Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) 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 Senators O’Neill and Carr today relating to the final report of the Independent Review into the Future Security of the National Electricity Market.

I want to make some opening remarks and then will go to the detail of the questions that I asked, but I think I would have to characterise the senator's responses today as the sound of silence, an attempt to try to shut down debate to try to get out of this space as quickly as possible. They were the shortest answers that I can recall for a very long time. Matters of energy for Australia are not the focus of this government. They are focused entirely on themselves and they do not want Australians to pay attention. They do not want anybody to know that they are out of control and they are certainly not doing anything good for the electricity prices of Australians in business and in their residential properties across this country.

Indeed, they must be completely out of touch with reality. Have any of them over there paid an electricity bill recently? The fact is that, as every Australian knows—and people listening to this would absolutely be able to verify this from their own experience—power prices have doubled in the four years of this government. They have been going through the roof while this government has been on watch. Sadly, I can all too well remember the campaign where this government said that they were going to fix everybody's electricity prices. They were going to change the taxation of the country, and everybody would get $550 back. That is silence there. We are still waiting. Cheques must be in the mail, because Australians across this nation have not got any respite from increasing electricity prices.

While they have been doing this terrible job engaging in a paralysis of policy on the nature of energy in Australia, in addition to their policy failure they have absolutely deliberately gone out to target very vulnerable people with the cost of energy, most recently cutting the energy supplement of $360 per year so that any new person who goes on a pension is not going to get that. So here we are. They stand there and say: 'Oh, we've got it all in control. We will take decisive action.' That is the claim that Malcolm Turnbull is making. The decisive action we are seeing is action of no benefit to the Australian population; in fact, it is action that is devastating people's experiences of access to energy for their businesses and for their homes.

This week we saw the Finkel report come out, and this was supposed to be the line in the sand, the moment when we were actually able to start to see some redress of this policy vacuum that they have generated. With the arrival of the Finkel report, instead we have seen the chaos emerging at an extraordinary level within the government ranks. The Energy Council and other experts are all on the record as saying the greatest cause of increasing prices and threats to supply of electricity in Australia right now is policy paralysis. Indeed, the day before yesterday in their party room I understand Minister Frydenberg even admitted that that is the case.

My three questions today were to Senator Brandis. He did not answer any of them. When the Business Council of Australia, usually a pretty good friend, says:

Australia hasn't a moment to lose now that we have a comprehensive, independent blueprint to restore the security, reliability and affordability of our electricity system.

the decisive action and the fulsome report that we got from the Leader of the Government in the Senate was, I think, one or two words and a quick sit down. That was it. That was their version of decisive action. It was the shortest response that I have ever seen from the Attorney-General.

Then we had the question about Mark Collette, who said:

Doing nothing means higher prices and less reliable energy for all customers.

He could not answer a question about why the government cannot actually respond to this call from the energy sector itself. The head of Energy Australia is saying, 'It's time to sort it out, guys,' and the reason we did not get an answer is that the truth is this government is so internally divided, so out of touch that they are unable to have a conversation.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dysfunctional.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dysfunctional. Thank you, Senator Farrell, for that wonderful word which is a very apt description of this government.

My last question went to the reality of how broken the internals of the government are, with George Christensen declaring he is out and he will not support the Finkel report. It is a disaster. Policy paralysis continues. Prices are going up. They have doubled in four years, and under this government it can only get worse.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, I will just remind you, when referring to members of the other place, to use their titles.

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

You hear everything in this place, don't you? You hear everything. The carbon tax we were never going to have, which we abolished, actually brought the prices down substantially when it was abolished.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't believe that.

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

Have a look at the graphs of the wholesale prices. You do not believe the prices and you do not believe the facts.

Senator O'Neill interjecting—

Well, the first thing you learn, love, is that you cannot educate idiots. That is a fact. But I am surprised that Senator O'Neill did not say, 'Let's come straight on the answers to the questions of Senator Cash.' You know, the one about the $27,000 donation of AustralianSuper to the AWU? Who was involved in AustralianSuper? One Mr Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition. Who was tied up with the AWU? One Mr Bill Shorten, the AWU boss at the time. He was very involved with Paul Howes as well. Of course, who was the candidate running for parliament? Mr Bill Shorten. Where did the money flow? Ten years later, we change the reason for the donation. Give us a break.

We will not harp on that. We will go back to the energy situation. I do not mind renewable energy; I am a supporter of renewable energy. That is one condition: it stands on its own. Senator Farrell is here from South Australia, where I grew up. I spent my first 25 years there in South Australia.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You should have stayed.

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

No, I enjoy electricity. I like to turn the switch and the light stays on, and it does not go into darkness. I am not regretting leaving the dark state 25 years ago. In fact, there was a sign at Broken Hill, up there at Cockburn, when you went across the border: 'Last one out, please turn off the lights.' That was a sign when you left South Australia. You do not have to worry about turning off lights; they just went off automatically with the lack of electricity.

Here are the wind turbines. You put a wind turbine. It produces three megawatt hours. So what is the subsidy? Well, one megawatt hour is a renewable energy certificate, making $70 or $80. A three megawatt wind turbine means three certificates an hour, eight hours a day, 365 days a year. Multiply that by $70 or $80 and what have you got? You have got a $7,000-a-year subsidy to the wind turbine. That is for one. Of course, they are all over where I grew up at Jamestown. It was everywhere. A $7,000 subsidy for each tower.

But who pays for it? I will tell you who pays for it: the poor widow who is living on her own as a pensioner. It goes onto her power bill, because the coal fired generators have to buy the renewable energy certificates. What happens? Then the wind turbines can sell electricity cheap because they are getting so much subsidy. I am sure that Senator Farrell would be aware of a place call Port Augusta, 200 miles north of Adelaide. You ever been there?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know it well. I have got some relatives there.

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

Yes. What happened to the coal fired generator there? It was shut down. It was going broke. Why was going broke? It was because of the subsidies we throw at the wind turbines. Of course, we then see South Australia become not only the driest state in the driest continent but the darkest state in Australia as well. That is because the lights are going out, and aren't the people annoyed about it? I was in South Australia last Monday and they are very annoyed. When you talk to businesses down there, they are very annoyed. They want to go into the manufacture of our submarines—$50 billion worth. They won the award. I hope you have enough electricity to actually make the submarines. That would be a big worry.

What we are doing is having a debate because of the Finkel report. We are allowed to debate that. Over on your side, you do as you are told. I wonder if Senator Farrell supports same-sex marriage. Well, he will say publicly that he does. I wonder if Senator O'Neill does? Knowing their background and their beliefs, I doubt if they would. They are doing as they are told. They are in the party of dictatorship. You do as you are told or you get kicked out. You cannot cross the floor over there. Even Senator Sahaad Dastyari—that is his name, Senator Sahaad—

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sahand.

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

I had a quiz the other day that said to me, 'Can you give us a question for a quiz round night?' I said, 'The question is: what is the Christian name of Senator Dastyari? The answer: Sahand.' I do not know if they got the quiz right that night, but anyway. Thanks for confirming if I have pronounced it right or wrong.

So those from the party of dictatorship, where you do as you are told, you just do as you are told and keep going. On our side of the politics, in the Liberal-National party, we are actually having a debate. We are having a discussion. We have got a report. We are sorting out what is the best. We have been in the party room for hours, working out what is the best situation to guarantee supply, to reduce costs and to do the right thing. That is because the situation we face is simple: if we do not have cheap, reliable electricity, we will not have manufacturing and we will not have jobs. We will not have anything. Everything will be moved overseas. That is the situation, and we will stick by it.

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

How many groups does it take? We have had the energy groups, the business groups, the unions and ACOSS ask this government to give the Finkel report its full and fair consideration before rushing in and rigging the definition of 'clean energy'. But no, that cannot happen within this Turnbull Liberal government, because they are so divided when it comes to what clean energy even means. That is why, four years later, we are still in a situation of policy paralysis on clean energy, on the cost of electricity prices and on a way forward for investment in our country. So many groups have urged you, as a government, to stop this paralysis and to take some action to resolve this crisis. Labor have made it very clear that we are open to a clean energy target, and that is a big shift for Labor.

Despite all of that good will, despite all of the encouragement from all of those groups, including the opposition, this government simply cannot get their house in order; instead, they leave this country in a state of absolute paralysis when it comes to investment. What is the outcome? We have lost thousands of jobs that could have gone into that growth in renewable energy over the last four years. After all of the work that has been done by the Chief Scientist, we leave ourselves in a situation where we just do not know where this government is going to land. What we do know is that there is a situation of the tail wagging the dog. You have former Prime Minister Tony Abbott out there talking about his dislike for the recommendations in the Finkel review when he has not even read the report! He has not read the report but, because of his ideological beliefs against renewable energy, he has already decided, along with buddies such as George Christensen, to bag it out and try to lead the coalition into not supporting it.

The idea that you can change the definition of something, that you can decide that clean energy has to include coal, is just bizarre. To have a definition of clean energy that includes new coal power stations just to placate the Tony Abbotts, the George Christensens and the Barnaby Joyces of this world makes a complete mockery of the seriousness of the work that the Chief Scientist, Dr Finkel, has done with his panel over the last number of months. I cannot understand where this government is coming from, but one thing does seem very clear and that is that we are not going to land in any space or time of certainty soon. They are simply too divided on where to go forward in relation to climate policy, so much so that I have just learnt today that Lord Howe Island has a plan for renewable energy to reduce its massive reliance on diesel power generators that it has provided to the energy minister. Its plan is for two wind turbines—just two—on Lord Howe Island to reduce its reliance by 70 per cent on diesel power, but it has been rejected by Minister Frydenberg. Let's look at what minister Frydenberg said: it would have 'clearly unacceptable impacts'. 'Clearly unacceptable impacts' is his take on it. He also said:

Government considered the proposed wind turbines would create a considerable, intrusive visual impact.

This is the environment minister, this is the energy minister, and he is basing his decision on the visual impact of two wind turbines on Lord Howe Island, when 92 per cent of the locals on Lord Howe Island support this proposal. They do not want to continue to rely on diesel generation. In fact, Chris Murray, who has lived on the island for 58 years, has said so very clearly, yet all we get from this government is a refusal of the benefits of renewable energy. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Singh, I remind you to refer to others in the other place by their correct titles.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to take note of answers to questions by Senator Carr and Senator O'Neill.

Those opposite like to pretend that they are the champions of scientific endeavour, of research and of science informing policy. However, here we are with a report brought down by the Chief Scientist on Friday to government and to COAG about energy security. This report has been brought around because of an absolute tragedy that occurred in South Australia. But I will come to that later.

This is actually a report by our Chief Scientist, the Independent review into the future security of the National Electricity Market. It is not climate policy; it is about the future of the security of the Australian energy market. And it was delivered to COAG. Do those opposite know why? Do they know why? We have had a lot of exponential increases in household energy prices at both the household and industry levels because state governments have a significant role to play in the price of the power bills for Australian households—how much it costs them to heat and cool their homes and to refrigerate their food. Importantly, those who are actually interested in the workers in this country—who are actually interested in energy-intensive industry and who are interested in the food-processing sector or manufacturing—know that those sectors in our economy are energy intensive and know that those industries under incredible pressure from the cost of doing business. Their power supplies are a significant component of that, and everybody knows that state governments have a crucial role in ensuring that supplies for energy generation are available to the domestic market.

I think of my home state of Victoria, and I call on the energy minister in Victoria to take her responsibility for this report—having been handed this report—and, with what the various state energy ministers have been tasked to do in this report, not to fob it off. She should actually take responsibility and think, 'How can I increase the supply of gas in a safe way and in a way that does not damage our waterways?' It needs to be in a way that ensures we get more supply into the market and increased investment. Affordable reliable energy is something that we all should not take for granted but ensure that it is actually delivered.

It is disappointing that those opposite seem to wish they were in Soviet Russia or, indeed, North Korea, where power blackouts are the norm. I hate to tell them: we are a first-world economy. We are an incredibly sophisticated and well-developed society: power blackouts should not be happening in 21st century Australia!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was in town that day. It was the worst storm we ever had in South Australia.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, you talk about it being a storm. It is a problem—you want to talk about science being applied to policy. Again, Senator Carr, you are the champion of the Chief Scientist and you are the champion of science in informed policy—

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

and yet who the hell was talking to the energy minister from the South Australian Labor government when they decided to jack up their Renewable Energy Target but not worry about ensuring that there was actually going to be a secure supply? Or to deal with the intermittent pulsation of renewable energy power supplies? They did not worry about that. You did not worry about that, because you are all about the emotional response. You do not care about engineering and you do not care about economics.

The things that will actually make a difference here in this country for the power prices that senators opposite were talking about is ensuring that state governments get on board and get serious about setting appropriate targets. I could go on and on. I am quite devastated that I now only have 30 seconds to go, because I did have a lot to say!

At a federal level, if the Labor Party are serious about jobs and about cost-of-living pressures then they will be looking at the Finkel review. They will be looking at how they can put pressure on their state colleagues to ensure that they are doing what they need to do so that we get access to reliable and affordable energy. The Chief Scientist says that coal is part of the mix. You do not like us to say it, but that is what the science tells us. You must accept the science.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want you to tell the tale of a brave person, the kind of person who rises to speak earnestly and passionately about a book they have not read, a film they have not seen, music they have not heard. Our once and possibly future Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, is such a brave person. He waded in knee-deep, opining that the Finkel review of the Electricity Market was deficient in many respects, despite then admitting to not having read it.

It is reported that many other members of the Liberal party room, a number speculated to be as high as 20, condemned it too on the 'vibe of the thing', as that famous Australian saying goes. Twenty is, of course, a very interesting number in Liberal partyroom dynamics. It is a very good start if you are contemplating mounting a coup. It is probably Mr Abbott's bedrock. It is a number, no doubt, keeping up the Prime Minister—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he's got more votes than that.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I think that is right, Senator Farrell—as he reflects on whether he can survive until Christmas: clinging to power, pleasing neither conservatives nor small 'l' Liberals, only occasionally winning favour among a diminishing number of scribes.

But of course what the people of Australia want is a Prime Minister who will reserve the best efforts of his care and attention to the people's business. And self-evidently vital to the welfare of the people of Australia, to jobs, is ensuring certainty into energy policy. Despite their weasel words, the Abbott-Turnbull government, perhaps soon to be the Dutton-Abbott government, have presided over great uncertainty and are in control of what is really best described as an energy crisis in Australia. Wholesale power prices have doubled in their four agonisingly incompetent years in office. And you do not have to be a Belgian detective to figure out that if wholesale electricity prices go up, retail prices will surely follow.

This building, this vast beautiful building constructed inside a hill, cost more than $1.1 billion to build in 1988 dollars. The representatives and senators who sit here cost the taxpayers around $500 million a year, every year. The taxpayers pay us to make decisions, to make the big calls that affect the future of the country. And yet this government, on so many issues, has shown itself incapable of making decisions. Those 20-plus coalition MPs know that indecision is killing their government. Who else knows this basic truth? Pretty much everyone else in Australia: peak industry groups, unions, welfare groups, farmers. Its policy paralysis on energy policy, a paralysis caused by a genuine confusion in the Liberal party room about whether they believe in climate change at all, is led by someone who actually does believe in climate change—but, of course, he is not really leading them. He is their Prime Minister in name only. The Energy Council has contributed soaring electricity prices to the government's inability to do its job to determine a coherent, consistent energy policy.

The Finkel report into the future security of the National Electricity Market is an important contribution to the debate about the right policy mix for energy policy in Australia. The issues it addresses are complex, but there is no doubt that the Australian Labor Party will always be focused on protecting and encouraging the creation of jobs in Australia. There is a straight line between cheaper, cleaner and more secure power and jobs. Labor will never indulge in the ideological zealotry of those who do not care about climate or those so rich—often so green—that they do not have to care about jobs. For Labor, our mission is clear and always has been: jobs, jobs, jobs. Under the Abbott-Turnbull-Dutton-Abbott-again government, there has been a crisis of indecision and incompetence on energy policy—a party room of climate sceptics notionally led by somebody who would probably be pedalling renewable schemes for Goldman Sachs if he was not the Prime Minister.

We are here to make decisions, the tough calls to govern and to lead. My message to the Liberals, to the Nationals in this ramshackle hopeless government on energy policy is that if you cannot lead and will not follow then please, for the sake of Australians and their jobs— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.