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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Yesterday, the minister assured the Senate that, even with the Turnbull government's latest energy policy, 'the mix of renewables is up to 36 per cent by 2030'. What is the assumed annual growth in large-scale solar generation under the government's modelling?

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

I don't have the disaggregated figures, but, as I say, the estimated proportion of the energy mix represented by renewable energy by 2030 will be up to 36 per cent. Of that 36 per cent, the intermittent component, comprising wind and solar, will be up to 24 per cent. I don't have a disaggregation between wind and solar, but I can get back to you in relation to that. But, Senator, having responded as well as I'm able, the reason that the government has adopted this suite of policies—as you know, on the advice of the Energy Security Board, the experts best acquainted with the operation of the Australian energy market—is to serve the objective of lowering energy prices for Australian households. That is what they have advised us this will do.

But we're also mindful of other policy objectives, and there are two I want to take the opportunity of your question to mention. One, of course, of the other policy objectives is to ensure reliability of supply. We are not going to make the catastrophic error that the South Australian government made of including such a high proportion of renewables and, particularly, intermittent power sources in the energy mix that the system could not cope with it, resulting in the blackout we saw in South Australia last year. The other policy objective we intend to serve, and will serve by these policies, is to maintain our commitment to the Paris targets. That means, as you've observed, Senator Chisholm, in the premise of your question, that the proportion of renewable energy, including intermittent sources, will increase under the National Energy Guarantee, but it won't increase so rapidly that there isn't sufficient redundancy in the system to prevent blackouts.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question?

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

What is the assumed growth in wind power under the government's modelling?

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

That's essentially the same question you asked me before. As I said to you, I don't have a disaggregation between wind and solar, but what I can tell you is that the assumed proportion of the energy mix represented by intermittent power sources will be up to 24 per cent.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question?

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

Was the Liberal party room provided a copy of the modelling when considering the impact of the Turnbull government's latest energy policy yesterday? If not, why not?

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

Senator Chisholm, what I can tell you is that the Liberal party room yesterday was treated to a very, very extensive presentation by the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, and a briefing by Mr John Pierce and Ms Audrey Zibelman, the CEO of AEMO. We had a long discussion. It was a discussion, if my memory serves me correctly, that went for almost 2½ hours, in which all of the different aspects of this policy—the premises; the projections; the estimates; and the assessment of, in particular, the experts, Audrey Zibelman and John Pierce—were explored by many of my colleagues. As a result of that, I'm delighted to say the policy was adopted by acclamation by the government party room.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator 'Brand-arse', representing the Prime Minister.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, 'Brandis'. That's just how I pronounce it, Mr President.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Your question, Senator Whish-Wilson?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A key criticism of the National Energy Guarantee, the NEG, is that emissions guarantee is not linked directly to the absolute emissions needed to meet our Paris targets. I note that a long-term emissions reduction pathway is recommended by the Finkel report. The government has not provided any detail on the actual reduction in emissions that will occur in the electricity sector due to the National Energy Guarantee other than saying it will be in line with Australia's Paris targets, which you have said today. Can the minister inform the chamber specifically of the year-by-year reductions that will be required within the electricity sector to meet this target? If not, why, after five years of energy policy chaos and uncertainty, has this not been modelled and already established?

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

The position is precisely as I indicated. The National Energy Guarantee has been designed to ensure that Australia does meet its Paris targets. As you know, Australia has committed to a 26 to 28 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 which, as you should also know, represents one of the most ambitious per capita emissions reduction targets of any country in the world. The advice the government has received from the Energy Security Board—Dr Schott, Ms Savage, Mr Pierce, Audrey Zibelman, Paula Conboy, the five people who have more expertise in this field than any other five people in this country—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Poor old Dr Finkel!

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

is that the scheme they have designed, which the Prime Minister announced yesterday, will result in that very outcome. I will take that interjection, Senator Wong.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Senator Whish-Wilson?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order on relevance, Mr President. I was very clear. I asked what the year-by-year reductions would be to meet our Paris agreements and I asked the minister to explain, if he doesn't have that answer, why he doesn't have that answer after five years of energy policy chaos and uncertainty.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. I will remind the Attorney-General of the question.

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

Senator Whish-Wilson, that's what I'm able to tell you. I'm able to tell you that this model has been designed in order to meet the Paris targets, and it will meet the Paris target.

Senator Wong, you interjected before, 'Poor old Dr Finkel'. This is what poor old Dr Finkel, as you patronisingly called that gentleman, Senator Wong, had to say yesterday:

What we now have, and for the first time, is a strategy … We've previously had some tactical responses, we've had some policies to try and bring all these together—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, a point of order?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An additional point of order on relevance. Perhaps I could suggest something a little bit different: that Senator Brandis defer to Senator Birmingham if he doesn't know the answer to that question.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a matter for the Attorney-General. In addressing the point of order, the Attorney-General did remark that he was giving you the commitment to the Paris Agreement in his previous answer. But, yes, I do take the point that he is now addressing Senator Wong. I would remind the Attorney-General to address the question and not the interjection.

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

I'm taking the interjection, as I think I'm at liberty to do. Dr Finkel went on to say: 'What we have now, and for the first time, is strategy. We've previously had some tactical responses, we've had some policies, but by bringing all of these together we're finally taking Australia's energy future, backed up by gas and other elements of the electricity system, into a strategic zone and that's a great thing to see.' We welcome Dr Finkel's endorsement.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, none of us enjoy seeing your rulings being ignored. , as part of the Paris Agreement, next year the world will begin assessing progress towards the Paris target and start discussion around increasing the ambition of every nation's targets. This is called the ratchet effect. It has been reported this morning that the Turnbull government has essentially set a cap on its current Paris target of 26 to 28 per cent by this policy. Is this true? If not, how do you guarantee under the NEG to rapidly increase cuts in our emissions and meet new standards?

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

Australia's commitment to the Paris targets is as I have outlined to you. I haven't seen the statement made by someone you have referred to this morning. But, as I have indicated to you, the National Energy Guarantee has been designed to enable Australia to meet its Paris targets. As I also said in answer to a question from an opposition senator, by 2030 the estimated proportion of renewables in the system will be up to 36 per cent, which, you would acknowledge, is a significant increase on the percentage of renewables in the system now.

Senator Whish-Wilson, your party and mine have different outcomes. Our objective is to keep electricity prices lower. That is not your objective, and that is a big difference. Unfortunately for the Australian people, you've got the Australian Labor Party chasing you. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

David Blowers, in The Conversation today, stated that the National Energy Guarantee is a second-best option and that our previous working carbon price was the best policy option as it avoided the need for a complicated emissions and reliability guarantee. Your Energy Security Board has recommended that carbon credit units and international units could be permitted to meet a proportion of the retailer's guarantee. Minister, have you returned to carbon trading? What proportion of Australian emissions reductions will you allow to be achieved by international carbon credits? (Time expired)

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

No, that is not the case. If you want to quote third-party commentary on the announcement the Prime Minister made yesterday, might I direct you to the overwhelming weight of the commentary, which has been to support, and indeed applaud, the government's decision. In the Fairfax press, the economics writer Peter Martin celebrates: 'Out of the ashes of failed attempts, finally a chance to put the climate wars behind us.' Similarly in the News Limited press, the distinguished commentator Paul Kelly made the observation in his opinion article this morning that the only people who will object to the policy that the Prime Minister announced yesterday are people on the extreme edges of the debate.

That is a very good position for a government to be in. As I said to you before, Senator Whish-Wilson, our objective, of which we are not ashamed, is to keep electricity prices as low as we can get them.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister advise the Senate how the Turnbull government is delivering more affordable and reliable energy for Australian households and industry?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question, and I take the liberty of congratulating him on the fine maiden speech that he delivered to the chamber yesterday. The Turnbull government is taking the next step in our comprehensive action to deal with energy affordability in Australia and to guarantee the reliability and security of our energy markets whilst also meeting our emissions reductions obligations. We understand that households and businesses have been doing it tough and are doing it tough. That is why we have a comprehensive range of policies to make sure that energy price pressure is a downwards pressure and downwards movement.

We're powering ahead with our new National Energy Guarantee. As you've heard from Senator Brandis, this is a guarantee that can deliver more affordable, more reliable energy, whilst meeting Australia's international commitments. It will help to drive the right type of investment in Australia's energy market and generation—investment that can mean that every business and every household can have confidence that, when they flick the switch, the power they need is there for them to succeed and operate. It does so, reducing emissions, but without the need for complex subsidies, taxes, trading schemes or new government bureaucracies. It's a technology-neutral approach that will ensure, as you've heard, continued growth in certain renewables but will do so without it being at the expense of dispatchable energy that is essential for success in the market. It builds on the action we have already taken: action to reform retail markets and ensure retailers give consumers the best possible deal; action to reform network and distribution markets to stop those operating the poles and wires from gaming the system to the tune of billions of dollars; action to reform gas markets to drive down the spot price of gas and guarantee that gas is there when required; action to ensure that we have new generation capabilities that are dispatchable, such as pumped hydro coming on stream. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brockman, a supplementary question?

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister update the Senate on how business and industry have welcomed the Turnbull government's National Energy Guarantee?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This proposal has been widely welcomed and endorsed. The Grattan Institute has described it as:

… the last piece in the complex jigsaw puzzle of a credible energy and climate change policy for Australia.

BlueScope have welcomed it as delivering 'affordability and reliability', with needs which 'are considered equally', and saying:

We welcome this new approach because it's fair.

The Chief Scientist, who Senator Wong referred to earlier, has described it as 'a credible mechanism' from 'the country's most authoritative voice in energy matters'. AGL has said that it is a serious proposal to address reliability and emissions reductions. Manufacturing Australia, who I would have thought those opposite would care about, have said that it recognises the importance of renewables to reducing emissions but also prioritises affordability, security and a diverse energy mix. That is strong support, which is why those opposite should get on board and recognise that this is the way to deliver affordability and reliability, and meet our international commitments. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question?

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister outline how the National Energy Guarantee will meet our international commitments whilst lowering power prices for Australian families and businesses?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia's emissions per capita are at their lowest level in 27 years, as indeed they are per GDP. The Turnbull government has committed, as their predecessors did, to strong, credible, responsible targets to reduce emissions by a further 26 to 28 per cent against 2005 levels by 2030. Unlike those opposite, who have an unrealistic and unaffordable 45 per cent target, ours is carefully considered, balanced and calibrated to make sure our economy still continues to grow, whilst making it amongst the greatest and most significant per-capita contributions in the world. The electricity sector represents around 35 per cent of Australia's emissions. That's why it's important that we make sure there is a credible policy, as the National Energy Guarantee is, to ensure electricity reform drives down emissions intensity. But this cannot be at the expense of the reliability of energy, which is why a comprehensive, coordinated mechanism that deals with reliability as well as emissions is so essential, and that's what we're delivering. (Time expired)

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Birmingham, representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Adelaide business Plastics Granulating Services closed its doors in June after its annual electricity bill rose from $80,000 to $180,000, with the loss of 35 jobs—just one example of many. The CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, James Pearson, this week said that 'urgent action' was 'needed to prevent job losses and business closures' because 'many Australian businesses and consumers cannot withstand the burden' of high electricity prices.

Given that the government's National Energy Guarantee plan, if properly implemented, will take at least two to three years to deliver benefits, what immediate measures will the government implement to assist businesses and consumers in order to prevent many tens of thousands of jobs being lost in the meantime?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for his question. As I've just outlined to the Senate, the national electricity guarantee is the next step in a comprehensive range of action that the Turnbull government has already been taking to drive down electricity price pressures across the different parts of what is a complex supply chain.

Senator Xenophon well knows that across the electricity market you have retailers, distributors and wholesalers or generators, all contributing to the different price pressures. That's why our action has been so comprehensive. It is to engage with retailers, alongside the ACCC, and to make sure that consumers, households and businesses get the best possible energy deal, to ensure that people secure from their retailer something that will give them access to an electricity price that is more affordable than what they're currently paying. That's why we are investing in action to deliver better, more reliable energy sources in the future, such as Snowy Hydro.

It is why this chamber, this week, passed our reforms to abolish the limited merits review in relation to network distribution. I'm disappointed that Senator Xenophon was virtually a sole voice in this chamber, seemingly opposing or questioning the abolition of the limited merits review. The Labor Party recognised the benefits of doing so. I welcome their support in doing so.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Senator Xenophon.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was: 'What immediate measures will the government implement to deal with the impending job losses that the head of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has warned of in the meantime, before these measures take effect?'

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Xenophon. I think the minister was touching upon a measure that we can regard as being immediate, but I remind the minister of the question.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, and, Mr President, I had already addressed and outlined measures in relation to retail action and measures in relation to generation, and I was directly dealing with legislation this chamber has passed, action that helps to drive down prices by minimising what is an estimated $6.5 billion that energy networks have gamed the system by, driving up prices for households and businesses. And Senator Xenophon took the side of the energy networks in the debate, rather than the side of households and consumers. That was a remarkable situation to see. Now he comes in here and argues and complains on behalf of business. Well, we cared about business, which is why we have abolished the merits review, and at least the Labor Party supported us in doing so. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, a supplementary question.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ignore that misrepresentation. In terms of carbon emissions, yesterday's announcement only dealt with emissions in the electricity sector, which, the minister acknowledges, only make up one-third of Australia's total emissions. What are the government's plans in respect of emissions reductions in the areas of transport, agriculture and the direct combustion industry generally, including schemes to incentivise and reward the agricultural sector to reduce emissions?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Senate well knows and has heard me say before, every time Australia has set an emissions reduction target we have met it and exceeded it. That is what is going to happen in relation to our 2020 target, and we are confident in relation to our 2030 target. Senator Xenophon may not be aware, but on 24 March this year, the Turnbull government released a discussion paper in relation to meeting our 2030 emissions target which looks at the comprehensive areas of emissions activity. Yes, indeed, as Senator Xenophon recognised in an earlier answer, I recognise that around one-third of emissions come from the stationary energy sector and that the National Energy Guarantee, with its emissions guarantee built into it, will ensure that the energy markets play their role in delivering the least cost abatement to meet their share of our emissions reduction targets by 2030. The government already has in place a comprehensive process which will inform further policies to meet the remainder of the 2030 targets.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, a final supplementary question.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the absence of policies to reduce emissions in the non-electricity generation sector, does the government concede that this may mean that the electricity generation sector will bear a heavier burden in order to meet Australia's international obligations?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, the government doesn't concede that. The government believes that we have demonstrated in a range of ways over the years capacity for the Australian economy to meet emissions reduction targets, and that will happen once again. As I outlined before, our emissions per capita and per GDP are at their lowest levels in 27 years. We are on track to beat our 2020 target by some 224 million tonnes. The Emissions Reduction Fund, which the government has operated, has secured 189 million tonnes of abatement at just $11.83 per tonne.

We have taken other action in terms of legislating to phase out HFCs which will save millions of tonnes of emissions. We are consulting on vehicle emissions standards and, as I indicated before, we have a comprehensive process in place, sparked with the release of a discussion paper in March of this year, that will inform the remainder of the policies over the period to 2030 to ensure that all relevant parts of the Australian economy contribute to Australia once again meeting and probably once again exceeding emissions reduction targets. (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. Can the minister advise the Senate how the government's National Energy Guarantee will improve energy reliability and affordability across regional Australia?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for his question. The availability of reliable and affordable energy is absolutely critical to the success of Australia's regions. If we want to see our regions continue to grow, we need to provide confidence to businesses and families that the lights will stay on and that energy prices will remain affordable. Our regions are enormous contributors to Australia's economic growth. Australia's agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining industries, which are predominantly located in regional Australia, made up more than half of our merchandise exports last year. The gas and electricity that power our capital cities is produced in regional Australia. If we can't keep the lights on in regional Australia, our whole economy will suffer. That's why the National Energy Guarantee is so important.

This government is putting an end to years of energy policy failure and is providing certainty, reliability and affordability in the energy market. Our plan will put downward pressure on power bills and improve reliability by increasing investment in dispatchable energy supply. This will ensure that the local vineyard, the local IGA and the local baker can continue to grow their businesses, employ more people and grow our regions. As I said, people who live in the cities should thank regional Australia every day for their way of life. It will mean that local households can spend less money on electricity and more money out there supporting local businesses in their regions. Our plan will make sure that we can provide reliability and certainty, and we will help power our regions forward.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question.

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

Can the minister outline what other action is being taken to improve reliability and to reduce the cost of energy?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition is implementing a range of reforms to improve reliability and to reduce cost. Further to the announcement that we saw yesterday—which was very well received—we have secured an agreement from energy retailers to provide better, clearer and more information for households and businesses. We have secured agreement from gas companies to ensure there is enough gas for Australian consumers before any gas is shipped overseas. We have abolished the limited merits review, which allowed network companies to game the system and push up power bills. We've increased the scrutiny of the energy market with more funding to the Australian Energy Regulator and the ACCC to ensure that customers get a fair deal. And we have initiated an immediate one-off cash payment to almost four million Australians of $75 for singles and $125 for couples to offset rising power bills for the most vulnerable in our community.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question.

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

Can the minister explain what the consequence would be of failing to implement the government's National Energy Guarantee?

Fiona Nash (NSW, National Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I can. The consequence would be a return to the catastrophic policy uncertainty we saw under Labor. Over the last decade, Labor has adopted more than a dozen energy and climate policies from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the emissions trading scheme, the citizens' assembly through to the carbon tax—we all remember the carbon tax! The then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, promised there would be 'no carbon tax under a government I lead'—one of the biggest broken promises that we saw from the Labor Party.

The last time Labor was in office, electricity prices doubled, increasing by 101 per cent. People can pay higher prices under Bill Shorten, who wants $66 billion in higher subsidies and in more subsidies under his emissions reduction target compared to zero under the coalition. Zero! Whether it was Kevin Rudd or Julia Gillard doubling energy prices, or Jay Weatherill causing rolling blackouts, Labor cannot be trusted on energy policy. (Time expired)