Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015 will implement changes to the Renewable Energy Target to better reflect market conditions and allow sustainable growth in both small and large scale renewable energy.

The bill will lead to more than 23.5 per cent of Australia's electricity being sourced from renewable energy by 2020.

It also addresses problems which emerged more than three years ago with the Renewable Energy Target. Despite the presence of the 41,000 GWh target, it was unlikely that it would be met.

First, there was a significant drop in electricity demand which occurred following the Global Financial Crisis and coinciding with the closure of energy intensive manufacturing plants played havoc with wholesale electricity prices.

This was compounded by rising retail electricity costs associated with the carbon tax, network charges and feed-in tariffs resulting in households and industry changing their consumption patterns.

Second, the changes to the Renewable Energy Target introduced by the Rudd Government and the subsequent creation of the phantom credit bank of 23 million certificates is still being felt today. This overhang continues to suppress demand for Renewable Energy Certificates and stymie the signing of power purchase agreements.

These combined to make it increasingly difficult for renewable energy projects to attract finance.

Add to this, the increasing realisation that new subsidised capacity was being forced into an oversupplied electricity market made it likely that financial institution would be approaching the new investments in the renewable energy space with some caution.

It is in this context that we have sought to place the Renewable Energy Target on a sustainable footing.

The revised Renewable Energy Target scheme

The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015 amends the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 to:

These changes will ensure that there is continued support for sustainable growth in the large scale renewable sector. And, the 33,000 GWh target is higher than the originally conceived objective of 20 per cent.

There will be no changes to the Small Scale Renewable Energy Scheme. The scheme will continue in line with household and small business demand.

The removal of Labor's phantom credit scheme federally and the rationalization of feed-in-tariffs at the state level have reduced many of the distortions outlined in this week's Grattan Institute report.

Key features of the revised Renewable Energy Target

The Large Scale Renewable Energy Target

This bill will reduce the LRET from 41,000 GWh in 2020 to 33,000 GWh in 2020. It will adjust the profile of annual renewable generation targets from 2016 to 2030 so that the target reaches 33,000 GWh in 2020 and is maintained at 33,000 GWh from 2021 to 2030. This target is separate to the 850 GWh that is to come from waste coalmine gas generation each year until 2020 under pre-existing transitional arrangements.

As highlighted in our Energy White Paper, Australia has an over-supply of generation capacity and some of that is aged. From 2009-10 to 2013-14, electricity demand has fallen by about 1.7 per cent per year on average.

This is due to many factors: declining activity in the industrial sector, increasing energy efficiency, and strong growth in rooftop solar PV systems which reduce demand for electricity sourced from the grid.

While the Government welcomes a diverse energy mix in Australia, it also recognises that circumstances have changed since the 41,000 GWh target was set.

This new target of 33,000 GWh directly addresses these issues. It represents a sound balance between the need to continue to diversify Australia's portfolio of electricity generation assets, the need to encourage investment in renewables while also responding to market conditions, the need to reduce emissions in the electricity sector in a cost-effective way, and the need to keep electricity prices down for consumers.

Most importantly, this new target of 33,000 GWh by 2020 is achievable. It will require in the order of 6 GW of new renewable electricity generation capacity to be installed between now and 2020.

Even at the reduced level of 33,000 GWh, the renewable sector will have to build as much new capacity in the next five years as it has built in the previous fifteen. This will not be an easy task, but it is at least achievable.

This new target will be good for jobs in the renewable energy sector and lift the proportion of Australia's electricity generation to approximately 23.5 per cent by 2020.

Assistance to emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries

When the RET scheme was expanded in 2010, partial exemptions were introduced for electricity used in emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities. The exemptions only apply to the additional RET costs that were incurred as a result of the expansion of the scheme.

The RET scheme regulations currently prescribe that electricity used in activities defined as highly emissions-intensive and trade-exposed is exempted at a 90 per cent rate and electricity used in activities defined as moderately emissions-intensive and trade-exposed is exempted at a 60 per cent rate.

This bill will increase support for all emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities to full exemption from all RET costs, that is, from the costs of the original target as well as the costs of the expanded target. A full exemption will protect jobs in these industries and ensure they remain competitive.

The reduction in the direct costs of the RET, resulting from the lower Large Scale Renewable Energy Target, will more than offset the impact on other electricity users of the increase in assistance for emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities.

Reinstating biomass from native forest wood wane as an eligible source of renewable energy

Native forest wood waste was in place as an eligible source of renewable energy under Labor's own legislation until November 2011.

The use of native forest wood waste for the sole or primary purpose of generating renewable electricity has never been eligible to create certificates under the scheme. Eligibility was subject to several conditions including that it must be harvested primarily for a purpose other than energy production. This is about the use of wood waste—not about cutting down forests to burn.

Consistent with our election commitment, this bill reinstates native forest wood waste as an eligible source of renewable energy under the RET, basing eligibility on exactly the same conditions that were previously in place under the ALP.

One of the objectives of the RET is to support additional renewable generation that is ecologically sustainable. We are reinstating native forest wood waste as an eligible renewable energy source because there is no evidence that its eligibility leads to unsustainable logging or has a negative impact on Australia's biodiversity.

We believe that the safeguards that were in place previously were and still are sufficient assurance that native forest wood waste is harvested in a sustainable way. The regulations were underpinned by ecologically sustainable forest management principles which provide a means for balancing the economic, social and environmental outcomes from publicly-owned forests.

In all cases, the supply of native forest wood waste is subject to Commonwealth, and state or territory planning and environmental approval processes, either within, or separate to, the Regional Forest Agreement frameworks.

Burning wood waste for electricity generation is more beneficial to the environment than burning the waste alone or simply allowing it to decompose. Its inclusion as an eligible energy source is another contribution to the target.

Removing the requirement for biennial reviews of the RET

We understand that regular reviews of policy settings create uncertainty for investors, business and consumers. That is why this bill removes the requirement for two-yearly reviews of the RET. Providing policy certainty is crucial to attracting investment, protecting jobs and encouraging economic growth.

Protecting electricity consumers, particularly households, from any extra costs related to the RET, has been a priority from the start and the Government understands that the 33,000 GWh target remains a challenging one for the industry.

For these reasons, instead of the reviews, the Clean Energy Regulator will prepare an annual statement on the progress of the RET scheme towards meeting the new targets and the impact it is having on household electricity bills.

Again, this bill is about appropriately balancing different priorities; replacing the biennial reviews with regular status updates better meets the needs of industry and the needs of consumers.

Importantly, both the Government and the Opposition have agreed to work cooperatively on a bipartisan basis to resolve any issues which may arise with the operation of the Renewable Energy Target through to 2020.

Conclusion

This bill is consistent with the Government's conviction that policy decisions must be based on sound economic principles. It also represents the Government's commitment to maintain stable and predictable policy settings that encourage growth, competitiveness and efficiency.

The RET had to be reformed in response to changing circumstances. This bill achieves balanced reform. It will provide certainty to industry, encourage further investment in renewable energy, and better reflect market conditions. It will also help Australia reach its emissions targets, and it will protect jobs and consumer interests.

As the Energy White Paper points out, Australia has world-class solar, wind and geothermal resources and good potential across a range of other renewable energy sources. In addition to the support for small and large scale renewables which this bill provides, the Government is providing over $1 billion towards the research, development and demonstration of renewable energy projects.

This bill recognises that renewable energy is an important part of Australia's future, while also recognising that its deployment must be supported in a responsible way with minimal disruption to our energy markets.

I commend the bill to the House.

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

I rise on behalf of the opposition to express our broad support for the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015, with one clear exception, relating to part 4 of the bill. I do so out of relief—relief for the many thousands of Australians involved in our growing renewable energy industry, an industry that, thanks to Labor's strength, will continue to grow after the passage of this bill.

In doing so, I want to echo the shadow minister's rejection of the government's thin justification that this bill's changes to the renewable energy target will 'better reflect market conditions'. It does no such thing. The bill prevents the destruction of an innovative, growing 21st century industry. The bill gives the industry a measure of stability, and a platform upon which it can build and encourage investment. The bill saves the renewable energy industry from the Prime Minister's attempts to destroy it. It pulls it back from the brink, places it back on a stable footing, and allows further investment to take place in Australia.

Prior to the 2013 election, the renewable energy target was a bipartisan agreement. In fact, it had been a bipartisan agreement for many years prior—right back to the time of the Howard government. The coalition clearly expressed its support for the large-scale target of 41,000 gigawatt hours that existed in legislation before the 2013 election. That bipartisan support has been critical to the underpinning of the confidence of investors both here in Australia and, more recently, from overseas to come and put their money on the table for investments that run for, in some cases, up to 15 or 20 years. But, almost immediately after the 2013 election was won, the Abbott government binned that promise and began making statements clearly aimed at undermining and destabilising investment in the renewable energy industry in Australia—like blaming the renewable energy target for significant price pressure in the system, an opinion so inaccurate it must have been borrowed from Maurice Newman's book.

In fact, the government's own hand-picked Warburton review stunningly rejected the Prime Minister's thought bubble that the renewable energy target pushed electricity prices up and up. What the Warburton review in fact confirmed was that the expansion of renewable energy capacity in the system operated to put downward pressure on power prices, particularly wholesale power prices; no wonder the government has still not responded to its own review's findings.

The Abbott government has embarked over the last 20 months on a dishonest, manufactured crisis that damaged investments and spooked investors, with many of them losing confidence in Australia as a safe investment destination. It has been a reckless and damaging attack on the industry. It has been a broken promise that has set a bipartisan commitment back many years. The Clean Energy Council has said the crisis caused a cut in large-scale renewable energy investment in Australia by almost 90 per cent and forced many of the sector's 21,000 employees out of their jobs. This destructive and ideological policy shambles has not created jobs, it has not supported business and it has not protected the environment. Rather, it has risked and ruined thousands of existing jobs, destroyed thousands of prospective jobs, gutted businesses and places more pressure on our environment. It was as stupid a policy as it was unnecessary.

Remember during Labor's term in government between 2007 and 2013, Australia's wind power tripled in just six years. We were heralded as No. 4 in the world for investment when it came to renewable energy—clearly good for investment and good for jobs, as Ernst & Young's report showed. Perhaps that excellent statistic alone explains why the renewable energy target was attacked so maliciously by this government. We have seen, with the introduction of this bill, a Prime Minister utterly contradict the government's position that there was no predetermined plan or desire to cut the scheme, as well as the drivel that the government is a great supporter, apparently, of renewable energy. The Prime Minister's recent comments about the renewable energy target reveal clearly his ideological position against renewable energy, and in particular wind energy. He said on Alan Jones's radio program last week:

I would frankly have liked to have reduced the number a lot more.

He said:

But we got the best deal with could out of the Senate and if we hadn't had a deal Alan, we would have been stuck with even more of these things.

In that comment, he makes it very clear that his personal dislike of wind turbines was a reason to kill them off despite the billions of dollars in investment and the thousands of jobs and clean energy created. That is clear from his comments.

By contrast, towards the end of Labor's term in government, there were a whole range of wind farm projects and clean energy projects established with the support of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. When Labor came into government there were 7,400 households in Australia that had rooftop solar panels. By the time we left, it was more than 1.2 million. In 2013 in the June quarter, before the change of government, Australia, as I said, was one of the four most attractive countries on the face of the earth in which to invest in renewable energy.

During our time in government—during the global financial crisis—the number of jobs in this renewable energy industry tripled. And they were not just the core jobs in renewable energy; there were spin-off jobs such as in manufacturing. In many cases, manufacturers had been operating for some time, in places like Portland and Tasmania, building components for wind towers. Clearly, for our Prime Minister to make those comments, as he did last week, to make it all about his own personal dislike for wind turbines, and to make it clear that he would have, as he said, reduced the number a lot more if he had the chance to do so, shows that he is quite happy to see billions of dollars in investment, and the jobs that would have been created, go into the rubbish.

The jobs and investment created by the renewable energy target are critical. They are critical right across the country but very much so in my home state of Tasmania—a hallmark of renewable energy. Tasmania currently supplies more than 40 per cent of the nation's renewable energy. With further development, it has the capacity to utilise its natural advantages in hydro and wind energy to grow even further.

The Australia Institute recently found that the current net benefit to Tasmania of the strong renewable energy target is more than $100 million a year. That benefit will reduce along with other benefits that the RET generates— such as employment, investment in the renewable energy industry and the decrease in the wholesale price of electricity. The renewable energy target and associated policies have also been a roaring success in starting to bring down carbon pollution levels in Australia's electricity sector. That is central to the challenge we have as a nation in response to climate change, because electricity generation is the largest source of carbon pollution in our economy.

Unsurprisingly, given the termination of strong climate change policies and the attack on renewable energy investor confidence, carbon pollution levels have started to rise over the past 10 to 12 months under the Abbott government's watch. At a time when renewable energy investment around the world soared by 16 per cent and, in China, by 32 per cent, investment in Australia collapsed by 88 per cent. The rest of the world is investing in renewable energy, investing more and investing quicker. Costa Rica powered itself entirely with renewable energy for the first 75 days of this year and China's wind farms now produce more energy than America's nuclear power plants. Currently, China also has 33 gigawatts of solar power supplies and aims to add 17.8 gigawatts of solar power this year, more than double the capacity installed by the US in 2014.

Total dollars invested in 2014 saw Australia drop in aggregate terms, from 11th to 39th in the world, behind countries such as Myanmar, Honduras, Panama, which became bigger investors in renewable energy than Australia. That is absolutely shameful for a country such as ours.

In April, an HSBC analysis warned of the growing likelihood that fossil fuel companies may become 'economically non-viable' and essentially useless, as people move away from carbon energy and as fossil fuels are left in the ground. HSBC suggests divesting completely from fossil fuels and shedding the highest risk investments such as those in coal and oil.

So with all of that in mind, and like the overwhelming majority of Australians, Labor have great ambitions for the renewable energy industry in this country. From our point of view, the renewable energy target for 2020 and the associated policy frameworks, such as ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, are just the beginning for further investment and further expansion in renewable energy. Our very serious concern about the long-term damage that would be done to Australia's reputation as a safe investment destination, particularly in energy and renewable energy, required us to go to the table and do all that we reasonably could to restore investor confidence, which, after all, has been our overarching objective through this whole process.

This deal does that. This bill before us restores investor confidence in the rooftop solar sector. This legislation restores confidence in the large-scale renewable energy target and also provides full exemptions for emissions-intensive trade-exposed sectors. Furthermore, this bill removes the two yearly reviews, which I think we all now agree will provide much more certainty for investors. Having said that, though, it did not stop the government from trying it on, by trying to include those reviews to just create that little bit of uncertainty again in the industry.

The Clean Energy Council has indicated that the 33,000-gigawatt-hour large-scale target will mean that about 30 to 50 large-scale projects will be built over the next few years—and I really do hope to see those projects go forward—because it will involve about $10 billion in investment and about 6½ thousand jobs, no doubt to the Prime Minister's bitter disappointment, if his comments last week are anything to go by.

The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that, if we are elected at the next election, be that this year or next—whenever the election is—it would be our proposal to lift the large-scale target for 2020. The Leader of the Opposition has also indicated that we are already talking with industry stakeholders about post-2020 arrangements, which is the only sensible thing to do as an alternative government because, let us face it, 2020 is only five years away and if we are talking about ongoing investor confidence and certainty in this industry and are looking at the scale and the time frame of some of these projects going out 10 or 15 or 20 years, we certainly need to be looking at post-2020 arrangements.

The Minister for the Environment said in his second reading speech, 'The major parties have agreed to work cooperatively to resolve any issues that may arise with the operation of the renewable energy target to 2020.' Therefore, the opposition indicates its support for all those elements of the bill.

Now I would like to discuss the elements of the bill that Labor will not support. That is, the reinsertion of native wood waste into the scheme. Labor believes that this attempt to reinsert native wood waste into the renewable energy scheme is just a cynical, sad red herring that was foisted on government negotiators at the last minute and which they themselves put on the table, again, at the last minute.

We take the view that, in the modern sense of this scheme, native wood waste is neither clean nor renewable. The logging industry definition of 'waste' is not 'waste' in the sense of the residue—the leaves, branches, stumps— left, after logging on the forest floor. The definition of 'waste' or 'residue' that is built into the regulation allows for whole logs to be burnt for power production.

We are not willing to see native wood waste added into this bill. We know that the definition of 'native wood waste' would involve the whole of any tree that is harvested but not ultimately saw lopped. I note that 'waste' can be defined as any log that does not have a higher commercial purpose. In this way a pulp log, say, for paper production, is of lower value than a sawlog for sawn timber, so the pulp log is considered as waste, even when pulp logs comprise 90 per cent of the timber extracted from a forest. So like many of my fellow Tasmanians and indeed Australians I do not believe burning of trees can be the saviour of Tasmania's forest industry.

The cynicism of those who are now seeking to insert native wood waste back into the Renewable Energy Target scheme, particularly Tasmanian Liberals—given the damage they did to the Tasmanian forestry agreement and their efforts to enable logging and mining within the Tasmanian wilderness World Heritage area—quite frankly embarrasses me as a Tasmanian. As a state we should be focusing on a comprehensive, inclusive and long-term vision for the way we manage our forests, not this sort of last-minute, stopgap policy. To that end, how is burning carbon that adds to emissions the point of a renewable energy target? Tasmania has so much more to gain from the creation of more wind energy than it does from the burning of trees.

I therefore notify the Senate that, in committee of the whole, I will be moving the amendments that have already been circulated by the opposition—firstly, to remove the provisions in this bill that seek to reinsert native wood waste into the scheme; and, secondly, to amend the act to prevent any future regulation being made by the government to reinsert native wood waste into the scheme.

I support this bill in its broadest context but not the provisions in part 4 of the bill, as I said in my opening remarks, because of what I have just outlined. Certainly, we are not willing to see the renewable energy scheme used to provide an alternative to the hard work that was undertaken on the Tasmanian forest agreement by industry, union representatives, workers in the industry, environmental organisations and the Tasmanian and Commonwealth governments. Indeed, I think it is very cynical of the Liberals to try, at the eleventh hour, to use this red herring to insert native wood waste back into the renewable energy scheme, given the terrible damage they have done to the Tasmanian forest agreement during their short time in office.

I close my remarks by highlighting that not only is this situation that we find ourselves in one that could have been avoided; it is also a broken promise by a government that has form in breaking promises. That is why I commend the amendments that are to come before the Senate in the committee stage of this bill. I highlight the need for bipartisanship, going forward, on our renewable energy sector in this country so it has a bright future, so we can have investment, so we can have job creation and so we can continue to reduce our emissions.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose in the strongest terms the slashing of the renewable energy target through the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill that is before the Senate and that has, sadly, already passed the House of Representatives. Let us be in no doubt: today we have before us a bill to cut our renewable energy target from 41,000 gigawatt hours down to 33,000 gigawatt hours.

At this very point in history—right when the clean energy sector is absolutely booming in this nation and booming globally, when it is clearly part of the solution to the climate challenge that we all face as global citizens—right at this minute, this government and, sadly, the opposition have decided to cut that target by reducing clean energy production in this country. They are cutting it even though we were on track to overshoot that target and on track to create a burgeoning industry of the future that we know is more job intensive than fossil fuel energy production and that we know will safeguard our existing industries that need the climate to stay healthy, like agriculture and tourism on the Great Barrier Reef. The Reef is already being slammed by climate change and stands to be gone, sadly, by the end of the century if we continue on the emissions trajectory that we are on. So it is an incredibly sad day for this parliament that we are standing here debating the slashing of the clean energy target.

We have already, unfortunately, seen the carbon price cut during this parliament; we have lost the mining tax in this term of government; and we are now seeing the renewable energy target slashed. This absolute lack of foresight and the denial of the science boggles the mind.

Perhaps we should expect no less from a Prime Minister who has as his chief business adviser somebody who thinks that climate change is a UN hoax, that coal is good for humanity and that wind farms are ugly, noisy and, 'Gee, the health impacts should be investigated.' No, no, no—or, as the Prime Minister says, 'Nope, nope, nope.' Wind energy is perfectly fine for people's health. The NHMRC has found that time and time again. Coal is not good for humanity, for goodness sake. If you stopped sacking scientists and started listening to them, you would know that it is damaging the global climate and jeopardising our economy, which you profess to care about. Of course, the fossil fuel sector, which bankrolls, sadly, both the major parties in this place but particularly the government, keep kicking in with the dollars for their back pockets to help them get re-elected: 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.' Money talks in this place, and the climate continues to cook. Our Reef will continue to be trashed.

It is the future of the generations to come, like the kids up in the galleries today from some of our schools, that we are affecting with these sorts of decisions today. It is they who are going to have to clean up the mess and bring the country back to a low-carbon economy, in track with the rest of the world. It is not like Australia is going it alone here, folks. We are in fact the only country in the world that is now heading backwards in climate change action. Everybody else has realised that we need to take strong action on climate change and introduce policies and market mechanisms to reduce carbon pollution and set ourselves up for the future.

Australia has the most to gain. We have wonderful renewable energy resources. We have some of the best sunshine in the world, we have some pretty good wind deposits, we have some fairly solid geothermal deposits and, of course, we have marvellous wave and tidal options. We have a plethora of renewable energy options that can power our cities and homes, and we can export that technology and energy. This is the way of the future, and the rest of the world knows that. Why is it that, right when we most need to be slashing emissions and tackling climate change, we are going backwards and reducing our ambitions for clean energy, and stymieing the job creation and the transition that our economy so desperately needs—otherwise, we will be left behind by the rest of the world? We stand to sacrifice our agricultural sector, our biodiversity, our Reef, our very way of life.

The government would have us believe that the reason they want to cut the renewable energy target is to give certainty to the industry. I cannot believe that anyone has actually swallowed these argument: we are going to give you certainty by cutting the obligation of industries to create renewable energy; and we are going to give you certainty by not just cutting that obligation, but by then saying, 'Gee, we actually wanted to go further. We don't like wind. It is ugly. We wish we had never introduced a renewable energy target under Prime Minister John Howard back then.' So much for certainty. What is being delivered is a massive axe to renewable energy, and now we hear the government has belled the cat and revealed that they actually want to go even further. This is a real travesty for an industry that has suffered under 18 months of this government's attack, with review after review looking for any premise to cut the renewable energy target. Now they have unfortunately found some support amongst the opposition ranks to do so. It is an incredibly sad day for the climate.

Not content with just cutting the clean energy target, this government now wants to see native forests burnt—and to call the clean energy—in a way that will squeeze out the production of genuine clean renewable energy like solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and wave power. They want to see native forest habitat burnt and want to void genuine renewable energy creation. I welcome the fact that the opposition will move amendments to stop that. The Greens will do that as well. The difference is that we will not vote for the bill when those amendments fail. Let us hope they do not fail, but unfortunately it seems like the government has stitched up the numbers. God knows what deals they have proposed. But it seems like we will not be able to stop native forests being burnt in a way that will throw a lifeline to the native forest logging industry, which has been in decline, given that the rest of the world has said, 'We don't want your woodchips, because you are woodchipping habitat for precious iconic species.' Not content with that, this government needs to find a way to breathe life back into that industry, and they have found it with native forest burning. What an absolute travesty that we have an opportunity to stop that, but it seems that the votes will be there for it to sail through. For us to be burning native forest habitat in this day and age, I think Australians are going to be absolutely horrified when they realise that that is what the parliament has done today.

One wonders whether this government is perhaps so set against the renewable energy target because it has said it does not like subsidies. What an absolute joke. We know that the fossil fuel sector gets billions and billions of dollars of subsidies from this government with taxpayers' money. If you really want to look at subsidies, let us look at that litany of billions of dollars that you give to the coal industry because you scratch their back and they will scratch yours.

We have seen some movement from some of the state governments who want to do better with renewable energy and who would like to have strong, state-based renewable energy targets. We welcome that, particularly since it looks like this parliament is going to fail Australians and allow our national renewable energy target to be slashed. We would welcome the states being allowed to still have higher clean energy ambitions, so I am flagging that we will be moving an amendment to remove a particular provision of the act that stops states having a stronger renewable energy target. I am seeking support from all parties for that amendment, because just because this particular government does not understand climate science and hates clean energy does not mean that it should be able to stop the states from listening to the science and doing what is necessary to foster new industries that can actually help to protect the climate. Let us hope that we will see some good sense prevail and that the states will still be allowed to have their own strong renewable energy targets.

Instead, we see from this government an absolute obsession with fossil fuels. We know that they are in bed with the coal sector. We know that they would love to see coal-seam gas wells rolled out across the landscape. Even some of their own, in other states, are realising how damaging coal seam gas is. In northern NSW we finally see some recognition from one of the big parties that, actually, coal seam gas really is damaging to land and water and the climate and we know, in Queensland, to the reef as well, because of all of the coal and gas ports that are being deepened and expanded for its export. So even amongst your own ranks, finally, there are people realising how damaging coal seam gas is. Yet this government is steamrolling ahead—rolling out the red carpet for the fossil fuel industry.

Not content with just those two provisions, this bill also gives even more exemptions to emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries. It says it is not enough that you have a 50 to 75 per cent exemption; we want to give you a complete exemption because here in the Abbott government we love big business. We love the big end of town. We love propping up the fossil fuel sector, and we do not like these new clean energy guys. We want to make sure that these emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries can just keep on polluting for free and do not need to lift a finger in the transition to clean energy, and we want to leave Australia as the rust bucket of the world when it comes to clean energy ambition.

Given the time, I will conclude by saying this is a revolting bill that slashes clean energy generation. It is the worst possible time in history to be taking a backward step. We know what fantastic opportunities there are economically, employment-wise and environmentally from actually having strong clean energy production targets, and from making that transition along with the rest of the world, who are already, sadly, much more advanced than we are in this nation.

Today the parliament has that tough decision to make. Does it slash the renewable energy target and throw its lot in with old coal—the coal that we are told is good for humanity, like we are told that global warming is just a UN hoax and wind farms are ugly. Is that really what this government and this parliament is going to choose? We will find out later in the day, but, from the smirks that I can already see from the government side of the chamber, they are laughing all the way to the bank with their coal mining mates and the rest of the community is left to suffer.