Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, 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 Kitching, Dastyari and Singh today.

What an interesting garble we heard from the other side today in relation to relation to this new plan from the Liberal government! The party room, as I understand from media reports, agreed to ditch the CET and adopt a National Energy Guarantee that requires electricity retailers to have a minimum amount of power constantly available. Prime Minister Turnbull said that the new plan is a 'game changer'.

It's really interesting because, over a number of years, Minister Turnbull has backed and supported an emissions trading scheme, a carbon tax, an emissions intensity scheme, a clean energy target and a stronger renewable energy target. Now he's backing a National Energy Guarantee. It makes you wonder what he's going to be supporting and backing in tomorrow. Each of these positions, basically, is being pushed by the previous Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, who, it appears, has much more say on that side of the parliament than Mr Turnbull does. Mr Turnbull made his announcement this morning—and we are yet to see detail of it, I might add. I can't find any detail.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

It's been released, says Senator Brandis. Where would we find that, Senator Brandis? It's interesting—I haven't been able to find it. What Prime Minister Turnbull has done is turn his back on his own Chief Scientist. They have turned their back completely on the report that Dr Finkel put out. They have turned their back on renewable energy. Renewable energy is one of the things on the horizon that will create jobs and provide lots of opportunities in regional Australia. We heard Senator Scullion a moment ago talk about how they know regional Australia and how wonderful they are, but he read word for word off a piece of paper. How well does he know regional Australia when he has to read the answer to a dorothy dixer question from his own side? He can't even talk about regional Australia. Well, I tell you, I can—I talk to people on the west coast of Tasmania, who are waiting and have been waiting since Mr Abbott was the Prime Minister and absolutely wrecked the clean energy target, absolutely wrecked the wind industry and absolutely wrecked any renewable opportunities for industries to grow and grow in places where we absolutely need jobs.

From the package of leaks to different newspapers this morning, we can clearly see that this government is hell-bent on absolutely destroying the renewable energy industry and severely restricting growth in Australia over the coming years and decades. That's what this demonstrates. It's like they said: 'We've got a thought bubble today, so we'll run with that. It sounds like a great idea. We won't take any notice of what the Chief Scientist says—oh, no, he wouldn't know. He doesn't have the expertise. So we'll just come up with what we think will placate our backbench and other people and go along with Mr Tony Abbott.' It is a thought bubble to dump the Chief Scientist's recommendation. The Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party this morning was unable to answer any basic questions of detail on the package.

Senator Brandis interjecting—

He could not answer any questions at all. Clearly, the announcement made this morning is the capitulation by the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, to Tony Abbott's hard right-wing agenda for Australia, which is now utterly complete. He's almost got there—the only thing that he's not doing is getting the salary of the Prime Minister.

It was reported in newspapers this morning that renewable energy growth will be restricted over the coming three decades to just 4½ per cent—4½ per cent growth in the renewable energy industry over 30 years. That places at risk thousands and thousands of jobs in the renewable energy industry and makes it utterly clear that Australia is completely unable to satisfy and discharge its commitments around carbon pollution reduction that were made at the Paris conference in 2015. This government should be ashamed of itself for moving the goalposts. (Time expired)

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's great to be following Senator Urquhart in taking note of the answers that were provided during question time, but I struggle to understand the point of view that Senator Urquhart is conveying in this chamber. She commenced her contribution by talking about rumours and media reports about what was announced today, rather than actually focusing on the facts.

Talking about ignoring experts was one of the points that Senator Urquhart made. As the Attorney-General pointed out in his answer to questions asked by the opposition today, it was, in fact, experts that were relied upon for the creation of this policy—people on the Energy Security Board, many of whom were appointed by the former Labor government. These are people that the shadow spokesperson for energy has termed as excellent appointments as well. Obviously, what they do is good, so why are these experts now not producing work that's acceptable to those on that side of the chamber?

Not once in question time today did we hear the opposition talk about the issues of reliability and affordability—not at all. It was all about a particular obsession with one thing, and that's renewables—this talk of renewable jobs. I heard Senator Urquhart say that there will be thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs at risk because the renewables sector will only be growing at 4½ per cent. I thought I heard in there the word 'growing', which means that there should be more jobs being created. But it's like they're looking at that issue in isolation, not thinking about those who have to pay power bills—those factories that need affordable, reliable energy to be able to function and to produce the goods that they are there to produce and to support the workers who work in their factories, like dairy operations.

A couple of times during question time today there were references to obsessions with coal as well. Well, Senator Urquhart is a senator for Tasmania, as is Senator Singh, who asked one of the questions, the answers to which we are taking note of today. We also have a coalmine in our state, the Cornwall Coal Mine down on the east coast in the Fingal Valley, which employs a great many people in the regional community. Those opposite aren't concerned about those jobs. What about the people who work at the Cement Australia cement factory in Railton and the hundreds of people there? Does Senator Urquhart want to come with me to a factory located close to both of our electorate offices? Would she like to come out with me, meet the workers there and see how they feel about this notion of abandoning all support for industries that rely on that source of energy—a cheap source of energy? Probably not. I doubt she would accept my invitation to come out with me.

The notion of doing away with subsidies is at the heart of this great policy, which draws a line in the sand and provides certainty moving forward. It creates a situation where we will have reliable and affordable energy. It is something people have been calling out for—business groups, individuals down the street and people on the other side of the chamber. It's something they've wanted for so long. But here we are providing it, and all we get are complaints and criticism. No real analysis, just typical opposition tactics.

But the subsidies proposed by the opposition in their policy are $66 billion worth of subsidies to prop up the jobs that Senator Urquhart was talking about. That's what they cost. Who pays for that? The taxpayer. They're paid for through people's power bills! It's okay for people who live down in the capital city and who don't have to earn their money—

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Who pays for climate change? Your children!

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, this does honour our international commitments, taking Senator McKim's interjections. It does deal with that as well. But we seem to be hearing complaints from those opposite that it's all about one part of this debate. People need to turn their power on at home; they need power to live. Businesses need power to function. It's a simple thing that many on the other side seem to have missed. So I do urge senators opposite to go and familiarise themselves with the detail in the policy that was announced today and understand what it's all about. Grab a copy of the document and go and find out what it means to be committed to ensuring we have a reliable and affordable source of energy for our communities—

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where is it?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's right here, Senator McCarthy. I'll walk you a copy around shortly. But it's so important, and so drop the ideology and stand up for Australians and for what they really need. (Time expired)

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In this question time we asked the question, and it's a logical question to ask: given the Prime Minister's many commitments to various approaches to climate policy, and given how many times he has adopted a position and abandoned it at the first headwind, how can we trust him on this latest announcement?

This latest announcement—a three-letter acronym, the NEG—is the new thing we're all supposed to believe in. But why is this any different from the litany of programs adopted by the Prime Minister and abandoned the moment Mr Abbott raised his voice? I can run through them again. He was a supporter of the ETS, he was a supporter of the carbon tax, he was a supporter of an EIS, he was a supporter of a CET and he was a supporter of a RET. Now he's the supporter of a NEG. It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence, does it? We're now into the fifth year of this government—the fifth year in a period where there has been an investment strike. The day this crowd came into the parliament and assumed government they decided to abolish any coherent policy approach to dealing with climate change; and the investment community, quite reasonably, just didn't know what to do. Without clear policy settings about how we intend to address climate change as a nation, it is impossible to make rational assessments about how to direct your investment. And indeed that is what we have been told over and over again.

I was interested to hear Senator Duniam implore us to 'listen to the experts'. Well, I'll remind him of this: the experts have been talking to us for some time. The experts from industry, the expert academic economists and the expert market economists have been talking to us. And what they've been saying to us is, 'You need to put some certainty around the investment environment.' We have waited for four years and we're into our fifth year ,and now we're expected to believe that the NEG is the thing that is going to create that certainty.

I saw Senator Duniam waving around a glossy brochure, and I look forward to receiving my copy of that glossy brochure. I have spent the last hour and a half trawling the internet trying to find written down details of this policy that has been announced by a press release and, I understand, perhaps on a social media video from the Prime Minister. I think we deserve a little bit more than that. I think we need to understand the analysis and the modelling that lies behind the set of propositions that are being wheeled out now.

But I will tell you what I've been able to find out in the short time that's been able to me. This thing, this policy, involves an emissions guarantee. What is that? How will it work? We don't really know. We had some explanation read out rather laboriously by Senator Scullion. As far as I can tell, the actual target that will form the basis of this emissions guarantee is yet to be set. As far as I can tell from the reports being made in the media, this guarantee is something that is going to be 'worked through' in the lead-up to COAG. So, in fact, we've got absolutely no idea what it is that this guarantee represents. What part of the emissions reduction task that we are committed to in our Paris agreement will this emissions guarantee play? We don't know, because the level hasn't been set, and quite obviously the modelling associated with it has not been done.

It's the same with the reliability guarantee. What is the standard that is to be set? That hasn't been announced publicly and again, as I understand it, this is something to be 'worked through' as we approach COAG. This isn't a policy; this is a set of aspirations and a kind of plea that hopefully they can get together with state and territory governments and work something out as they approach the next COAG. Mr Frydenberg was asked today: 'How can you make these commitments about the cost to households, how can you make these commitments that costs will go down, if you have made none of the decisions about the actual targets to be established in this guarantee?' He responded in this way: 'The Commonwealth will be asking the AEMC to do detailed analysis and modelling of the specific proposal in the lead-up to discussions at COAG. We will provide, if you like, firmer estimates of those price effects. The price numbers you are referring to are based on, if you like, analysis and modelling of the market and the alternative schemes we have looked at in the past. It's an average over the 10 years.' Nothing there. Completely hopeless. All hot air.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The announcement this morning and this afternoon of the latest developments in the government's energy policy comes on the back of numerous other policy achievements. At the end of the parliamentary fortnight of this parliament four weeks ago the government successfully passed its media law reform package. In addition to that we've had success just this morning, today. The foreign minister has successfully argued and campaigned across the globe to make sure that Australia had a seat at the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Senator Urquhart's contribution was to reflect on Julie Bishop, the member for Curtin, the foreign minister, on how she wasn't completely aware of the details of this policy. Senator Urquhart did not even have the decency or the graciousness to acknowledge the great work the foreign minister had been doing with her No. 1 priority, which is, of course, managing the foreign affairs of this country.

But, ladies and gentlemen, we could have climate peace in our time, and it's beholden only to the attitudes of those on the other side, because there's a very, very clear choice here. They can choose to accept the expert advice, which was made clear in the blueprint which was laid out in the Finkel review—and I'll come to that in a moment—or they can choose not to trust the experts.

Senator McAllister interjecting—

Senator McAllister, some experts are more expert than others, I'm afraid. I suggest that the experts that the government has gathered together on energy policy are the right experts to be listened to. They are more expert than you, and, dare I say it, they are more expert than myself and than many, many senators in this place.

Before I get to the Finkel review, because this is very, very important—the Energy Security Board was a deliberate, conscious and well thought out recommendation of the Finkel review—Labor senators in this place have been keen to scoff at the suggestion that Australian residential energy consumers will be $100 to $115 better off a year as a result of the energy reforms of this government. They scoff at that. Let me remind you that under the carbon tax in my home state of Western Australia residential consumers would have been $134 a year worse off under Labor's carbon tax policy. All I do this afternoon is implore Labor senators to go back to the evidence.

For those of you who watch question time, you might recall that over the last few weeks and the last few months Labor has been quick to criticise the government for not accepting each and every one of the Finkel review recommendations. Today, the Prime Minister has announced, after very careful consideration, a plan that builds on a very specific recommendation of the Finkel review. To make it easier for people who might be listening at home or listening and watching in the gallery, all you need to do is go to page 26 of the Finkel review, recommendation 7.2 under the title of 'Stronger governance'. It makes it very clear. The Finkel review says:

The COAG—

the Council of Australian Governments—

Energy Council should immediately agree to establish an Energy Security Board to have responsibility for the implementation of the blueprint and for providing whole-of-system oversight for energy security and reliability.

It says:

• The Energy Security Board should be provided with the necessary funding to operate.

• The Energy Security Board should be comprised of an independent Chair, supported by an independent Deputy Chair, with the Chief Executive of the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Chairs of the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission as members.

As part of the same recommendation it goes on to say:

• Administrative support for the Energy Security Board should be provided by the Australian Energy Market Operator.

Why is that, recommendation 7.2, important? Because it is the Energy Security Board that has advised the government and recommended the National Energy Guarantee.

The government has chosen to trust the experts, because this is an area where experts can and should be trusted. For those people who are interested in a more thorough explanation about why it is that the Energy Security Board is necessary—and I invite Senator McKim to start with this in his contribution—you only need to go to page 157 of the Finkel review to see why this is an important and solid first step in providing reliable energy to Australian— (Time expired)

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

The worst-kept secret has been revealed today. Who would have thought that we would be in some way shocked to hear that the coalition government has decided to baulk on the Finkel review's clean energy target. The worst-kept secret that Australians have been waiting to hear has come to fruition. And not only has the Prime Minister turned his back on his own chief scientist, but, in doing so, he has embraced the former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's vision of Australian energy, which brings Australia's energy policy back to the 1950s.

But what is really, really unclear is what this new energy policy of the government is really all about, because we are hearing conflicting views when it comes to detail—as usual—from this Turnbull government. The AEMC CEO, Mr John Pierce, today told Sky News that there are indeed different modelling scenarios when it comes to the National Energy Guarantee. This is where Australians are again completely bewildered as to what this government's policy is.

We know that the Prime Minister and the energy minister have been spruiking an average annual power bill reduction of $115 under these new energy reforms. But now we hear from the AEMC's John Pierce that there are different modelling scenarios, and it may indeed be as low as $25 a year according to some confidential modelling. So what is the reality here? How can this government try and hoodwink the Australian people into believing there will be a saving of $115 a year when a very pre-eminent individual by the name of John Pierce, from the AEMC, who the government has been relying on, has made it very clear there are different scenarios and one scenario is as low as $25? That just completely blows this policy out of the water. And all of the rhetoric that Malcolm Turnbull, Minister Josh Frydenberg and the Leader of Government in the Senate, Senator Brandis, have been spruiking is why Labor today asked pertinent questions as to the detail of what this is all about.

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

You were the only one who asked a question.

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

Indeed I did ask questions, Senator Brandis, around investment in renewables and around investment in jobs—because we rely very much on analysis such as that done by Ernst & Young, which said Labor's 50 per cent renewable target will create 28,000 jobs, whereas Prime Minister Turnbull has turned his back on renewables and therefore turned his back on thousands of new renewable energy jobs.

So not only are we losing out on jobs, we're also losing out on the savings that this government continues to rely on because of what I have just alluded to in the Senate and made clear in the Senate—that the Australian Energy Market Commission's chair, John Pierce, has made it very clear that there are different modelling scenarios and, under one scenario, the savings for families will be just $25 a year in 2020. What a great policy this is that this government is trying to hoodwink the Australian people with! Well, the only one who is buying this policy, the only one who's probably cracking open the champagne right now, is former Prime Minister Tony Abbott—because, let's face it, he is the one who's still really running this country. He is the one that Malcolm Turnbull continues to capitulate to. He is the one, along with the other hard-right members in the coalition, who this government has completely sold out to. Senator Brandis, you should be ashamed and embarrassed because I know you're not one of those hard-right members of the coalition. But, in doing nothing and in going along with them, you certainly have sold yourself out, as has the Prime Minister. But you didn't only sell out what's important for Australia—to be a leader in energy and renewable energy, to have the right energy mix for the country; you also hoodwinked Australians in the process. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to renewable energy.

This policy that we have seen from the government today is perilously close to a clinically insane policy. We know that Australians want more renewable energy. Poll after poll shows that Australians want more renewable energy, yet this announcement, on the face of it, sounds the death knell for the renewable energy target and sells out every single Australian who wants to see strong climate action and wants to see more renewable energy in the mix. It sells out those Australians. It sells the Great Barrier Reef down the drain. It sells the Murray-Darling Basin and its ecology, on which so many regional jobs depend, straight down the drain—flushed after the Great Barrier Reef. It's worth pointing out that as we stand here today the Great Barrier Reef is dying, there are horrendous wildfires burning in Portugal and—hello!—there's a tropical cyclone bearing down on Ireland. Yet this is the day, of all days, that the Prime Minister announces he is selling renewables down the drain and is going to hop straight into bed with his mates in the coal sector. Make no mistake, this government has not only sold out future generations; it has sold out our climate for a few months respite from the climate criminals like Tony Abbott on its backbench.

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

Senator McKim, I remind you to refer to members in the other place by their correct title.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In that case, Deputy President, they've sold out to climate criminals like Mr Tony Abbott on their backbench. You have to ask yourself: how do those in this government sleep at night when they're selling the Great Barrier Reef down the drain and selling renewables down the drain with it? I've got an answer. I know how they sleep at night: on mattresses stuffed with hundred dollar bills donated by their mates in the coal industry. That's what this policy has delivered on today. It's delivered on the wishes of the coal industry in this country.

It's payday today for the coal industry in Australia. The fossil fuel industry donates millions of dollars to the Labor and Liberal parties in every election cycle, and for that money they get policy outcomes from the Liberal-National party such as those we've seen today. The LNP don't care about future generations, because they want the economy to work for the big polluters and no-one else. They don't care, because young people actually don't matter to them. We see that in housing policy settings and private health insurance policy settings and we've had it confirmed again today—as if we needed it—in the government's energy policy announcement. They don't care about young people today and they don't care about young people into the future. If they did they would be announcing policies that drove a more rapid uptake of renewable energy, a more rapid transition out of coal-fired power in this country. But they don't do that, because they only care about their massive donors in the fossil fuel industry in this country and their post-parliamentary careers in the fossil fuel sector.

This government is growing increasingly delusional. Those opposite are attacking Australia's biggest polluter, AGL, for not being pro coal enough. They are attacking Australia's biggest miners because they are moving away from coal. They're attacking the big banks because they don't want to risk their shareholders' money by investing in coal. This government has completely lost the plot. I am sorry to say that in this country energy policy is one of the major casualties of that losing of the plot. It is chopped and changed day to day. New thought bubbles are announced from week to week. Last week we had Tony Abbott sacrificing goats to volcanos, and this week we have Malcolm Turnbull asking, 'How high?' when Mr Abbott has told him to jump. Energy policy in this country is a disgrace and I apologise to future generations for the misery that announcements like today's are heaping on them.

Question agreed to.