Alex Gallacher (SA, 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 Gallacher, Chisholm and McAllister today relating to energy policy.

I just want to put on the record at the outset what we are talking about when we refer to energy and electricity prices. The National Electricity Market generates 200 terawatt hours of electricity annually and supplies 80 per cent of Australia's consumption. We know it operates on one of the world's longest interconnected power systems—from Port Douglas in Queensland to Port Lincoln in South Australia. Given the length and breadth of that network—and I keep returning to this—occasionally there are outages which are caused by weather events. Despite Senator Brandis's attempt to portray all of the ills that occurred in South Australia on wind, solar and the like—renewables—we know these outages were caused by a once-in-50-years storm at one end of a 5,000 kilometre network. You can't be allowed to keep putting the falsehood on the record that it was a decision of the South Australian government that caused those power outages. The public record is clear: it was the Olsen government in South Australia that privatised, it was the Olsen government that sold the network. The Olsen government sold the South Australian public a dud with one interconnector and refused the RiverLink interconnector.

It is really important to note that in the National Electricity Market the generators offer and then the market determines the combination of generation to meet demand in the most cost-efficient way, and the AEMO then issues dispatch instructions to these generators. What we also note from the public record is that the only one that's ever been fined for not following those instructions is the Snowy Hydro Scheme, which is owned by the federal government, the Victorian government and the New South Wales government. This is on the public record—a $400,000 fine. This lot over here created the National Electricity Market. They actually used to believe in a free market. And now what do we see? We see the Liddell power plant, with 20 per cent of New South Wales's generating capacity, at the end of its 45- or 50-year life and a Liberal government is stepping in and telling a private company with shareholders what to do with their fully depreciated asset.

That goes to the political point here. They used to believe in one thing and now they believe in another. The Prime Minister has moved consistently; that's the only thing he's done. He's shifted his position consistently, in line with the division in his caucus room, in line with pressure from the Nats. We saw on the weekend another catastrophic result for the National Party in the bush. There was a 20 per cent swing against them. We see this dysfunctional, divided government not making public policy and sending their caucus out to an electorate to say, 'In 2020, you'll save 100 bucks a week.' That's not going to fly. No-one is going to buy that. You might save 50c cents a week! For the people who are under pressure with their electricity bills, that is an absolute insult. I think the polls we have seen will be repeated all the way up to the next election.

This government will get its just desserts. Its just desserts are a number of terms in opposition for the dysfunction they are displaying, the lack of proper pragmatic policy and the lack of bipartisanship in putting energy security for Australian manufacturing and Australian consumers at the forefront of their policy. They are putting their own survival first. The Prime Minister is putting his survival first and Australia's needs second. In manufacturing, there are areas where electricity is 18 or 20 per cent of their costs. This government is not putting forward a coherent long-term policy that would allow investment to deliver the continuation of the manufacturing sector—in plastics, in cement.

We know that this government is only concerned about survival. What we also know is that the electorate has made its mind up, according to the polls. We are now at 21 polls which haven't gone their way. We'll get to 30 or 31 with or without Mr Turnbull—it ain't gonna make any difference. The only thing that will solve this crisis is the re-election of a Labor government and giving the coalition what they deserve, which is a couple of terms in opposition.

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

The previous speaker was nearly right when he blamed weather events for South Australia's power debacle. What he should have said was that it was a Weatherill event, because Premier Weatherill is responsible for what occurred in South Australia. Make no mistake. On one day, with renewable energy, South Australia got 91 per cent of its energy needs; two or three days later, only three per cent.

That is why this government has identified the need for a reliable energy supply. And that is why we have called our policy the National Energy Guarantee. What we need is reliability of supply along with affordability.

The extreme green experiment by the Australian Labor Party in South Australia has failed, and failed dismally. It has cost thousands of people in South Australia, their households and their businesses.

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

Households! What are you talking about?

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

It has been a disaster because when the power goes off, Senator, freezers go off and the food in the freezer goes off, and they've got to rebuy food. These are the basics that every single Australian household knows about, but Labor senators opposite are completely oblivious to these day-to-day needs and requirements. That was a very helpful interjection because it shows how disconnected the Labor Party of today is from the needs of the Australian people.

We as a government have said and said very clearly that affordability is No. 1; reliability is No. 2. And this is what this policy delivers. It was interesting that Senator Gallagher, as he is from South Australia—it is bizarre that he would lead the charge, given the track record of Labor in South Australia, but that aside—led the charge trying to quibble about the savings that Australians would get from our policy. Interesting. But he did not deny that there would be savings. All he was quibbling about was the extent of the savings. In doing so, what did he studiously avoid? He studiously avoided the cost of Labor's policy, a 50 per cent renewable energy target, which, in anybody's language, would drive up energy prices and cost jobs. There is no doubt. So the Labor Party, in seeking to quibble about whether it will be $115 or $100 per annum saved, acknowledge that there will be savings under the coalition policy. What they won't tell you is the huge cost increase under their policy.

We know that the Labor Party are addicted to the carbon tax schemes of high taxes, high subsidies and high prices, and then, if people have to pay too much, you tax other people more to give subsidies to pensioners, and so the list goes on. We have a deliberately focused policy, not about a money-go-round, not about idiotic ideology of pursuing renewable energy at all costs. We are having a balanced policy, which the Labor Party now acknowledge and admit will reduce energy prices. All they're arguing about is the extent of it. So I welcome that concession from the Australian Labor Party. But what they do need to tell the Australian people is what the extra cost of their policy will be. They know there will be an extra cost, because they continually talk about the need for increased targets—in other words, read increased subsidies, increased costs paid for by the taxpayer and paid for by the consumer.

This is the great juxtaposition that the Australian people now have in the debate over energy policy in this country. They have a government committed to affordability and reliability, something which the Australian Labor Party now acknowledges will drive down energy prices in comparison to a Labor government that would say, 'We have tried and failed in South Australia and, with that knowledge, we would seek to implement that on a national scale.' It is not good enough for the Australian people.

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

I rose yesterday after question time and we'd only had about an hour and a half to digest the announcement made by the government about energy. I suggested that, on the face of what we'd seen, this was a half-baked plan that was barely worked through. I said that because yesterday in question time, over in the other place, it became clear that the government had not prepared a regulatory impact statement and had not undertaken any actual modelling of the proposal that they were bringing before the Australian people. Indeed, if you looked at the fine print of what people were willing to say in their media interviews, all of these finer details, including the commitments around the intensity of emissions and the commitments around reliability, were to be worked up in the lead-up to COAG. It started to look like this was something they cobbled together because of a deadline that was coming upon them this year when the Prime Minister said we would have energy as the defining debate in this parliament. It's nearly Christmas and I suppose they had to do something, but they really weren't ready to go out yesterday. Nothing I have seen since this time yesterday has given me any reason to change my mind.

The government's been keen to talk about experts and to talk about the role of Dr Schott and Mr Pierce in particular. They are both people for whom I have great respect. But both Dr Schott and Mr Pierce actually blew the whistle on this show yesterday because Dr Schott did an interview last night and she was asked, 'Will prices go down? Is the government right when it claims that prices will be reduced by $115 per household?' She refused to endorse the claim. She refused to endorse it for the sensible reason that there has been absolutely no modelling done that could possibly support such a claim. I am extremely surprised that the government has been willing to go out so strongly on this question because I do believe it will come back to haunt them. Mr Pierce was similarly candid. What did he tell the media? He said that there'd been a range of scenarios that had been modelled and they produced, unsurprisingly, different results. Some of those results were as little as just $25 a year in savings for households in 2020. These experts that the government has been so keen to rely on have been disarmingly candid in their assessment about this plan and it reveals what I remarked earlier: there is no plan yet. There is a bunch of vague ideas that are going to be worked up in the lead-up to COAG.

Today in question time, I sought to ask the government about their approach to renewables because, all around the world, investment in renewables is growing at an incredible rate. The IEA reported earlier this month that, globally, renewables accounted for almost two-thirds of the new power capacity in 2016. Where are the biggest markets for renewables? They're in China, India and the United States. They are the three big markets in our region and the three big partners for Australia. Those countries, the big economic players in our region, are moving towards renewables so why wouldn't we ask the government to explain what this plan means for renewables investment in this country? Senator Brandis chose not to explain. He ducked the question. He refused to engage with my premise—fair enough—but he provided no alternative premise. In fact, I have not heard one single member of the government provide any credible explanation of what is expected for renewables investment on the basis of this new scheme that they've brought forward. It's not surprising that there are no details, but why bring such a half-baked proposition before the Australian people?

I will say one final thing. There is going to come a time when these details are going to have to be put into the public domain. You can't go on like this with a series of slogans forever. At some point you're going to have to turn up at COAG and, I'll tell you what, state premiers are not going to be forgiving. That will be on both sides of the aisle. There are a bundle of contradictions in the proposition that you've brought forward.

You've told the conservatives in your party room that this might deliver on their great hope there will be new investment in coal. You've told everybody else that, sure, this will deliver on the emissions reduction targets that we made in Paris and, not only that, the energy sector will do its fair share and we won't leave it all to the trucking sector or the farming sector. And you've told the Australian public that prices will come down. I'm looking forward to seeing you square that circle, because on the basis of what we've seen I don't believe you can. (Time expired)

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do believe that the opposition has been left quite flat footed on this issue. The opposition has been left with their mouths gaping open, devoid of any answers, devoid of any ideas. This clearly was not a policy that they were expecting, largely because they have been so wedded to a clean energy target for so long for reasons that range from political necessity—obviously you're sandbagging your inner-city seats from your frenemies the Greens—to a lack of imagination and an inability to listen to consumers, to households, to businesses or to investors about what is important to them.

The National Energy Guarantee delivers affordable energy. It delivers reliable energy. It meets emissions targets and meets our international obligations. It's hardly a half-baked idea. In fact, those opposite have been urging the government for months now to present an answer on the clean energy target. The Finkel review came out in June. We have implemented 49 of the 50 recommendations, including, I might add, establishing the Energy Security Board. The 50th recommendation, which was the clean energy target, has been considered. We have done our due diligence, and the Energy Security Board has come up with a solution that we believe meets all of those requirements and all of those objectives.

Unlike the habitually uninformed Senator Gallacher, I am going to accurately quote an expert in this field. It was the Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, who said of the Energy Security Board:

Consisting of the energy market regulators and an independent Chair and Deputy Chair, it is the country’s most authoritative voice in energy matters.

…   …   …

I am pleased that the Australian Government asked the Energy Security Board to provide advice on this matter.

…   …   …

I know from consultations with the Energy Security Board in the later stages of the development of the new proposals that the process was thorough.

I don't think you can get a more ringing endorsement of this plan, unlike Labor's plan—or lack of plan. Labor has no plan at all for reliable energy. It is a policy one-trick pony. They cannot think beyond the world of subsidies and taxes. They want to impose reckless and irresponsible renewable energy targets that would drive up prices and undermine reliability. They want to take the failed South Australian experiment and they want to take it national. They've given no thought at all to reliable energy needed to keep the lights on when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Their plan to give billions of dollars of subsidies to pursue an ideological crusade will only leave families, households and businesses paying more. The cost of this lunacy could be as high as $66 billion.

Most importantly, though, the National Energy Guarantee encourages the right investment in the right places at the right time. Threaten what you will, Senator McAllister, from Labor premiers at COAG; that is entirely inappropriate. This is an opportunity for the flat-footed opposition to take a big leap forward with those flat feet, an opportunity for the crossbench to break free of the uncritical groupthink, and consign the energy wars to the past. We can secure energy supplies, we can keep the lights on, we can bring prices down, we can ease the burden on hip pockets, we can reduce emissions and we can meet our international obligations.

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

I want to record for the chamber the fact that members opposite again today have repeated the claim that the privatisation of networks in South Australia is the cause of higher prices in South Australia. Unfortunately for those opposite, that claim that privatisation has caused the high prices has been shown to be completely false by the report of the ACCC out just in the last week that showed:

The main cause of higher customer bills was the significant increase in network costs for all states other than South Australia.

It goes on to say:

The ACCC estimates that in 2016-17, Queenslanders will be paying the most for their electricity, followed by South Australians …

And they highlight that in Queensland the network is still owned by the government and that the most significant input to the cost to Queenslanders was the network cost. They go on to say:

The closure of large baseload coal generation plants has seen gas-powered generation becoming the marginal source of generation more frequently, particularly in South Australia.

What that means is that, when those peaking plants have to come on in South Australia, the costs go up. (Time expired)

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

Senator Chisholm, five minutes, thanks.

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

I certainly wouldn't accuse the government of being flat-footed on energy; in fact, they've been very fleet of foot, because they've had so many policies over the last couple of years. I think we have to go back and look at some of the history of this. We know that, as Prime Minister, Tony Abbott promised that bills would reduce by $550, yet we know how much they've gone up under this government. We know that under the time line that we can see from Finkel, the government and the Prime Minister and indeed the energy minister were out there advocating for this. They were in the party room advocating for this. They did another PowerPoint presentation advocating for Finkel. It sounds like they went back yesterday and leapt onto their latest plan. We also recall the gas crisis that we've had over the last couple of months that still the government haven't solved. We also saw them, a couple of months ago, talking about Liddell and saying that Liddell power station had to be extended. So they certainly haven't been flat-footed; they've had plenty of policies, but none of them have actually worked.

The saddest thing I've heard in the last 48 hours about this policy is them saying that it was carried by acclamation. It was this mob that clapped this policy. And it's a fig leaf of a policy. It is an absolute joke. They have no credibility. And they've had to roll out the board to give them some credibility because they have done so much damage to their own standing on policy on this issue.

I think it's worth looking at what their motivation is in this. Effectively, in trying to come up with a policy, they've had zero regard for families; they've had zero regard for jobs. But what they have focused on in this policy is keeping the right-wingers on their backbench happy and coming up with a political message that they want to use for an election campaign. This has got nothing about long-term policy for Australian families and jobs. They're all trying to keep their backbench happy and come up with a political message. That is actually what they have been focused on with this policy.

The fact that they've had to attempt to use the security board to provide that fig leaf of credibility shows you how desperate they are. But that's actually the start of the unravelling, because it has been those members that have undermined their claims on costs; it has been the security board members that have undermined their claims when it comes to modelling. This is why the policy will start to unravel, and this is why those right-wingers on the backbench—those ones who are pro coal; those ones who want to live in a previous lifetime—are going to start to realise that they've been hoodwinked, and that is when these problems of the government are going to emerge. The Nationals will be the ringleaders in this, but so will some of those backbenchers in the Liberal Party. So it's a policy that was designed to basically hoodwink the backbench—to give those pro-coal backbenchers something that they wanted to hear so that they could back this policy in. It actually is a very sad outcome that they just sat there and clapped this through without questioning the modelling behind it or the details, because obviously those have been lacking.

It really is a farce when you think that, in question time, the Prime Minister wouldn't even guarantee a 50c-per-week reduction in 2020. Senator Brandis, heroically, tried to deflect that question. But, in question time in the House of Representatives, Prime Minister Turnbull wouldn't even guarantee that 50c reduction. To make matters worse, the very people who advised the government on the new energy policy say that there hasn't been any modelling done to gauge the real price impact of their plan. That just shows you how farcical this is and how desperate this government is.

We also know that for many months now the Labor opposition have had the hand of bipartisanship out and have been prepared to work on a clean energy target, and it speaks volumes that this government wouldn't entertain that. They were dictated to by their backbench. They did not want to end the climate wars. They did not want to have a long-term bipartisan policy that would benefit families, that would benefit jobs and that would benefit the economy. Their focus is on politics. The focus is on trying to keep the backbench happy. But it is going to unravel, because the motivation for this policy is not the Australian people. It is not about providing the outcomes that Australian families and communities need, nor is it focusing on jobs and reliability.

Question agreed to.

Peter Whish-Wilson (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 Whish-Wilson today.

Like goats to the volcano, these are the days of the 45th Parliament. Let's not forget that this policy backflip, this reversal, this capitulation started with a speech last week in the UK by the former Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott, where he came out and said, in simple language—

Senator Brandis interjecting—

I know that you weren't happy with it, Senator Brandis—that climate change is crap. He talked about goats being sacrificed to volcanos, as well as being thoroughly disrespectful to climate scientists. The big question we need to ask ourselves about the policy that's been announced in the last 24 hours is: if it's so good and it's got the backing of so many experts and it's the solution to all our problems—political problems, reliability problems, price problems and emissions problems—why has it taken five frigging years to get it into this chamber? Why has it taken this mob five years to come up with a policy? We've had five years of policy chaos, five years of policy uncertainty. I'll tell you why—and I'll come back to goats and volcanoes.

I am not going to show you this prop, Madam Deputy President, but I do want to read from one of my favourite cartoonists, Jon Kudelka, who also happens to be a very famous proponent of Tasmania. In his cartoon today, he has a picture of the Prime Minister, who looks like a goat. He's on the edge of a volcano, and he's saying:

"That was my last goat," spake Malcolm. 'Art thou appeased, Great One?'

Inside the volcano is a ghostly, smoky apparition of Mr Tony Abbott:

"MORE GOATS!" screamed the volcano goat.

Well, there you have it. That's why we have had this capitulation in policy today. It is a capitulation that incentivises more burning of dirty coal, keeping uneconomic, dirty coal plants open for longer. It is a plan that will kill investment in renewables in this country—investment that requires long time horizons, long-term contracts and long-term certainty. It is a policy backflip that will further undermine our global reputation in the fight against climate change. We know that key criticisms of this policy reversal have been raised—criticisms that are very important to us in terms of our meeting the Paris Agreement and the spirit of the Paris Agreement.

Senator Williams interjecting—

What this means—for Senator William's benefit, through you, Mr President—is that we get together every couple of years with the others who sign the Paris Agreement and we agree to tighten our targets and increase our efforts to tackle global warming. That's what we agree to do. This policy reversal puts a ceiling on our Paris commitments. That's what this does. That's the red meat that has been thrown to the volcano god by our Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Turnbull.

Speaking about goats, sitting here during question time reminded me of an excellent book that I read by Mr Jon Ronson called The Men Who Stare at Goats. Let me tell you about this book. It's a true story. It's about a secret operations group that was set up by the US military to try to empower operatives with extrasensory perception and special powers. One of the things they did was stare at goats, hoping that if they could concentrate their powers on staring at goats then the goats would die. Interestingly enough, one did actually die during the experiment, and that's outlined in the book.

The metaphorical example here is a very real one. This government can stare as much as it likes at climate change action and pretend that climate change is going to go away, but it won't go away. The oceans are warming, the reef is dying, and we are seeing unprecedented extreme weather. We need to go further than our Paris agreements. This is not an answer to reliable energy, cheap power or climate; this is an answer to saving Malcolm Turnbull's political bacon.

Question agreed to.