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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. This morning, influential Liberal member Craig Kelly said on ABC Radio, in regard to the modelling underpinning the Finkel review's findings on electricity prices, that the baseline findings were critical. Is the government fully aware of the assumptions on which these baseline findings were based and were they made available to the party room?

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

Senator Cameron, I think you are referring to the discussion we had yesterday in the government party room about the Finkel report, are you not? I know that Mr Craig Kelly has expressed some views. He has expressed them within the forums of the coalition and he has expressed them publicly as well. He is a voice in this debate, and we are glad to hear his views. I know you old socialists find this very hard to understand, but we in the Liberal Party and in the National Party—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

You 'Corbynites'! We in the Liberal Party actually think that any discussion is improved by hearing a variety of opinions. That is why Mr Kelly's views, like the views of each and every one of my coalition colleagues in this discussion, are a welcome contribution. As a result of that discussion—

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. There were two questions asked: one was whether the government was fully aware of the assumptions; the second was were the baseline findings made available to the party room. The minister has not gone near any of those questions.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron. I will remind the minister of the questions.

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

So, Senator Cameron, Mr Kelly's views are very welcome in this debate. Now, you raised two particular matters. What I can tell you, Senator Cameron, is that the Finkel report was published when the government received it. So it is a public document. The Finkel report contains a great deal of analysis and charts of tables and various other expositions of that analysis, which the minister, Mr Frydenberg, took our party room through yesterday morning, and that included the issue of the baseline. Of course the baseline is an important issue; we are aware of that. Senator Cameron, there was discussion about all of these issues. There was a briefing by Mr Frydenberg about all of these issues and there were contributions about a variety of issues, including that one, because, as I said to your acting leader, that is the way we do policy. We have a free and open discussion. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.

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

I would like to ask the minister: does the government stand by the modelling used by Dr Finkel and the findings of his review?

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

The government regards the Finkel report as an important contribution to the discussion. We are one of the governments, along with all of the other members of the Council of Australian Governments, that initiated the Finkel report. So we have received the Finkel report, and now we are discussing it. We have not made any final decisions yet. But we are better informed in making those decisions, as, by the way, should every state and territory government be, by the fact that Dr Finkel, an eminent Australian scientist, has done this body of work.

But, as I have told your acting leader and your colleague Senator Gallagher over there already, when the government makes its policy choices, informed by the Finkel report, those choices will be guided by three principles: affordability; security of supply; and fidelity to our international commitments on lower emissions. We will be guided by the Finkel report, but those will be our outcomes. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question.

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

One coalition MP told The Australian last night, 'Finkel in its current form is dead'. Does the minister agree? Has the far Right of the coalition party room, yet again, nobbled the Prime Minister's plans?

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

I suppose that, if you spend your entire life sunk in conspiracy theories and taking fright at shadows, then you can easily be frightened by shibboleths like that. No, Senator Cameron, not at all; I am not for a moment aware of any coalition member who has that view. I notice that you are not putting a name to this person; you are not quoting the source of your report. What you have said is absolute nonsense, Senator Cameron, I must say.

We will be guided by the Finkel report. We are considering the Finkel report. The study of this issue, not only by the government but by your side of politics too, frankly, should be improved by the body of work that Dr Finkel has done. When we make our policy choices we will not have a South Australian fiasco, like the South Australian Labor government, because we will ensure security of the supply, affordability, and fidelity to our international commitments.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the great champion for resources and northern Australia, Minister Canavan. What action has the government taken to ensure the security of Australia's domestic gas supply?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question, as I know he realises, as many do in this chamber, that gas markets in this country are undergoing significant change. We are about to become the world's largest exporter of gas, an enormous turnaround in just less than 10 years. That is putting some pressure on gas markets in this country. I know many of us here in this chamber would be hearing from businesses about the impacts of price and availability of gas, as I was myself a few months ago in north-east Victoria with Senator McKenzie. We visited a range of businesses, including Uncle Tobys in Wahgunyah. They told us about the big increases in prices they are experiencing. The government has heard those issues.

We also received a report in March from the Australian Energy Market Operator describing that shortfalls are emerging in gas markets. The very next week we convened a meeting with the gas industry and with the Prime Minister to discuss those matters. At that meeting we got a commitment that gas would be made available at times of peak electricity demand, as, at particular times of peak demand in electricity markets, gas is needed to keep the lights on. Over the last few months, after further discussion with the gas industry about getting more supply of gas, we have determined to introduce regulations to license the export of gas in this country. It is a drastic action for a government to take. It is one we have not taken lightly, but we have done so, keeping in mind the importance of jobs here in this country, industry in this country and affordable energy in this country as well.

We are determined to make sure that Australian consumers of gas pay no more than what is reflected on international markets. We can have both a strong export market for gas and affordable gas in this country. Last week we published draft regulations, some explanatory statements, and guidelines that will govern the implementation of our Australian domestic gas security mechanism. It will be in place by 1 July. We are currently consulting with industry about those measures.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister explain how the proposed gas export licensing regime is expected to operate?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was discussing last week, we issued the draft regulations in regard to those measures we are taking. We are focused on solutions to this issue. These are solutions that are significant. They are significant changes to the way we regulate gas in this country. These regulations are intended to be temporary. The long term does need more gas supply to come onto the market, but we have put these measures in place in draft form for five years, with a sunset clause after five years and a review after two. They are targeted at the problem we are facing, which is a shortfall of gas, as was identified by the Australian Energy Market Operator.

The implementation of these guidelines and licensing will only be done with consultation with AEMO and the ACCC about the potential size of the shortfall. We will try to recover that shortfall from those producers who are not net contributors to our domestic market, targeting the issue we face and making sure that there is gas available to protect Australian jobs and make energy affordable for all Australians.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What are the risks and challenges facing the implementation of the gas export licensing system?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do welcome the support we have received from I think all sides of politics on this particular measure. As I mentioned, I think we all recognise it is a major issue for our country; however, it is complicated by the fact that we do have state and territory governments locking up gas supplies in this country. The only long-term way to deliver affordable gas in this country is to develop gas in this country. For those who are concerned about the price, affordability and availability of gas in this country, please do not come in here and start talking about how we should shut down gas developments while at the same time expressing crocodile tears for those businesses and industries that do not have enough gas at the moment.

We have to make sure that we are determined to supply affordable gas energy in this country, and that means making decisions to develop gas in Victoria, making sure that we do not ban techniques that have been used for more than 100 years, like the Victorian government has done, and making sure that we do not put moratoriums on the Northern Territory, where there are enormous gas resources available. We want to achieve affordable energy in this country for Australians, but to do so we have to develop our resources.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer the minister to the modelling report released last night that underpins the Finkel review. This report states that there is an added risk premium on new generation investment in the business-as-usual case. For example, new coal investment was assumed to have a four per cent additional risk premium compared to new renewable investment. As the self-declared champions of coal, is the government aware that its own policies are increasing the cost of investment, including in coal generation?

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

Senator Carr, no, I am not familiar with the document released last night to which you have referred, because I have been doing other things in the meantime. But, Senator Carr, no doubt the considerations in that document will be among the many considerations the government takes into account as we consider in a careful and methodical way the right mix of policies to secure an affordable, reliable energy supply for Australia that is consistent with our international commitments to lower emissions. So, Senator Carr, thank you for drawing my attention to the document. No doubt I will find it very interesting reading, and no doubt it will be taken into account.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, a supplementary question.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the importance of the modelling that underpinned the Finkel report, I am surprised that the minister is not familiar with it. In the business-as-usual case, the modelling report states: 'It is assumed that all coal-fired operators are not willing to invest in half-life retrofits.' Doesn't this demonstrate that the government's policy paralysis is undermining investment in power generation?

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

Senator Carr, it is not at all obvious to me that that conclusion follows from the sentence you have quoted. But, nevertheless, I will study the document, as no doubt will the Prime Minister, Mr Frydenberg and all of my colleagues, and we will draw what conclusions are appropriate from the work contained therein.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Carr, a final supplementary question.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, was the government party room briefed on the modelling assumptions that underpin the Finkel review in yesterday's marathon party meetings? In particular, are government MPs aware that the Finkel review makes it clear that their government is actually undermining the very generation those opposite say they want to defend?

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

Senator Carr, I can assure you, as I have assured your acting leader and several of your colleagues today, that we had an extremely thorough briefing from the minister, Mr Frydenberg—a very thorough briefing indeed—and, following that briefing, we had a very thorough and instructive discussion. At the risk of repeating myself: on the basis of both that very thorough briefing by Mr Frydenberg, whose knowledge and sophistication about this issue I think is peerless within this parliament, and that very detailed and intelligent discussion all of my colleagues had, during which many questions were asked and many interesting contributions were made, the government will make policy choices in the best interests of the Australian people that will ensure that electricity is affordable, supply is reliable, and we keep our international commitment to lower emissions, because, Senator Carr—as you should know, having been the spokesman for your party on industry for all those years and a quondam minister for industry, if I recall, in the dark days of the Gillard government—doing nothing is not an option. (Time expired)

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Is the minister aware of any recent reports concerning donations to registered organisations which appear to show a conflict of interest?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Paterson for what is a very serious question. Senators may have seen a report today which highlights that the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, has some very serious questions to answer about the time when he wore three hats: (a) as a director of AustralianSuper; (b) as National Secretary of the Australian Workers' Union; and (c) as the Labor Party candidate for Maribyrnong back in 2007.

While Mr Shorten was wearing these three hats there was a trail of money that flowed between the three organisations. While Mr Shorten was a director of AustralianSuper, they made a $27,500 donation to the Australian Workers' Union—the union of which Mr Shorten was the then national secretary. Around the same time, the AWU made a $25,000 donation to Mr Shorten's campaign as Labor candidate for Maribyrnong. What a coincidence! Mr Shorten holds positions in three separate organisations and money is changing hands, very seriously, between all three of them.

Mr Shorten now has some very serious questions to answer, not just to the Australian people but also to the members of the AWU and AustralianSuper: what money exactly changed hands, and why? Because, when it comes to transparency, that is something which each and every one of us in this chamber should support. We need to ensure, as parliamentarians, that the people presiding over these savings are acting solely in the interests of the hardworking members and not in the interests of union officials, political candidates or anyone else—especially when you are wearing all three of those hats.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson, on a supplementary question.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister explain how conflicts of interest erode confidence in these organisations?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians and Australian workers must have the utmost confidence that their superannuation that is being put aside for their retirement is not being donated to partisan campaigns. Over the last 10 years—senators may be interested—$53 million has been paid by industry super funds to unions. Over the same 10 years unions have paid around $65 million to the ALP. This is the retirement savings of hardworking Australians. Mr Shorten, as we now know, based on today's disclosures, is very, very familiar with how this money trail works, which makes it even more important that he comes clean with the Australian people and explains not one, not two, but three conflicts of interest. The members of the super fund and the AWU deserve nothing less.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Paterson, on a final supplementary question.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, what is the government doing to ensure that questionable payments to registered organisations are banned?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has introduced legislation to amend the Fair Work Act to ban corrupting benefits paid by employers to unions and union officials. Our legislation also requires disclosure of all benefits flowing to employer groups, unions and businesses under workplace deals. What this will do is end the secrecy in these payments. If a payment is a legitimate payment than let us make sure every single Australian—but in particular those affected by the payment, the hardworking members of employer groups or unions—knows why these payments are being made. This is the type of confidence we as parliamentarians, we as senators, need to give to the Australian people: confidence that both their employer and the relevant union are looking after their interests and not looking after the interests of their own.

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

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.