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, Senator Brandis. It is now over two months since Dr Finkel handed down his report which stated:

There is an urgent need for a clear and early decision—

on a clean energy target. After two months, Minister Frydenberg said there is:

… no need to rush this decision …

Can the minister explain to Australian energy consumers struggling with the high cost of energy why there is no rush to resolve the government's policy paralysis?

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

Senator Carr, as I think your question implicitly acknowledges, this is a very important decision. It's a very important decision and it will be approached by the Australian government in an appropriately careful way, which is what we are doing now. You and your colleagues have asked about this matter during the course of the past week, and the answer hasn't changed. The Australian government is considering the recommendation of the Finkel report in relation to a clean-energy target. We are considering that recommendation very carefully and very thoroughly. We are adopting an appropriate process for the consideration of that recommendation and we will be making a decision in the near future. Senator Carr, that is the way grown-up governments behave. The way grown-up governments behave is to consider carefully the policy implications of important recommendations and to make their decisions accordingly.

But, as I pointed out to you and your colleagues last week, Senator Carr, the one thing this government will not be doing, which is what bedevilled energy policy during the period when you were in government, is being enslaved by ideology. We will not, as the Labor party was and as state Labor governments—notably in South Australia and Victoria—are at the moment, be enslaved by ideology. We will be making a practical decision, based on engineering, based on science and based on economics, in order to ensure that whatever energy mix we have will be platform or source agnostic and be most serviceable to the twin objectives of affordability and reliability—two objectives that your government signally failed to achieve.

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

Aluminium producer Tomago, in New South Wales, is planning to cut production and jobs because of the massive recent increases in the cost of electricity. Can the minister explain to Australian manufacturers struggling with the cost of energy why there is no rush to resolve this government's policy paralysis?

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

Senator Carr, what any corporation would expect of a government is that it approaches the making of important decisions in a careful, thorough and methodical way, which is precisely what we propose to do. Senator Carr, we are not, unlike the Australian Labor Party, going to find ourselves in a situation in which we can't keep the lights on, the way the Weatherill Labor government in South Australia is unable to keep the lights on. We are not going to preside over a situation like the Queensland Labor government, of unlamented Annastacia Palaszczuk, which sees electricity prices escalating exponentially across Queensland, particularly across regional Queensland, because the state government takes dividends out of state owned assets. And we are certainly not going to preside over a situation, as you did when you were in power, which saw electricity prices rise by 101 per cent over the six years of the last federal Labor government.

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

Given that the government party room has met for five hours to resolve this question and still can't come to a decision, isn't it clear that the reason the Turnbull government is in no rush to resolve its policy paralysis is because its too divided to make a decision?

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

Senator Carr, I seem to recall the former Labor government being very swift in some of the decisions it made. I seem to recall the former Labor government cancelled live cattle exports to Indonesia overnight, on a whim, because you overreacted to a Four Corners program. That's the sort of policymaking for which the previous Labor government was famous, or should I say, infamous. How many Australians suffered? How many Indonesians suffered? How much damage was done to the relationship between our two nations as a result of that ignorant, impulsive, reactive and poorly thought-through decision? When it comes to the question of the Finkel report and a clean energy target, we are going to be methodical, we are going to be careful and we are going to make a decision based on science, based on engineering and based on empirical considerations through a proper process, and it will be announced in the near future.