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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator.Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the final report of the Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market

Today, Senator Brandis told us how informed the party room discussion was yesterday—over five hours of debate. I have the slides from that meeting—the Finkel review into the future security of the National Electricity Market. It is apparent that Minister Frydenberg did provide quite substantial advice to the party room about the directions in which the government was hoping to go. It is a pity that the Attorney-General did not pay any attention to what those slides said or the advice that was tendered. When he was asked simple questions about the modelling that underpins the proposals that Dr Finkel has put forward, he was not able to come anywhere near answering a question. He is not interested in the slightest in the underlying assumptions of the government's program, which the government says is of critical importance to the future directions of the energy system in this country.

The Labor Party have offered to work with the government because we understand how critical this is, given the failure of our political system to come to terms with the critical issues about the future of our energy system. What we have seen, of course, in the last day is that the government cannot even work within itself, let alone work across this parliament. It is not able to come to terms with its own backbench about these fundamental questions, despite the extraordinary advice that has been tendered. What we do know is that the modelling that was provided and released last night demonstrates the shambolic mess of the energy policy that has been advanced by those within the government who want to, in effect, stand against the realities of time and the whole notion of climate change and pretend that none of these developments are actually occurring within the world.

Mr Abbott, in particular, is reported to have suggested that the clean energy target that has been proposed by Dr Finkel is a new tax on coal. Of course, it would be an entire farce if he had looked at any of the details. The Jacobs Group modelling, which underpins the report that the government itself released last night, shows that the business-as-usual proposition—of course, this government and, clearly, Senator Brandis demonstrate that the prime policy is do nothing, and the reality is that the hard Right of the Liberal Party takes the view that we do nothing—would actually undermine more quickly the question of the future of coal in this country. Under that model, the propositions that have been advanced by Dr Finkel are that there would be less electricity generated through coal by doing nothing than by advancing the position that has been put forward by Dr Finkel's review. The clean energy target suggests that we are able to provide a model whereby we could extend the life of baseload power generation in this country in a more rational way to see a more reasoned and careful reduction in the use of coal throughout the economy—an approach that would actually provide far greater protection for the security of this country, the security of the living standards of working people and the security of industry in a manner that would deliver the reliability of supplies to businesses and households and would produce, in my judgement, a better economic outcome for the country.

But what has been said over there? There is a refusal to engage on an important principle that does require a bipartisan approach across this parliament from a government that is not even able to get agreement within its own party room about such fundamental principles. What we are seeing, of course, is that the knuckle draggers that have dominated this Prime Minister and forced him to turn his back on what have been his lifelong commitments on these issues are now seeking to dominate once again. The cost to the country from the bitterness and power games that are being played out is quite extraordinary and profound. It is important for the whole country to understand what is at stake and the fates that we are dealing with in terms of a proper approach to policy that meets the requirements of this country and would allow this parliament to move past the policy paralysis that has so completely undermined the capacity to attract new technologies and investments in the future of energy generation in this country. It is appalling to see the level of disquiet that has developed within this government because of the failure of their people, and the Liberal Party in particular, to face up to the realities of climate change and the real economic needs of this country. (Time expired)

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my colleague opposite for his contribution. I had the pleasure of visiting Germany, in fact the part that was the old East Germany, with my colleague, who proudly talked about the benefits of the socialist system over there. I had a great trip and I learnt a lot about the socialist republic there. One of the things about a free liberal pluralist democracy, such as we have here—particularly in the Liberal Party—is that rather than central control, we actually encourage people to bring a diversity, a plurality, of ideas to any debate. When we consider a topic, rather than people just lining up and accepting the direction from an external agency or a particular head of power, we encourage people to engage with it intellectually, to debate it and to come up with the best position for our nation. That is the basis upon which the Liberal Party and the National Party, in coalition, have governed. If you look back through Australia's history, many of the best developments in our nation have been developed through a robust process of engaging.

It is no different with the Finkel review. Dr Finkel clearly, as a senior scientist, has a very informed and important voice in this debate. As policymakers in this place representing our communities—the consumers of electricity, whether residential or industrial; the producers of electricity; and those people who are involved in the retailing of electricity—there is a range of voices that we need to consider in making decisions around the policy directions.

I come to this debate as somebody who has a background steeped in systems engineering as an experimental test pilot. I was deeply suspicious of the advertising brochures that were often proffered, in my case to the Defence Force I used to work for, saying why a new idea or a new product was going to be the best thing since sliced bread. One of the jobs in the test environment was to examine those claims based on the facts—to work out what are the constraints around this, what are the things we are trying to achieve, what is the performance—and then, based on transparent, quantifiable facts, to present a brief to the decision-maker to decide whether or not they should invest in that particular piece of equipment or the direction a modification might be going.

So as I come to this whole debate around energy, I look at it through a fairly simple prism of systems engineering, which is: we do have some constraints that we wish to meet. Our objective is to have low energy prices. One of the things that has kept Australia engaged in the international economy for decades is the fact we have been able to have low energy prices, which means our standard of living, driven off good wages and other things, has made us a First World country. But the low energy price has underpinned that, and so low energy cost has to be one of the key targets that we have.

Reliability is clearly another target. I am a South Australian. I was there in South Australia through some of the blackouts that we have had. Regardless of the trigger event for those blackouts, you need to look at the system from a systems engineering perspective. You need to understand the inputs, the outputs and the interconnections where the failure modes are of a system. What we have seen—again, Dr Finkel's report talks about this—is that renewables, whatever you think of them—whether you like them or loathe them, the fact is there are considerations around the nature of the supply of electricity interfacing with a system that was designed, built and established on baseload power that outputs at consistent frequency. This means there is additional engineering work, therefore cost, that is associated with integrating renewable energy into our network. One of the concerns I have to date is that ideology has pushed the rapid uptake and the subsidising of renewable energy without actually taking into account that additional engineering work, and that is one of the costs that should be borne by that sector if it is to proceed.

Clearly, the other objective we have is to meet emissions targets in terms of our international obligations. So put those three things together and what this report provides is an important voice into the discussion we need to have as a nation. First and foremost, we need to ask: how do we redesign a system that will provide reliable and affordable power while also working within the constraints of meeting our climate obligations? First and foremost, we need to be looking at ways we can have baseload power that is affordable and reliable. (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn't it extraordinary that a sensible proposal that should have been taken seriously by the coalition party room is treated in this way? We have in our nation, as is well documented by the Finkel report itself, an energy crisis. We have increasing prices in our nation, as you can see in the very charts that were presented to the coalition party room just yesterday. That very presentation that you all would have listened to outlines very clearly that policy uncertainty is holding back new investment, resulting in higher costs and gas-fired generation setting the price more often. Here it is in your very own presentation.

We had from Senator Brandis this afternoon and, indeed, yesterday an absolute denial of the evidence and facts presented to his own party room. He refuses, as Senator Carr highlighted, to engage with even the basic evidence that is presented to his party room that is in the Finkel report itself. We have here documented evidence that went before the party room about how electricity prices are rising. We have evidence here that says a clean-energy target would indeed lower prices. We also have the evidence that shows it is the policy vacuum, the policy uncertainty that is driving energy prices up in our nation.

We have had in our nation a 90 per cent fall in energy investment and one in three renewable-energy jobs lost, and yet we see coming from the coalition a continued war on renewable energy. Instead of moving to solve our energy crisis, the crisis is within the coalition party room. They refuse to take responsibility for the policy uncertainty that is holding back investment and placing our energy systems in crisis.

The simple fact is we had in place under the Labor government a perfectly good mechanism that would have set certainty in place, enabled electricity prices to stabilise and come down and enabled the energy investment that we as a nation need to happen. Instead what we see is a policy vacuum and a policy crisis despite the fact that you have asked for policies. They are on the table, and you are riven by complete division and uncertainty. We have had Senator Brandis and Senator Fawcett defending their party room processes and the robustness of people expressing their views and having their voices heard. You seem to value those views in a way that is completely devoid of facts or evidence. Not all views are equal. Not all opinions are as important as other views. Why? Because they are not based on evidence. They are not based on research. Instead you are quite happy to accede to these voices. Why? Because your government is in crisis. Because you are trying to stabilise Malcolm Turnbull's prime ministership.

There is incredible disquiet, as reported, in the coalition party room. It seems apparent that the backbench of the coalition wants to significantly modify the clean energy target as proposed. Why? Because you are into a descent away from evidence and facts and toward meritless opinions.

This is a sensible policy proposal that should have been taken seriously. We have a preferred policy position that is not the one that is on the table, but we can engage in effective discussion about the policy directions of this nation. But the simple fact is the climate wars in our nation are back in a civil war within the coalition party room. We have power prices up and pollution up. (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on this motion to take note of answers. For me, listening to question time today, it was the perfect demonstration yet again of why the Australian public is so disillusioned in all of us in this chamber. The questions from those opposite and what I have heard during this take note really highlight the divide between both sides of this chamber. First of all, Senator Pratt just said that not all views are equal. I have got to say, that again highlights the ideological difference between those opposite and those on this side. We on this side firmly believe that the views of all Australians matter, that they count, and not just those of the ideological left. All views count and that is absolutely replicated in our party room.

So not only am I happy to defend, along with my colleague Senator Fawcett, the process that we have gone through to date but I am actually very proud of it and I will tell you the reasons why. As we know, to do nothing on this critically important issue is not an option. Let's have a look at the process. COAG commissioned a review on this critically important issue of energy security by none other than our Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, and there was no better to undertake this review. I commend him and his team for the production of this report. There are 50 critically important recommendations for all of us in our party rooms and in this chamber to discuss.

The report was delivered to COAG on Friday. On Tuesday this week, we had a brilliant brief by Minister Josh Frydenberg, who I commend for his work in this very challenging policy area. We had a great brief, a very comprehensive brief. My colleagues got together again later that afternoon after we had had an opportunity to digest some more of the report. Yes, it was discussed. Yes, it was robust but it was respectful and comprehensive. This is absolutely no different a process than we have in our party room all the time. Unlike those opposite, unlike Senator Pratt, we believe every single voice in our community counts, as Senator Fawcett said. We represent quite a broad church in our party room but that is a strength, not a weakness as those opposite seem to assert. We have had a great robust discussion on the report. The government no doubt will go away and look further into the issues that have been raised in the party room and come back to the party room in due course unlike those opposite, who clearly spent their party room time yesterday discussing all of these great zingers, all of these great insults they can throw our way—knuckle draggers, ideologues, those sorts of things.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Socialists!

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Socialists? Absolutely, if the shoe fits! We on this side had a discussion of substance on security, affordability and reliability—the most important issue facing our nation at the moment—and on how we do all of that and still meet our emission reduction targets. Again, this was necessary because Labor and the Greens together with their ideological zealotry—words that have been used by those opposite—have actually made the power go out in South Australia. As Dr Finkel said, it has put us in a very precarious situation in energy security. That must be addressed.

While those opposite may not believe that every voice counts and may not have actually gone through and started to come up with substantive debating points, would it not be fabulous if tomorrow they actually came back into this chamber whether during in the MPI, question time or take note and actually started asking questions about the substance of the Finkel report? Bring questions about the recommendations for security, for affordability, for reliability, about meeting our international targets instead of throwing insults at us. How fabulous would that be for our democracy if those opposite actually came in and discussed the issues of substance rather than throw insults at us? But sadly, I am very confident that they will not do it. Those opposite will come in tomorrow and will repeat the same zingers and insults at those of us on this side rather than raise issues of policy. I think this country is all the worse for that lack of ability of those opposite to come in here and debate the issues and not try to debate the process. (Time expired)

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of the answers from Senator Brandis on the Prime Minister's disastrous lack of climate change policy and the ongoing divisions in the Liberal and National parties over this fundamental issue. It is an issue that we must come to terms with and find a way forward on. The review by Australia's Chief Scientist gives us just that. The Chief Scientist proposes a mechanism—a clean energy target—which predicts lower electricity prices for consumers as well as investment certainty in our energy sector. Labor want to give this review and its recommendations a chance, but we need a respectful debate. That begins with all parties respecting the office of the Chief Scientist and examining his report and his recommendations without prejudice.

In my home state of Tasmania renewable energy has been fundamental to our economy for over half a century. Access to cheap hydropower has supported tens of thousands of jobs in heavy industry and will continue to do so for decades to come. Going forward it is vital that our energy and climate change policies provide the certainty industry needs to continue to make investment in Tasmania. What Tasmania needs is for Senator Abetz and the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team to represent the Tasmanian people's interests in the party room, to set aside their ideological positions and to actually examine the evidence. We must find a way forward because at present the energy policy uncertainty is driving up energy prices and is driving down investment in renewable energy.

I remind the Senate of the comments from the chief of staff to the Prime Minister Mr Abbott earlier this year. Ms Credlin famously confessed on Sky News that the coalition made the debate about the hip pocket rather than the environment. The cat has been belled, Mr Abbott. Your scare campaigns will not work anymore. Despite this revelation, there is a large rump of coalition members and senators who continue to push an incorrect, illogical argument that further renewable energy investments will drive up power prices.

Senator Brandis was asked by Senator Farrell about the status of the debate in the coalition. He claimed that the coalition considers the evidence and then engages in a debate. I put it to the Senate that, in fact, what we have seen take place is the coalition receive the evidence and receive some sensible recommendations and then the 21 of them completely ignore that in the party room meeting. Senator Back stood up at the conclusion of Senator Farrell's questions and added some commentary at the start of his question and said that he would now ask a serious question of the Attorney. What a farce the coalition government has become. How can questions about the government's lack of an energy policy not be serious?

I note that Senator Back made today's papers as reportedly speaking against the Finkel review's recommendations in the party room yesterday. In the last parliament I travelled the country with Senator Back on the Select Committee on Wind Turbines. Senator Back's clear prejudice against renewable energy was on display during that inquiry and it was on display again today. Either the coalition is serious about finding a way forward on climate change and energy policy or it is happy to continue the old Abbott game of scare campaign first and Australia's future somewhere way behind.

Senator Gallagher then asked if the government was any closer to reaching a position on energy and climate change. Senator Brandis's response was telling. He said that doing nothing is not an option and that the government must take action without delay. Senator Brandis went on and on about the long discussion in their party room, but he could not outline if the coalition under Malcolm Turnbull is any closer to reaching a position. Of course, given the prejudice displayed by his own backbench, one who scoffs at questions in this place and another who reportedly said 'Finkel in its current form is dead', it is no wonder that Senator Brandis could not answer Labor's questions today.

We have industry and consumers crying out for a clear policy going forward and then we have a Liberal and National coalition engaged in the most self-absorbed debate within their own party room. Labor are offering to work with the government to find a middle ground here. We want to move beyond the years of division and set in place a credible low-carbon energy policy for Australia's future, for our children's future and for the betterment of this country. It is time that the government started to put aside the silly ideological arguments, look at the facts and look at how they can develop policy, and we are prepared to work with them in doing that.

Question agreed to.