Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis), the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Senator Scullion) and the Minister for Regional Development (Senator Nash) to questions without notice asked by Senators McAllister, Ketter and Polley today.

What a pathetic attempt by this government to fudge the figures and not release any data relating to the aged care home care packages. We have been waiting since February—seven months—and there are older Australians who have been waiting for more than two years for home care packages. We know they go from level 1, which is the lowest, up to level 4. This is a really serious issue for older Australians, and there wouldn't be very many families in this country that aren't affected one way or the other when it comes to aged care.

Last month, we had the launch of the My Aged Care support line. The Minister for Aged Care, Ken Wyatt, admitted then that more than 200 people have been identified as waiting for over two years for these home care packages. I get calls into my office on a weekly basis from family members and older people who are distressed and so anxious about getting the support they need to be able to stay at home. Let's face it, this government has never had a good record when it comes to aged care. During the Howard government, we remember Bronwyn Bishop and the kerosene baths. We've now had three ministers in this government, and not one them has been able to progress any real reforms. In 2012, when we were in government, under former minister Mark Butler, Labor actually did the hard yards. We worked with the opposition at that time, we worked with the sector and we worked with consumers to make sure that we had the foundations there for reform that we knew was going to be of paramount importance to older Australians going forward. All of the hard work's already been done for them, yet they still can't roll out the reforms.

I'll give you a couple of real examples of people that have been waiting for a long time. The minister suggesting that people aren't dying waiting for the delivery of these home care packages is outrageous, because she doesn't know. Not only was she ineligible, most likely, to be even sitting in this chamber but, as a minister, she obviously didn't have a brief on something that, as I said, is one of the major issues confronting the aged-care sector in this country. I know very well that the minister is very much aware of it. The issue is: how bad are these figures going to be? I think they're going to be much, much worse than what this government has ever anticipated. I have an example of an instance where a 92-year-old gentleman with high needs has been told that he will have to wait 18 months for a level 4 package. How absurd is that at 92? Just this morning, we had a constituent contact us whose mother was approved for a level 4 package 12 months ago. It was only this week that her mother received an interim level 2 package. This is just unacceptable.

Australians deserve much better from this government, particularly when it comes to older Australians. We know that the result of these long waiting times is that those older people who are on level 4 end up either going to an acute hospital, being prematurely put into residential homes or they die. That's the reality. I'm calling on the government—I couldn't believe that somebody who was responsible for health in regional Australia, Senator Nash, would not have that information. How out of touch are the government? How arrogant are they that they think that they can keep older Australians and their families in the dark about this data? One thing I will say is that data will be crucial in formulating policy going forward. This government will then have to act on that. Like most Australians, I'm afraid that we do not have the confidence in this government to be able to deliver the outcomes that Australians need.

All Australians, particularly our older Australians, deserve to have this support so they can stay at home much longer. That's a better outcome for whichever government is in power at a Commonwealth level. You save more money by keeping people in their own homes and giving them that support. But the last place older Australians want to end up in is an acute hospital. That is the last place that they want to be. They want to be able to age in their own home with dignity, with respect and with the care that they so justly deserve. This is a reflection on the government. It is one that I would be ashamed of if I were sitting on that side of the chamber. Older Australians deserve much better. (Time expired)

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is always good of the Labor Party to move a motion to take note of specific answers because what it highlights to the Australian people is the lack of depth and lack of substance in relation to the Labor Party's approach to all issues of public policy. What it shows us is that the Australian Labor Party has no plan and no vision for our great country. What they're able to do is throw a lot of stones from the sidelines without providing any genuine answers or policy prescriptions to deal with the issues confronting our nation. And so we had this bizarre question time today—all sorts of were issues raised, but there was no theme or coherence other than throwing stones, whereas on this side of the chamber the Australian people heard questions about international security—the threat from North Korea, a matter of genuine substance and a matter of genuine concern to the Australian people.

We as a government are getting on with the issue of national security. We are getting on with the issue of economic security. When we're talking of economic security, we are talking about ensuring that we are getting the budget deficit back into shape and getting it down to zero so that we can then start paying back the debt—a legacy of Labor. I note that there are schoolchildren watching this particular debate. The legacy that the Australian Labor Party has left them and all their fellow schoolchildren, right around Australia, is a legacy of deficit and debt that they will be repaying through—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Resume your seat please, Senator Abetz. Senator Polley?

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know there's usually some lenience, but there is nothing in Senator Abetz's contribution today that relates to the questions that I took note of.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I do remind you that taking note is in relation to responses from Senators Brandis, Scullion and Nash. I also appreciate this is a wide-ranging debate, so please continue.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You always know you've got the Australian Labor Party on the run when they make spurious points of order to try to stop the train of thought and the flow of the conversation that we on this side are seeking to have with the Australian people. The conversation that we are seeking to have with the Australian people is to highlight and juxtapose what the Australian Labor Party spends question time on in comparison to what the government spends question time on. You do the compare and contrast, you do the juxtaposition and you see that one side is fit and proper for purpose, namely, for the service of the Australian people.

Getting back to the point I was making, the young people of Australia today will be faced with paying off the deficit and debt left to them by a profligate Labor government during the 2007-13 period. This indebtedness is a result of Labor seeing a problem—immediate answer: throw money at it! Like they did with education—a huge increase in education expenditure with a huge decline in outcomes, confirming to everybody that expenditure does not necessarily relate to good outcomes.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We as a government are getting on with the job of bringing the budget back into shape.

Similarly, we are dealing with the issue of energy costs, something which impacts every single Australian, like a pensioner hoping to be able to heat their house in winter or cooling it in summer. It's a huge issue for every single pensioner in this country. It is an issue for the household budget, where mums and dads are trying desperately to keep the household budget in shape. It is of impact to the farmer, to the small businessman and, indeed, to the large manufacturers. Every single Australian is impacted by energy policy, and we have been left with a legacy from the Australian Labor Party and an approach by the Australian Labor Party where they would make the current problems so much worse, impacting our pensioners, our families, our small businesses and our farmers and manufacturers even more than they are impacted today. The government is getting on with the task. Labor can keep on throwing rocks and getting engaged in the personal vilification, but we will not be distracted from serving the Australian people. (Time expired)

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of answers by Senator Brandis and Senator Nash in relation to energy. It wasn't that long ago, we all remember, that promises were made by Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott and other ministers in this government that, if they were elected to office, energy bills and electricity bills would fall by $550 all around Australia. But, of course, this is just one of those many promises that we saw from the Liberals that were broken as soon as they got into office. Whether it was about cuts to health care, cuts to education or cuts to electricity prices, the minute they got elected all of those promises were out the window.

What we've actually seen in reality is wholesale electricity prices double over the four years that this government has been in office. Every time we have ministers from this government get up and complain about energy prices, they need to have a look in the mirror, because they are the people who are responsible for this failure. And, unfortunately, ordinary Australians are paying the price through higher electricity bills. Every single solution that has been proposed to fix this has been blocked by elements within this government—the extreme right of the Liberal Party ganging up with the National Party—to kill off the carbon pollution reduction scheme from the Rudd and Gillard government and the emissions intensity scheme, something supported by the government's own Chief Scientist. Most recently, they have been ganging up to kill off the clean energy target, the latest suggestion by the Chief Scientist to try to bring energy prices under control.

Now, why is this happening? As I say, it is because of the ganging up between the extreme right within the Liberal Party and National Party members of this government who are so blinded by their ideology that they have lost sight of the best solutions we have to try to bring energy prices under control. There is no issue on which they are more blinded by ideology than their obsessive opposition to renewable energy. Even just this weekend we saw it from the National Party again. They met up for their national conference in Canberra, and what did they decide to do? They decided to remove all subsidies for renewable energy. We are yet to hear from ministers on whether this decision from the National Party is actually going to be put into practice by this government. They are the junior partner in this coalition government, and you would think that decisions from their national conference would actually carry some weight. And this decision to remove subsidies from renewable projects is obviously bad for the environment, but it is equally bad for jobs, particularly in regional Queensland, in the state that I come from.

Every day, we hear from the National Party that they are the party that represents regional Queensland and regional Australia. In actual fact, if you look at their record, they do nothing more than let down regional Australia, and they are doing it again here through their obsessive determination to kill off renewables and to kill off jobs in renewable energy right across Queensland. This decision from the federal National Party would kill thousands of jobs in renewable energy projects right across regional Queensland. Now, don't just believe me when I'm saying this. From the government's own renewable energy body, ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Authority—its own reports say that due to ARENA's own federal government funding it will support 2,300 direct jobs in the Australian regions, and thousands of indirect jobs in creating new renewable energy projects right across Australia. In Queensland alone, there are a number of projects that are being supported by federal government funding that would not go ahead without it, and we would see hundreds of jobs sacrificed at the altar of the National Party's ideological opposition to renewables.

There are 500 jobs at the Kidston solar farm near Georgetown in north Queensland, 200 jobs at the Whitsunday Solar Farm near Collinsville in Central Queensland, 175 jobs at the Barcaldine Solar Farm in Central Queensland, another 120 jobs at the Collinsville solar power station in Central Queensland, 30 jobs at the Longreach Solar Farm in Central Queensland and, in south-west Queensland, 50 jobs at the Oakey Solar Farm. Just that handful of projects adds up to about a 1,000 jobs in regional Queensland that are only happening because of this federal government's support for renewable energy. We don't think it's as strongly supportive as it should be, but the Nationals actually want to kill off these subsidies and kill off these thousands of jobs in Queensland and right across Australia. The Nationals do not support regional Australia. They need to get behind these projects. (Time expired)

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

I was very grateful to have the opportunity to participate in the MPI debate yesterday, initiated by the Labor Party, on energy. So I'm even more delighted to have an opportunity to re-emphasise some of the points that I made yesterday and to add some new ones to this very important debate. I thank them, again, for bringing this important issue before us. Senator Watt's contribution leant heavily on the theme of ideology, and he accused the coalition of being ideological in our approach to energy when we know that nothing could be further from the truth and we know that the only ideological parties on this question are, in fact, the Labor Party and the Greens.

The coalition has an agnostic approach to energy. We don't feel the need to pick and choose and to support winners above others within the energy market. We think it would be a great thing if renewable energy prospered, just as we think that other forms of energy that meet our energy needs should grow and prosper. That may include, and should include, base load traditional sources of energy such as coal and gas. One of the other common refrains from those opposite in this debate is that what we need and what we lack in this policy space is certainty and, if only the energy industry had certainty, then prices would be stable or may even fall. But the truth is that part of the energy industry already has certainty, and that's the renewable part of the energy industry.

The renewable part of the industry has certainty, and we know that they do because there's been record investments in renewable in recent years under this government and under the policies of this government. In 2016, large-scale renewable energy investment was at a record high, and it was five times greater than it was in 2015. More than $4 billion has been committed over the last year in renewable energy investment. Of the 98 new power plants accredited in 2016, 86 were solar and, just in case you are not clear, zero were gas and zero were coal. Small-scale renewable investment was also strong with 182,000 new installations last year. So there's no lack of certainty for the renewable energy industry. There is a lack of certainty for other players in the energy market, and they are providers of traditional thermal base-load power, such as coal or gas—an essential part of the energy mix for the foreseeable future until we can get to a system that somehow can provide sufficient backup or reserves, because we know that renewable energy is variable and unreliable due to weather conditions.

Why don't coal and gas have certainty? Why isn't anyone investing in these products? Why hasn't a power plant of these types been built for the last 10 years in Australia? Because they're lacking certainty. And their lack of certainty is a future Labor government. They know there is a chance of a future Labor government, and they know when it comes their business model could be completely smashed by a carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme, an emission intensity scheme or what other new name the Labor Party comes up with for its plans to tax energy production. For an investor in a coal-fired power station—even a new high-efficiency, low-emissions one—or in a gas-fired power station, when they're contemplating their 30-year return on investment that they need for their business model to work, they know that they don't have the certainty they need.

I think it's also worth unpacking exactly what the Labor Party and the Greens mean by certainty when they're talking about the renewable energy industry. Normally, when businesses are seeking certainty what they are seeking is a stable policy environment, secure property rights and certainty around taxation to make sure that, basically, they can run their own business without intervention and be confident that they'll get a reasonable return on their investment. That's the certainty that most businesses seek.

The certainty that the Labor Party and the Greens are seeking on behalf of the renewable energy industry is not property rights certainty; it is not stable tax arrangements; it is certainty of subsidies. Senator Watt admitted it in his own contribution to this debate. He said that the renewable energy industry requires subsidies in order to succeed. They need subsidies. So the certainty they seek is taxpayers and energy users—consumers—continuing to pay renewable energy companies, even when their products are not competitive, when they're not economic, to have that certainty of return. The coalition doesn't believe in this approach. The coalition believes, as I said earlier, in an agnostic approach that allows all forms of energy to compete fairly and evenly and allows those which have the best model to succeed. We're not in the business of picking winners and choosing winners.

The idea that there is some risk to the renewable energy industry from the removal of subsidies completely undercuts their argument that renewables are currently cost competitive. We heard in this debate only yesterday from Senator McAllister that renewables are cost competitive, that they are efficient, that they are, in fact, even cheaper than traditional forms of energy. Why do they need subsidies then? For what purpose should we subsidise an alternative energy source which is apparently more efficient and cheaper? It shouldn't be necessary at all. They should be able to survive on their own two feet. The truth is that those opposite know that they are not yet ready to survive on their own two feet. Perhaps they will be one day. Hopefully, they will be one day. But the truth is, right now, today, they need subsidies, and those opposite are calling for certainty of taxpayer subsidies.

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, the Nationals certainly weren't very agnostic on the weekend, were they? We saw what came in, echoing the thoughts of the right wing of the Liberal Party and trying to kill off the clean energy target. That's not very agnostic at all. It's no wonder that we see so much chaos, dysfunction and misinformation coming from those opposite.

You only have to look at the inconsistency from the leadership of the federal government. We've had the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, walk into the chamber carrying a lump of coal. We've seen him say he is for coal-fired power generation; we've seen him say he's against coal-fired power generation. We've seen the Prime Minister say he's for coal-fired power generation and we've seen him say he's against coal-fired power generation. This is all in recent months. It is because of a lack of leadership from the Prime Minister that this is happening.

There is no clear direction on energy from the federal government of Australia. I'm going to break it down into three parts: their record since they were elected; their record since the Finkel report came down; and their record when it comes to long-term policy decision-making. In each one of these areas, they are severely lacking.

A few people have talked about their record since they got elected. We know that former Prime Minister Abbott promised that power bills would be lowered by $550, yet here we are four years later and they're up almost $1,000 around the country. We know they had a war on renewables, halting investment in new generation and halting job creation at the same time. Following a question from Senator McAllister today, we know that they've overseen 4,000 megawatts of generation exit the market, including Hazelwood.

The true tragedy of Hazelwood closing was the fact that that community and those workers got six months to prepare. That is absolutely ridiculous, but that is what happened on this government's watch. Yet here they are crying crocodile tears for the workers at Liddell, when that company has been responsible in giving significant notice and coming up with a plan to transition those workers into other jobs. Yet that side are prepared to play politics. We have the Minister for the Environment and Energy, the faux friend of the worker, Josh Frydenberg, suddenly saying he is concerned for those workers and wanting to provide an ongoing future for them. It is playing politics with their lives. What we saw with Hazelwood is their true record when it comes to it.

Their record since they were elected is a sorry one, but their record since Finkel was released is just as dire. More than three months ago now the Finkel report came down. What have we seen in regard to the clean energy target? No progress whatsoever. In fact, based on what we saw at the weekend, it's probably regressed. They're making no progress at all in trying to reach an agreement within the coalition, let alone talking to the Labor Party to provide that certainty that so many people have spoken about. We've seen numerous examples of the Prime Minister having cups of tea with energy retailers, yet the best we've seen out of that is a letter. That's all consumers are going to see by the end of the year: they're going to get a letter. That's the best the Prime Minister could do.

Then, when it comes to the long-term policy and his discussions with AGL, every time they have a meeting we get different reports. The Treasurer and the energy minister say they have agreed that they will look at selling it, and then AGL contradict that. We have seen in the last 24 hours similar examples where the records of the government and of AGL are quite different. This is the chaos and dysfunction that we're seeing from that side with regard to energy. Today we put questions to Senator Scullion around the domestic gas security mechanism. We have seen uncertainty around its legitimacy because it was brought in by Senator Canavan. When asked about it yesterday, this was the response from Senator Brandis: 'We have restricted gas exports.' It was clear today, from the nonanswer from Senator Scullion, that they have done nothing like that as yet. We know that they have time to do it, but so far they have done nothing on that, contradicting the answer that we had from Senator Brandis yesterday. And there has been no action on the five-minute settlement when it comes to wholesale power prices, something that has been identified that can drive down costs. This is the record of the government when it comes to long-term energy policy. It is a sorry tale indeed. Overall what we are seeing under the government is prices up, pollution up, reliability down and a government that blame everyone else because they have a lack of leadership to settle a long-term policy for the benefit of Australians. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.