5 billion to support R&D, research and development, in solar technologies and $465 million to establish the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy. This is on top of the previous election commitment that we made in relation to the Renewable Energy Fund. In combination with support under the renewable energy target, these policies will promote a diverse portfolio of renewable energy technologies.

There has also been discussion about a national feed-in tariff. I have had quite a number of discussions with Senator Milne on this issue. I recognise that it is the Greens policy. As I previously indicated, we believe that these are alternative policy mechanisms for promoting a renewable energy uptake. Obviously a renewable energy target sets a quantity of renewable energy as the target. A feed-in tariff provides a certain amount of support for specified technologies. We took a renewable energy target as our preferred policy option to the election and, of course, the Council of Australian Governments also decided in November 2008 not to implement a national feed-in tariff but to agree that jurisdictions could implement such schemes. A range of principles were agreed by COAG in relation to that, including whether or not such schemes would be funded on or off budget was a matter for those jurisdictions.

There has also been some discussion of the government’s decision to include waste coalmine gas in the RET. I emphasise this is intended as a transitional measure and is intended to underpin the viability of projects that have already been committed whilst maintaining the integrity of the renewable energy generation target by including higher annual targets to ensure no renewable energy is displaced. The government agrees waste coalmine gas is not a renewable energy source. We do not intend it to contribute to the 20 per cent renewable energy target by 2020. The amendments proposed by the government in this legislation will increase the annual targets under the RET for the years 2011 to 2020 inclusive to ensure the inclusion of this gas does not displace renewable energy generation. To clearly differentiate waste coalmine gas from renewable energy sources, the amendment creates a new concept of eligible energy source that comprises the current list of eligible renewable energy sources and separately eligible waste coalmine gas. Again, I emphasise, this eligibility will be limited. It will be limited to waste coalmine gas fuelled power stations currently in operation. Annual limits will be placed on these power stations’ ability to create renewable energy certificates based on their 2008 output levels.

To ensure the inclusion of waste coalmine gas under the renewable energy target does not crowd out renewable energy generation, the amendment will increase annual targets under the expanded RET Scheme for the years 2011-20. The target in 2011 will be increased by 425 gigawatt hours to account for the half-year of eligible generation and the annual targets for 2012-2020 will be increased by 850 gigawatt hours. Total eligible waste coalmine gas generation will be capped at 425 gigawatt hours in 2011 and 850 gigawatt hours for the years 2012-2020, equal to the amount by which the annual targets are increased under the renewable energy target.

In conclusion, the renewable energy target is part of the government’s economically responsible approach to tackling climate change and to moving Australia to a low-pollution future. It will drive significant investment, accelerating the deployment of a broad range of renewable energy technologies like wind, solar and geothermal. Through a single national scheme this renewable energy target will transform our electricity sector and ensure that 20 per cent of our electricity supply comes from renewable sources by 2020. But I again remind senators that, whilst this bill is worthwhile and whilst this bill is necessary to increase renewable energy in Australia, it is not enough and if we are to tackle climate change we need to do much more. I look forward to the Senate’s cooperation in that task.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009