Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Right now we are witnessing the end of an era. The sun is setting on the coal empire and we are transitioning to a new future powered by renewable energy. It's an exciting future, but it's well past overdue.

The government has been doing everything it can to slow this country's transition to renewable energy, and Australians are bearing the brunt of their failure. In the last few days, we've seen bushfires savage Tathra, Bega and south-west Victoria. We've seen a cyclone hit Darwin. In Tathra, we heard this morning that 70 homes and other buildings have been destroyed. Four people were treated for smoke inhalation and one RFS volunteer was injured. By all accounts, we are very lucky that more people were not hurt.

In my home region of south-west Victoria, 18 homes have been destroyed around the towns of Terang, Garvoc, Camperdown and Gazette; 40,000 hectares have been burnt and farmers have lost their livestock. I know a bit about this part of the world because it's where I live. It's where my family lives and it's where my community is. In our everyday lives we are seeing climate change have an impact on the risk of bushfires to our communities, and we can't any longer be complacent about bushfires once the end of summer comes around. Right now we would normally be talking about the end of the bushfire season, and yet here we are with bushfires ravaging my home state and, indeed, my community.

In Western Australia they are now calling their autumn a 'second summer'. And on the other side of the country, in the Top End, Cyclone Marcus has rolled through Darwin and, according to forecasters, it was the strongest storm to hit Darwin in 30 years. The impact has closed schools, it's shut down the public service and cut off electricity to tens of thousands of people.

Of course, we know that it's not just Australia that is feeling the impact. To pick one of many disturbing recent events, the Arctic has just experienced an unprecedented heatwave, forcing scientists to reconsider even their most pessimistic forecasts of climate change. Temperatures in Siberia were as much as 35 degrees Celsius above historical averages. I'll say that again: 35 degrees above historical averages. Greenland experienced three times as many hours above freezing than usual. We are seeing extremes.

In spite of this overwhelming evidence of the impact of climate change, what we're seeing is a Turnbull government dangerously wedded to coal. It's pushing against the tide of clean energy and all the benefits that brings. As we transition to a renewable energy future, we'll no longer be contributing to dangerous global warming as we generate and use electricity. It is that simple. We can start making this transition now. The good news is it brings so many other benefits to our community. By moving away from coal and taking advantage of clean, green renewable energies, we won't be emitting toxic chemicals like mercury and sulphur dioxide anymore. These are the poisonous gases that our communities inhale when we mine and burn coal. We know that coal has serious health impacts. We know that it leads to respiratory disease, it leads to heart disease, it leads to the development of some cancers and it leads to low birth weight in babies. There are so many good reasons to move away from dirty, polluting coal to clean, renewable energy that are beyond the advantages we get when we move to cleaner sources of energy.

Of course, there is the question of reliability. We won't be relying on unreliable, old coal-fired power stations that don't do the job in extremes of hot weather. Let's look at the facts. We've heard a lot questions about South Australia, but let's look at the facts of what happened this summer. During heatwaves in New South Wales last year, Liddell Power Station was unable to perform because two of its generator units failed to switch on due to unforeseen boiler tube leaks. On New Year's Day, Millmerran Power Station in Queensland stalled. One of the coal-fired power stations there stalled, taking out 156 megawatts from the National Electricity Market. In January, one of the four units of Victoria's Loy Yang A Power Station broke down, taking out another 230 megawatts. We could go on and on, but suffice to say we know that coal-fired power stations can't be relied upon to deliver power in extremes of weather.

These are old stations, well past their use-by date, and we know that it is now cheaper to build a new solar farm or more wind turbines than it is to build a new coal-fired power station. For years we've heard from the Turnbull and Abbott governments about the dangers of so-called intermittent renewable energy. They deceitfully blamed power outages in South Australia on renewables after wild storms, when the real cause of the blackout was downed poles and wires. It was a problem with transmission, not generation. That's just one of the many examples of the Liberal and National parties' denialist anti-renewable energy ideology. It also saw them spend obscene amounts of taxpayer dollars on the National Wind Farm Commissioner, for example, to listen to a range of debunked claims about the medical impacts, amongst other things, of wind farms. Imagine if that money had been spent in more renewable energy generation.

Of course, disappointingly for the government and their cabal of deniers, we know that when coal-fired power stations fail, it's not other coal stations that come to the rescue; it is renewable energy that manages to bridge the gap. When Loy Yang shut down without warning on 14 December last year, taking out 560 megawatts and putting the whole electricity network in danger, it was South Australia's big new Tesla battery that sprang into action to help save the day. It is renewable energy that is meeting the shortfall that occurs when coal-fired power no longer operates.

We also know that the coal industry is in structural decline. No-one in the private sector is building new coal-fired power stations anymore. It does not stack up economically in this day and age. We know the environment arguments are clear, but so too are the economic arguments. No-one is interested in investing billions of dollars into a giant coal-fired power station that we won't want to switch on in a few years' time. No-one wants to do it. No-one is interested in sinking capital investment into an ageing technology when the cost of renewables is plummeting. Investing in coal is about as sensible as investing in dial-up internet: there is no argument for it and the technology has moved ahead of it. Yet we have this government desperately clinging to the past—to the electricity equivalent of fax machines and typewriters.

We've seen our Treasurer wave coal around in parliament in a desperate bid to try and make it more popular. We've seen the minister for trade and also the then minister for resources, Barnaby Joyce, spruik Adani's dirty, great big coalmine to Chinese financiers. Most recently, we saw the returned minister for resources, Senator Canavan, talking about how Australia's coal is more beautiful than Donald Trump's coal. What sort of competition is that? It's not one we want to be part of. It doesn't get more farcical than what we've seen played out on the floor of this parliament over recent years.

The cost of renewables is plummeting. That's a good news story and something we should be embracing. If the Turnbull government had any vision, it would be positioning Australia to take advantage of this energy revolution that is sweeping across the rest of the world. We have so many natural advantages here. We live in one of the sunniest, windiest places in the world. We have abundant space. We have the technological expertise. We could be leading the charge, but instead we are an international laggard dragging our heels behind so much of the developed world.

Last year I thought we'd hit rock bottom when we saw the Prime Minister pressuring a private company, AGL, into prolonging the life of that decrepit, old coal-clunker Liddell. Liddell is something that's more at home in 1960s Soviet Russia than it is in a modern 21st century economy. Liddell is falling apart. It's hanging together with spit and string. AGL knows that it's a dud investment. It doesn't want to throw good money after bad in keeping it open. The company itself has said that it would have to invest nearly a billion dollars to keep it open for an extra five years, which would push up the cost of its output to around $106 per megawatt hour. This is the market responding to a Prime Minister who wants us to turn the clock back.

AGL now has a plan to replace Liddell with 1.6 gigawatts of renewables, plus storage and a range of other technologies, yet the Turnbull government and its state cronies are talking about dipping into the public purse to help Liddell stay open for another few years. It should be illegal to use public money in this way. Taxpayer dollars—dollars that belong to everybody—should be spent on investing in the things that we know are the foundations of a decent society: public health care and hospitals; public education and schools; and science and research. It should be spent on doing something about the growing gap between the rich and poor—reducing inequality—and ensuring everybody gets access to a social safety net and a decent education. We should be spending our hard-earned dollars on securing a long-term energy future that's based in renewables. We should be investing in the public interest, not on a handout that will burn our planet and make climate change worse. That's why it should be illegal.

The Coal-Fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2017 prohibits the Commonwealth from providing financial support to refurbish, or indeed to build, a coal-fired power station. It also prevents the Commonwealth from purchasing or assisting with the purchase or transfer of ownership of a coal-fired power station. The bill does make sure that the government can provide public money to transition affected workers into new industries and that it can use public money to manage the closure of a coal-fired power station. This is a transition that is happening and that will happen, despite this government trying to slow it down.

We have a choice. We can look after those workers in those industries and manage this transition in a way that ensures that their future is looked after as well, or we can leave them to the vagaries of the market, not manage the transition, and see workers left on the scrap heap. It is the Greens that want a just transition.

We know that no major financial institution wants to fund coal. Our experience with the Adani coalmine has made that abundantly clear. They simply can't find the finance.

The Turnbull government needs to listen to the science, listen to what the economics are telling us and listen to what the rest of the world is saying. Coal is obsolete; it has no long-term future, and we need to invest in those things that do.

Of course, we still don't know where the ALP sits on this issue. We certainly know where the Liberal and National parties do; we know that, for them, it's coal all the way. But we know that the Labor Party is also beholden to those vested interests in the fossil fuel industry—it takes major donations from the fossil fuel industry. We know that there's a revolving door between the parliament, for former members—Liberal, National and Labor—and their staffers, and big coal. That revolving door between parliament and the coal industry has never swung faster.

Well, we have a plan. We want Australia to run on 100 per cent renewable energy. We're proud of that fact. We have a plan to transition workers from coal communities into the jobs of the future. We want to ensure that people are looked after. We will re-regulate electricity prices to bring costs down and provide much-needed relief to Australian families.

I urge all members of this place—and, in particular, the ALP and the crossbench—to show some courage in supporting this bill. This is our opportunity to stake what it means to have a long-term future for future generations. This is our opportunity to say: 'The past is the past, and we understand what a 21st-century modern economy looks like. It's one that's powered by renewable energy. It's one that looks after people. It's one that ensures that, in any transition, no matter how difficult, those workers are looked after.' This is an opportunity for the Labor Party and the crossbench to take a stand against the dangerous Turnbull government's obsession with coal, and to ensure that we lay out a clear path for this nation.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens political party have been called many things, but, clearly, they are now a party in denial. If ever you'd wanted to know why the voters of Tasmania and South Australia and Batman have at last turned against the Greens, you've had a classic example now, with that speech of denial from the current Greens leader in the Senate. Fifteen years ago, when the Greens parties in Europe started to fail, I predicted then that the Greens political party in Australia would, not long after, follow suit. Following the result, even in Tasmania, can I say, and then even in South Australia, which used to be the Greens heartland at one stage, and now of course in Batman, the voters of Australia have eventually woken up to the hypocrisy and fraud of the Greens political party.

Let me start by asking Senator Di Natale, or any of the Greens speakers who might speak in this debate, this question I always ask and can never get an answer to from the Greens. According to the Greens, Australia's emissions of carbon are what's causing global climate change. I repeat that. This is the Greens' claim, and you've just heard Senator Di Natale say that: what Australia emits in carbon is why the world's climate is changing. It is an incontestable fact that Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. You can shut Australia down completely, stop our emissions totally, which in world figures is1.4 per cent, but what impact will that have on the changing climate of the world? Don't listen to my answer; listen to the answer of Australia's Chief Scientist who, when asked that question, said, 'virtually none.' Yet Senator Di Natale has spent 20 minutes trying to confuse the dwindling band of supporters of the Greens political party that somehow it's Australia's fault, and if we open up the Adani coalmine that is going to cause greater cyclones, huge floods and snow storms around the world. The Greens are completely hypocritical, and completely fraudulent, when it comes to this debate.

Even Senator Di Natale started off by saying the storm in Darwin is the biggest storm ever for the last 30 years, and that's the same with everything. The floods in Brisbane a few years ago were the biggest floods in Queensland since 1927. Cyclone Yasi was the biggest cyclone ever to hit Australia since 1918. These events have happened before, they will happen in the future, and nothing Senator Di Natale says will change that.

I ask Senator Di Natale to tell me how you and your Labor Party mates—well, you used to be mates—think by doing something in Australia we're going to stop world climate change? I'm fascinated to hear how, with 1.4 per cent of emissions, something we do in Australia is going to save the world. It is just nonsensical. It's a question I keep asking and no-one from the Greens political party has ever even attempted to answer the question on how Australia, which emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon, can possibly have any effect on the changing climate. Sure, when the rest of the world—the other 98.5 per cent of emitters—reduce their carbon emissions, then Australia should do something as well. But until then why are we destroying Australian jobs—the jobs of Australian workers? I used to think the CFMEU and the Labor Party were interested in them, but they are clearly not anymore. They go for the Greens' ideology, and I hope after Batman the Labor Party will at last realise that the Greens' message is failing and failing rapidly.

Please can someone from the Greens political party or the Labor Party, who seem to subscribe to this foolish fantasy, tell me how Australia, which emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, is affecting world climate change?

Senator Di Natale says renewables are the way to go. Certainly the government's position is that it is technology neutral for investment in the energy sector, and we've introduced legislation to remove the prohibition on the Clean Energy Finance Corporation from providing finance to carbon capture and storage projects.

I will point out to the Senate, and anyone who might be listening to this, that in all the world agreements on reduction in emissions Australia is one of the few countries in the world that has actually met all of its targets. It's done it mainly under Liberal governments by cleverly managing the economy, but not destroying jobs, and particularly not destroying the futures of other countries. Senator Di Natale rails in one breath against the Indian company Adani—there seems to be a bit of a racial tone to the accusations against Adani—and then in the next breath he will say how the Greens political party is always looking after those poor people around the world. Yet here is the chance for the poor people in India to get the electricity that Senator Di Natale has been using for the last 50 years —I might say it is coal-fired power electricity. Why do we deprive the poor people of India of that opportunity? And that's what the Adani project is all about.

We have unlimited reserves of high-quality, low-emission black coal in the Central Queensland area, where I come from, which is there to be exported to India, to establish new coal-fired power stations, to give the people of India the very limited luxury of electricity, which they don't have now. Senator Di Natale and the Greens would deny the Indian people this opportunity. The Indian people will get coal-fired power stations because they need it for their country to progress, but they'll get dirty coal from Indonesia and other places. They could get coal from Australia—a cleaner power, a cleaner coal—and that would bring jobs to Australians and help the Indian people. Yet, the Greens will never answer my question. I challenge anyone to come back to me in the hundreds of times I've asked this question in this chamber: how is it that Australia, which emits less than 1.4 per cent of the carbon emissions of the world, is going to affect climate change? I know I'm repeating myself, but I will keep saying this until the people of Australia—all of them—understand that it is not Australia's doing. Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent, and even the most revered scientist in the world—Australia's Chief Scientist—in Hansard in answer to my question: 'What impact would it have if we reduce Australia's emissions by 1.4 per cent?', answered: 'Virtually none.' This just shows the fraud and hypocrisy of the Greens political party and the voters of Australia are at last waking up.

Senator Di Natale talks about clean, green renewables. We all like that but, of course, when the sun stops shining and the wind stops blowing, how do we get power? The South Australian former government, the Labor government, had a great idea. They were going to turn on all these diesel fired generators, hundreds of diesel fired generators polluting the Australian atmosphere. It just shows the absolute hypocrisy and stupidity of the argument of the Greens political party and, I might say, their mates in the Labor Party on this. Sure, you have to have a mix, and under the Turnbull government we are getting that mix. We are encouraging renewables where they work and we are encouraging other forms of energy.

I know I'm old, but I remember the time when Australia's main competitive advantage in this world was that we had cheap power, because we are blessed with high-quality coal. It was that cheap power that in the fifties and sixties burst Australia to the head of the world economies. Now, unfortunately, because of the actions of the Labor Party, I have to say, more than the Greens political party, that is coming into difficulty. Senator Di Natale says Adani can't get money for their project. I don't know how he knows that—quite frankly, I don't either—but I suspect they do have the money. But why would you invest in any project in Australia? One government, the Liberal government in Canberra, and the Labor government in Queensland have said: 'Yes, this coal project in Central Queensland can go ahead, providing all these environmental conditions are met. it provides jobs for Indigenous people there. Yes, it can all go ahead.' So you invest your money and start the project on the basis of approvals given by the state Labor government and the federal Liberal government, and then Mr Shorten, to win votes in Batman, comes along and says, more or less: 'It doesn't matter what's happened in the past. If you invest your money, I'm going to introduce federal legislation to stop it.'

Why would you invest in a project when you have a government—an alternative government, I might say—saying to the world, 'It doesn't matter what the current governments, including the Labor one in Queensland, say; if I get into power I'm going to stop Adani, after they've invested all this money.' If you ever wanted a way of chasing investment in all of its forms away from Australia, you only have to look at Mr Shorten's stupidity in the recent Batman by-election. He was so keen to win that seat from the Greens that he just said anything that he thought might attract a few of the loony Greens voters over to his party, and he succeeded in that.

But in doing that, what's he done to the workers—the coal workers and the mining workers of Queensland, the state that I represent, the people up my way? The people of Townsville are looking to the Adani project, a project of billions and billions of dollars, to kickstart the economy of the Townsville region and the North and to provide literally thousands of jobs for CFMEU members—well, people who would be CFMEU members, although we know the statistics: the number of people joining unions these days has plummeted to nine per cent of the private workforce; only nine per cent join the unions. Why? Because the union they thought was looking after them—the construction, mining and forestry union—has sided with Labor and the Greens to deny them jobs in the mines, for no purpose. As I've demonstrated, it's not going to make one iota of difference to climate change. All it does is send Australia's jobs offshore and make our energy bill much higher than it should be.

The hypocrisy and lack of truth and rigor in the Greens' speech is demonstrated by Senator Di Natale's comment that 'No-one's building coal-fired power stations these days.' Well, sorry: in China there's about one new coal-fired power station built every week. And in India there are coal-fired power stations being built all the time. Even in Germany these days there is a new interest in coal-fired power stations. Why? Because with carbon capture and storage, with these new HELE plants, you can have the benefits of coal and affordable energy at the same time as grabbing particulates and other elements from coal that aren't as useful to the world as they should be. So, again, you've got to understand that the Greens are in denial. After the last awful couple of weeks that they've had, I can well understand that. But clearly the Australian voters have woken up to the hypocrisy, the stupidity and the outright lies of the Greens political party and have deserted the Greens in droves.

A lot of very positive action has been taken by the Turnbull government, and all credit to Mr Josh Frydenberg, the energy and environment minister, and Matt Canavan, the resources minister, led by our Prime Minister. We are taking a balanced and sensible look at Australia's energy needs. Under the Greens political party, now supported by the Australian Labor Party, power prices for ordinary Australians are skyrocketing through the roof. Yet we have this unlimited supply of high-quality coal in central Queensland, near where I live, which is readily available to give Australia that competitive advantage that it had in years gone by.

I know I'm being repetitive, but I want to again demonstrate this. I want to ask anybody from the Labor Party or the Greens political party to tell me how anything we do in Australia, which emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, is going to affect the changing climate of the world, assuming, as I do, that carbon emissions do have some impact on climate change—although I acknowledge I'm not one who gets into this debate, because I am not a scientist and I don't understand it, but I do know that equally qualified scientists have very divergent views on this same subject. But even accepting that carbon emissions have an impact on climate change, I asked this question of the Greens political party. I must have a look in Hansard, because I think I've asked this same question 100 times and, would you believe, never once has there been an answer. You don't have to be terribly bright—and I'm not terribly bright—you just need to have a little bit of common sense: Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions and, according to the Chief Scientist, even if we stop that completely—that is, shut down every car, turn off every light and stop any use of Australia's principal source of energy, which is coal-fired power—it would have, to quote the Chief Scientist, 'virtually no' impact on the changing climate of the world.

Do I think that perhaps today, after the flogging the Greens have received in the ballot box in the last few weeks, I will get an answer to that question? I suspect not. The Greens will continue in denial of the facts, of the truth of these matters, of the absolute common sense. The Greens want to reduce Australia's emissions by 50 or 80 per cent—I don't know what it is—but even if you reduce it by 100 per cent not one iota of difference would it make to the changing climate of this world.

This bill, which seeks to prohibit forever investment in coal-fired power stations, is just another loony lefty creation of a party not only in great denial but in steep decline in voter support. I'm delighted to say that my fellow Australians have eventually woken up to the hypocrisy, the lack of truth, the outright lies of the Greens political party and I am sure that they, like a lot of their theories, will be confined to the dustbin of history, and the sooner that happens, the better for Australia.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I feel as though I've heard this debate many times and I think we'll find some of the allegations and cross-allegations listed in Hansard over and over again over at least the last 10 years. Labor has long recognised that Australia needs to transition to clean forms of electricity generation. Our ministers in previous governments Greg Combet and Tony Burke, and now the shadow minister, Mr Mark Butler in the other place, have argued consistently that we do need to have a strong commitment to renewable energy. We have a strong set of policies, which are all on the record, which talk about why we need to have a commitment to achieve 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. That's consistent with the commitments and statements we made under the Paris accord. That is clear. We understand that we have to move energy production in this country. We need to work with community, with science, and with people in this place to ensure we don't have statements like we just heard, which completely debunk any kind of positive discussion or argument about how we can make this change.

We recognise the importance of ensuring this transition is a just one. We talk so much about the fact that we need to work with communities—particularly the communities that Senator Macdonald I think referred to in his contribution—that have been relying on the coal industry for over a century. You cannot make decisions about our community without engaging with them and ensuring that we have a just transition. We won't let coal power workers and communities be left behind, as we, a parliament, a government, actually tackle climate change. The inevitability of this transition is recognised. Finally, I think, we can say together that the inevitability of the transition is recognised by the energy industry and, as a result, the planned and managed phase-out of coal-fired power is something the industry accepts and includes in its forward plans. The head of the Australian Energy Council, Mr Matthew Warren, has previously said that new coal-fired power stations in Australia are 'uninvestable', a view held widely by companies and put about clearly in the finance sector. Put simply, the debate about what Australia's energy future looks like has really been won not in this place but in corporate boardrooms and communities across Australia.

Australia's energy future is one that is increasingly renewable, increasingly flexible, increasingly distributed and increasingly high tech. We are never going to go back to the old 20th century model of a central coal plant and passive customers; even if we try to put our climate change obligations to one side, which I believe I've heard debated in this place, we mustn't, we shouldn't and we won't. The fact is that renewable energy is the cheapest form of new electricity generation, and storage and energy management technologies are seeing advances and cost reductions that mean a reliable, affordable renewable energy system is well within Australia's grasp.

The current debate about energy policy isn't about a coal-fired future versus a renewables future. Though I believe that debate will continue to happen in this place, that is not the real debate. We must have a renewables future. The real debate is really about a well-managed transition versus a transition that is chaotic and costly, which is what the approach of the Turnbull government is delivering.

That does not mean that Labor are supporting the bill that's before this place this morning, the Coal-Fired Power Funding Prohibition Bill 2017. We don't believe that it's a sensible bill. We don't believe that it actually engages in the debate we need to have. The debate we should be having in this place includes the questions: how can the transition to clean energy be best managed? What policy framework best delivers a clean energy future whilst safeguarding reliability and affordability—that is, not denying that affordability and reliability can occur but actually safeguarding reliability and affordability? What must governments, at every level, do to ensure coal power workers and their communities see and are part of a bright and prosperous future? How can we ensure that renters and those in community and social housing can access the benefits of solar and battery systems?

We must also talk, in this place and in our communities, about how we are going to be part of the ongoing international discussion that is clearly outlined in the sustainable development goals—the sustainable development goals that our nation, with many others, signed on to with great protestations of faith two years ago. At least four of these goals are a core part of this debate and what we should be talking about in this place. We have goal 7: affordable and clean energy. That's what this debate is about—affordability and clean energy. It's also about industry, innovation and infrastructure: working with the people who have the skills, the ability and the finance to make sure we have the infrastructure, the innovation and the science that will ensure we have the strong, clean renewable energy future we must have. We must also talk about sustainable cities and communities—that is, ensuring strong, secure and effective energy processes so that people are not struggling, on a daily basis, with energy costs. We also need to have responsible consumption and production. Nothing is more central to this debate than responsible consumption and production—again, understanding the importance and the essential nature of energy in our community.

Goal 13 is climate action. I do believe that any debate about whether there is a link between carbon emissions and climate action should be over, though every now and then you hear echoes in this place about whether it is still open for debate. We know that there are people in the parliament that will continue to deny, continue to say that there is no link. Even if they don't understand the science, they believe that even if Australia took action it wouldn't make any difference, so why should we do anything? We have very clearly the partnerships for the goals for it to actually come together. These things provide the framework about which we can put our debate, about which we can make our policies and how we can bring communities along with us, so it's not just Australia involved in this debate but that it's debated internationally.

I think there are things in the bill we've got before us that overstep the mark. In their enthusiasm, the people who drafted the bill have been caught up into debates that are not really clear. The bill is not carefully worded. Its full consequences can't be known. The bill states that the Commonwealth must not provide financial or other support in connection with the refurbishment of coal-fired power stations. What does that exactly mean? Does it include the processing of approvals and licences or other regulatory processes? Does it include public research funding through universities or the wonderful CSIRO into technologies that might be used in connection with a future coal-fired plant refurbishment to reduce carbon emissions? What about the carbon price?

Even though the Greens voted with the Abbott Liberal opposition against Labor's carbon pricing scheme in 2009, they claim that they do support a carbon price. You must know that a carbon price provides a financial incentive for the refurbishment of coal-fired power plants to lower their carbon emissions and carbon pollution. Would this bill that's saying that there shouldn't be any engagement in this way make a carbon price unlawful because it would provide other Commonwealth support for the refurbishment of coal-fired power plants? The bill says the Commonwealth must not assist the transfer of ownership of a coal-fired power station. How about the regulatory processes that may be triggered by a purely private transfer of ownership? Is this bill saying that the usual regulatory functions of government should not apply to coal-fired power stations, simply because of the emission intensity of coal power? In certain circumstances, that is exactly what this bill would seem to deliver. These questions need to be asked and they need to be answered. We can't just have a flat political statement that people don't like coal power stations. We need a legislative framework that will respond to the needs that we have. The wording and the drafting need to respond to the real questions.

We've heard much about where this debate should be, and we heard Senator Macdonald wax lyrical about the strong reactions of the government. A strong admiration and respect and love of coal, which led to people bringing lumps of coal into this place, seem to still be the dominant features of the Turnbull government's approach to renewables and coal. Labor fought in 2014 and 2015 to block the government's then attempts to get rid of the renewable energy targets, which are the key element of what we have in our current system about renewable energies and our process. We have put our policies into the public domain. People know there's a strong commitment from Labor to renewable energy but there is not the same trust, the same acceptance and the same knowledge that the government has that same commitment to an effective renewable energy future.

Recently, Senator Di Natale talked about the issues around the Liddell plant in his contribution to the debate in the Senate. Two large coal-fired power stations have closed, with the federal government refusing to help workers and the communities deal with the impacts. This refusal goes directly against the obligation of the governments to deliver a just transition under the Paris accords. This was the opportunity for governments across the world to sign up to the Paris accords for a future that would see a transition from a coal-determined process to one that looked openly at renewables. A part of that has got to be bringing the workers and the communities along with the decisions so that there is what we talk about very openly, a just transition.

We know that industries across this country have been crippled by policy uncertainty and that the government have been key to delivering this uncertainty. You just know that no matter how many statements are made by this government about their commitment to renewables, there is this ongoing push within the government from certain individuals, who are very open in their views, that this will not happen, that somehow we in Australia have this special form of coal that is clean and that our clean coal doesn't need to be considered as the coal industry. In fact, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, the government has made very clear that they believe clean coal should actually be considered as renewable energy.

Within this space, this means that industries—the very people on whom we rely to work towards effective scientific change and to bring innovative practices as per the Sustainable Development Goals about innovation and production and the very people upon whom we rely to develop our industries—are confused and, in fact, crippled by this uncertainty from government.

We know, and we've talked about it in this place before, the Finkel review. The government came to this place and suggested that they would have the Chief Scientist look at the whole issue of energy and our. The Finkel review, on which $1.7 million was spent, then came up with recommendations and, after six months of these considerations, the government rejected much of what Finkel said. We had statements in this place calling for communities, scientists and people in this place to work together, to have a common aim and a common acceptance into the future, and the government said no. Instead of taking up the recommendations put out by Finkel, which had come through after many months of consultation all across the country—at Senate estimates we found out how many organisations and how many people with whom Professor Finkel spoke—we had the review and the recommendations, and then the government decided to take another road to the future. This was, obviously, one that was looking to a new future and that was looking very carefully at where we were going, and now we're concentrating on the National Energy Guarantee.

Again, we've talked many times in this place about the National Energy Guarantee. It came out as a very, very small document; one that could be easily read because there wasn't much in it. Now, as time goes by, and after the last round of Senate estimates, a bit more detail is being built around the National Energy Guarantee. But we've been able to find out that the scheme has been estimated to cut utility-scale renewable energy investment by a massive 95 per cent compared to today's level. Today, a report has been released which says that the NEG will deliver no additional renewable energy investment at all. If that is the result and if that is the planned future by this government, how can we be confident that we will see any just transition—a just transition to renewable energy, a just transition for workers and a just transition to security in our country? It just doesn't add up.

Labor continues to be committed to finding a cross-party framework to support the badly-needed investment to transition our energy sector and to deliver reliable and affordable energy. But we can't sign a blank cheque and we won't support a policy that strangles rather than supports transition to clean energy.

When it comes to the government's NEG or, indeed, to today's Greens bill, the real devil is in the detail. Neither the government nor the Greens bill have given enough thought to this or enough detail for us to be certain that they have an effective future for our country in their sights. That's why Labor won't support this bill and why we can't commit to a barely-thought-out NEG. We are interested in serious answers to the country's serious problems, and we just can't rely on short media grabs that talk one way or the other about what the magic result is going to be.

In Bangkok, in February this year, there was an international meeting based on the Sustainable Development Goals, looking at goal No. 7, which is the one around affordable and clean energy. This was an attempt to put a benchmark on what is happening across the world now. People from all over the world, people from all levels of industry, people who really understood not only the way energy should operate but the impact of energy on communities, came together at this meeting in Bangkok. This was a prelude to a further meeting which is going to take place in New York later this year where we will look clearly at an understanding that energy is inextricably interlinked with the whole sustainable development goal agenda, which is focused on poverty eradication.

Sustainable development goal No. 7 was the first ever universal goal on energy. A high-level political forum on sustainable development later this year will be considering SDG7 along with a range of other goals that look at what is happening on energy in our community. That forum will be occurring in New York. I'm really hopeful that Australia will be present at that meeting with information about what we have achieved—not short answers but clearly thought-out policy about how our nation is going to be part of the international response around the need for clean, safe energy for everybody, not just in Australia but around the world. This conference will be important. When Australia does go to that particular conference, I am truly hoping that we will not be having confusion about what our progress will be and lingering doubts among people across this chamber about whether there will be a renewable energy future. I am hopeful that we will be part of a global response so that we will be able to have respectful debates in this place but bring our community along behind us so that a just transition to renewable energy will occur in this place and across the communities and we won't be leaving anyone behind.

Debate adjourned.