Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today 34 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the letter from Senator Payne proposing the following matter of public importance was chosen:

The refusal of the Prime Minister to stand by his election promise that Labor's policy, based on "the most comprehensive modelling ever done for any policy by an opposition in Australia's history since Federation," would "see electricity prices fall from the current level by $275 for households by 2025".

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers for today's discussion. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my good friend Senator Payne, who I've known a long time, for proposing this MPI. This is what the matter of public importance is: the need for the government to adopt a plan to ease pressure on cost of living for Australian families and small businesses now—not in October but to actually address the issue now, because we know that Australians are facing those cost-of-living pressures today. We know that because of the economic statement released last week and also the most recent inflation figures. Australia now has, for the year ending 30 June 2022, an annual inflation rate CPI of 6.1 per cent. This is the largest CPI rate since the Australian government introduced the goods and services tax. Even if you take out some of the outliers in terms of the inflationary pressures and trim it down, the trimmed mean inflation rate is 4.9 per cent. Even if you take down the factors which are pulling that inflation rate up to 6.1 per cent, and maybe on the other side pulling it down—so you take the trimmed mean inflation rate—it's at 4.9 per cent. That's the highest level since that particular measurement was actually used from 2003—so the highest level in nearly 20 years. The forecasts are even more grim. The Treasury forecast is that by the end of the year Australia will be facing an inflation rate of 7.75 per cent; that's the forecast for the end of the year.

Australia is crying out for a government that has a positive plan that will actually counter these inflationary pressures, and we simply do not have it. In fact, we have the contrary. At a point in time when Australia is facing these inflationary cost pressures, what is the obsession of those opposite? The obsession of those opposite is with the Australian Building and Construction Commission—gutting the powers of the ABCC and then ultimately seeking, when they take the time to actually present legislation to this place, to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. That will actually feed into inflation, and you don't need to believe me; you can look at an independent report that was put out by Ernst & Young. The ABCC is the cop on the beat at our construction sites around Australia. And the work they do is incredibly important in terms of keeping those construction costs down for our schools, for our roads, for our hospitals and for our important social infrastructure. The result of abolishing the ABCC would be to increase those construction costs.

I quote from a study released by Ernst & Young in relation to their economy-wide modelling, in relation to the impact of abolishing the ABCC:

Key economic costs indicated by the modelling involve:

Why would you introduce that sort of policy in a high inflation environment? What is the sense of it, apart from providing a sop to the CFMMEU? There's no sense to it in this environment. It's entirely the wrong thing to do if you want to take those cost pressures off the Australian economy.

Ernst & Young says:

Overall economic activity—

as a result of Labor's policy—

could decline by $47.5 billion by 2030 as higher costs and lower productivity act as a handbrake on other sectors.

So those costs that will increase through the construction industry, as a result of the Labor government's policy to abolish the ABCC, will infect all sorts of sectors across the whole of the Australian economy. It goes on:

If the ABCC were abolished—

and that is what the Australian government's—the current government, Albanese's government—intention is—

this could lead to a total economic loss of around $47.5 billion, compared to baseline estimates, to 2030.

'Employment and labour costs impacts'—Ernst & Young go on:

The construction industry is one of the largest employers in Australia, employing almost 1.15 million people. The industry also directly supports jobs in other Australian industries such as timber, steel, and cement manufacturing.

…   …   …

Modelling suggests that abolishing the ABCC could cost the Australian economy up to 4,000 jobs. Job losses are felt immediately as output in the construction industry falls and labour costs rise.

Then there's the fiscal cost, when every school, every hospital, every road project, is going to cost an estimated 30 per cent more because of the lawless behaviour of the construction division of the CFMMEU, whose representatives sit around the Labor Party's national executive. And as a result of those costs—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Urquhart, a point of order?

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the MPI specifically talks about electricity prices. I haven't heard one mention of any electricity. I've heard a beat-up on unions, I've heard a beat-up on the CFMMEU, I've heard him talk about the ABCC, but there has not been one mention of anything to do with what's in the MPI that was proposed today. So I would ask you to draw the senator's attention to what the MPI is based on and ask him to point his remarks to that point.

The Deput:

Senator Scarr, do you wish to make a submission?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm absolutely happy to talk about electricity costs. I didn't see the $275 supposed saving, which is going to flow through to electricity users across Australia. It was promised by the Labor Party during the campaign. I saw absolutely no mention of that when the Governor-General attended this place and gave his presentation in relation to the Labor Party's agenda in government.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Scarr, you've moved on from the point of order, have you?

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, return to your speech. Thank you, I was just clarifying.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The caravan moves on. I saw absolutely no mention of electricity price savings for the Australian consumer when the Governor-General attended in this place, last week, for the opening of this parliament and, effectively, laid down the government's agenda, absolutely no reference to that $275 electricity price saving. And I will be happy, Senator Urquhart, to come back to that $275 supposed saving that those opposite are going to deliver to Australian electricity users every week this parliament sits, between now and the next federal election, because I do not believe that you will deliver that cost saving in this inflationary environment. I don't believe you're going to deliver that cost saving at all.

It will be fascinating to see how the construction costs, which are going to blow out as a result of your policy with abolishing the ABCC—it's going to be very interesting to see how those additional construction costs for every single transmission tower that is built in this country will cost more, approximately 30 per cent more, as a result of your abolition of the ABCC. That's what's going to happen to electricity costs. That's what's going to happen, because those construction costs feed into every single cost across the whole of the Australian economy, including electricity prices, because you've got to get the electricity from point A to point B. When you construct your solar panel farm, your windfarm—whatever it is, in terms of renewables—you've got to construct the transmission lines, and that's where the construction costs are extraordinarily relevant.

I'll be happy to be corrected, at the time, but I do not believe that those opposite will deliver that $275 saving in terms of electricity costs. We will wait and see. Those, including those in the gallery, who will be receiving their electricity bills between now and the next election, they can be the judge. They should ask themselves, before the next election, whether or not their electricity prices have decreased by $275. We'll see what happens.

Those electricity costs are affecting every single part of Australian society—not just the retail consumer but also the business consumer—and it also includes small businesses where I have my patch in Queensland. I was speaking to a small business just this week about cost pressures on their small business. Nick runs a cafe, and he has been hit with the cost increases in terms of electricity, in terms of wages and also in terms of rent. Small business rent increases are going to go up as a direct result of the inflationary impact, and are provided for under his lease.

That's what we are facing in this country. We are facing increased costs across the board and, in that environment, it is simply not credible, given the government's own plans, that electricity prices will fall by $275. In fact, all the evidence, I believe, will be to the contrary, especially when we consider the costs of transmission, actually providing stability to the electricity grid and getting the renewable energy sources fed into the grid. On that $275 guarantee: Senator Urquhart was keen for me to mention it, and I'm happy to. I suggest that promise will haunt those sitting opposite between this day and up to the next federal election.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, talk about leading with the chin! This is really quite an extraordinary choice for a matter of public importance for the opposition to propose, isn't it, if we think about their record for just the tiniest of moments. I'm surprised that somebody on their side didn't do that before they submitted this as a topic for discussion. This would be your conclusion: if you were trying—if you set out deliberately to design a scheme—to undermine Australia's electricity and energy sector, you couldn't do it better than what the Liberal-National government did during their time in office. They basically had a three-part recipe for higher electricity prices.

First: announce plan after plan after plan—22 of them—but never implement any of them so that industry has absolutely no idea what is going on and has no real way to plan for the future. Consequently, critical investments are not delivered. Second: stymie, obstruct and disable consideration of climate change by the Public Service and key regulators, and ban the use of the term 'climate change' in key organisations so that Australia's policy development can't properly respond to what every other G20 country has basically accepted to be the key factor driving energy market issues over the long term. Third, and this is the killer: mismanage every energy project that has the misfortune to cross your path, like Snowy Hydro 2.2, which, by the time they left office, was running 18 months late. This was the member for Hume's signature project, running 18 months late—not confessed, hidden, during the election period. The coalition promised a billion dollars—a billion dollars!—which they claimed was going to support 3,800 megawatts of generation over three years ago. Can anyone tell me how much of that was actually delivered? The answer, for those playing along at home, is none. Absolutely no dollars delivered at all in relation to that promise and not one kilowatt of power.

Under the previous government, four gigawatts of capacity left the system and one gigawatt was created. It is a record of failure—crippling failure—and if the coalition had any self-awareness whatsoever, any situational awareness, they would never talk about energy prices again, let alone put an MPI like this up for debate. Instead, what have they done? They've put forward the man behind this debacle, Mr Taylor, as their putative alternative Treasurer. This guy, who ran the Australian electricity system into the ground, is now being proposed as someone who ought to run the economy. The shamelessness is actually quite incredible. Fresh out of office, the coalition are looking back on the damage caused by their last nine years with wide eyes and a faux innocence saying the equivalent of, 'Who, me?'

Australians know that the coalition significantly diminished Australia's capacity to respond to changes in the energy market like the ones we've seen over the past few months as a result of international developments. We have been left vulnerable and more exposed to higher global gas and coal prices. The miracle is that there are very many good people and good institutions that survived this campaign of destruction by the former government, but it is households and businesses who have been left to pay the price.

Our government is doing what we can to clean up the mess that we have inherited from the coalition. There isn't a quick fix. There are nine years of chaos and inaction to undo, and the problems run deep. It's not just electricity but also the broader energy market. Today, the ACCC report that was released confirmed what many Australians already know: that they're paying the price for the crisis in the market that has been left by a decade of division and chaos. We are working to resolve these issues. AEMO released a notice of threat to system security, and they're working with the market. Over the medium term our government is progressing a capacity mechanism with the states and empowering AEMO to buy and store gas supplies. I welcome the announcement from the Minister for Resources that the government will extend and improve the Australian domestic gas security mechanism.

There is work to do across the entire energy system, from generation to distribution. Minister Bowen and the government have helped navigate this tailor-made energy crisis without any load-shedding or blackouts, getting agreement among the state and territory ministers on a way forward for firm renewables. But a key part in our work going forward is to take apart and to resolve the uncertainty, mismanagement, and blindness to climate change that has weakened Australia's energy system during the previous term of government. We're not wasting any time. We have already notified the United Nations of our intention to increase our emissions reduction target. As we've made clear, a 43% reduction by 2030 is the minimum that we'd hope to achieve. As we said in the documentation, our aspiration is that the commitments of our industry, states and territories, and the Australian people will yield even greater emissions reductions in the coming decade. We've scrapped Mr Taylor's dodgy regulation that directed the renewables agency to fund fossil fuels and we've also improved its ability to fund electrification and energy efficiency. We've got moving on the review of the integrity of the carbon offset system, including by appointing Professor Ian Chubb and an esteemed panel to lead that work. We've signed a net zero technology partnership with the United States which focuses on storage, green hydrogen and integrating various renewables into the grid. We've brought forward well-overdue changes to fuel quality standards from 2027 to 2024.

There is so much more to do, and it's an ongoing project, but we are determined to show leadership where our predecessors showed none. We stand by our election commitments, and our climate change and energy commitments are no exception. Our plan will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, with five out of six of those to be created in the regions. It will generate $76 billion in investment and includes modernising Australia's electricity grid through a $20 billion Rewiring the Nation plan. It includes up to $3 billion to invest in renewables, metals, renewable energy component manufacturing and renewable hydrogen electrolysers. It includes 85 solar banks and 400 community batteries across Australia, and 10,000 new energy apprenticeships. Most importantly, it will deliver 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. That is the modelled outcome of our policies, and it is consistent with AEMO's step change scenario.

This will help drive down prices. It will put downward pressure on prices for a very simple reason, one denied by the opposition: we know that renewables are the cheaper form of energy, and getting cheaper. The CSIRO and the AEMO GenCost report for 2021-22 confirmed that wind and solar are the cheapest source of electricity generation and storage in Australia. It is worth noting that here in the ACT, which is 100 per cent renewable, power prices have actually fallen. More renewables will mean we are less exposed to changes in fossil fuel prices like the high global gas and coal prices that have affected Australian energy markets in recent months. Investing in cheaper forms of generating power, like renewables, means that power prices will be lower than they would otherwise have been.

There was an opportunity, of course, when the coalition could have talked about electricity prices, and that opportunity was before the election. But what did they do? They didn't want to have the conversation then, did they? No, in fact what they did was that they intervened to hide the increase to electricity prices, accumulated under their watch, and to hide it from the Australian people, to conceal it until after the election. The Australian Energy Regulator has been required to release its default market offer on 1 May each year, since the price safety net was introduced in July 2019. However—fancy this, what a coincidence—just days before the election was called, Mr Taylor signed a regulation that delayed when that default market offer was made public. When was the new date? The first business day after 25 May—after the election—a fig leaf of a reason to allow more consultation, as if the previous government ever, ever wanted to consult on anything.

In some parts of the country, the price increase was 19 per cent. This is what Minister Taylor wanted to hide. I wonder if he shared it with his colleagues. I wonder if he shared it with some of the senators on the other side, because that government was addicted to secrecy. (Time expired.)

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support Senator Payne's matter of public importance. Prime Minister Albanese's promise to reduce electricity bills by $275 and his promise to reduce carbon dioxide output by 43 per cent are mutually exclusive. High energy prices will reduce energy usage and assist Australia to reach the 43 per cent figure. Lower prices will increase energy consumption, and that will work against the Albanese government's target. That's why the Albanese government so quickly ran away from his promise. The Prime Minister never intended to honour the promise, making his action cynical political expediency.

One Nation believes any attempt to implement a 43 per cent carbon dioxide reduction is a policy based on lies and distortions which do not stand up to rigorous scrutiny. Prime Minister Albanese has already signalled, across several issues, his government will be a government based on virtue signalling, not a sensible policy. For senators with no data on their side, the only option is to sell a policy on feelings. Feelings will not keep the lights on, supermarket freezers cold or hospitals open. Feelings will not warm Australians in winter or cool us in summer. Evidence based policy will. Energy deficits in several areas of Australia have already caused blackouts. The 43 per cent target will cause many more blackouts.

Rapidly increasing electricity costs will reduce consumption of electricity and buy the government time, while it asks around for a permanent solution, which is why the government is allowing this to happen. Closing down and sabotaging baseload coal has led to the national electricity racket—sorry market—showing unprecedented wholesale power prices. The average spot price of $264 per megawatt hour last quarter is more than triple the average spot price of $85 per megawatt hour this time last year. Prime Minister Albanese knew this when he made his promise, and clearly economics is not the Prime Minister's strong suit. If the cost of an item is up 300 per cent, the chances of being able to make it cheaper without the government paying for it are zero.

Perhaps the Prime Minister can extend his employment talkfest to more aspects of government business. Let's see if anyone knows how to use wind and solar to replace baseload coal and save Australia from electricity and energy Armageddon, because all I'm hearing so far is, 'Build more wind and solar.' Building more will simply add more capacity when we don't need it, during the day, when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Solar and wind will need to be paired with some form of battery technology to move that generated electricity from the day, when we don't need it, to the evening, when we do.

Coal sitting in hoppers ready to generate power on demand is the battery we have used successfully for 120 years. Alternatives to coal are thin on the ground. Battery storage costs are staggering and unsustainable: $1.5 million per megawatt hour. We need around 60,000 megawatt hours of energy in storage to ensure any 24-hour period is not subject to blackouts, yet batteries need 20 per cent above rated capacity to achieve full charge due to heat loss, which is why they catch fire a lot. This means we need 72,000 megawatt-hours of storage, at a cost of $108 billion every 12 years, the life of a big Tesla battery. That is $9 billion every year. The Snowy 2 big hydro battery currently under construction will provide 1,000 megawatt-hours daily for 365 a year at a cost of $5 billion. This means that pumped hydro will cost $300 billion to carry enough power for just one day. Of course, adding electric vehicle charging to the mix means a whole lot more blackouts and a whole lot more electricity price increases.

Net zero is an unaffordable fairy tale that will destroy our standard of living and destroy our lifestyle. We are one community, we are one nation and we know what the hell is needed to get back to affordable, reliable, stable electricity.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australians are hurting. The cost of living is rising through the roof, and we have a government who is refusing to do anything about it. Even worse, we have a government who went to the most recent election with a promise to reduce electricity prices by $275 per household by 2025. However, as the MPI points out, after only a matter of weeks, they are walking back their promise. Prime Minister Albanese said he would take responsibility, but all he seems to be doing is blaming others and making personal attacks. The Prime Minister is doing anything but taking responsibility for the energy crisis we are currently facing.

It seems clear from the contributions in the chamber from the other side that this is largely because they have no experience in the energy sector whatsoever. At least I can say I have spent 20-plus years in the energy sector on and off, including two stints at AEMO, so I bring a little bit of knowledge to this matter.

The energy crisis is largely due to a number of factors, partly the war in Ukraine and our capacity for coal fired power generation being at the lowest level in over a decade. However, we are also facing a gas shortage crisis that has the potential to drive power prices through the roof. As the ACCC report that was released today states:

The east coast gas market is facing a 56 PJ shortfall in supply in 2023, signifying a substantial risk to Australia's energy security.

For those of you who don't know a petajoule from your pet, this is equivalent to about 10 per cent of next year's forecast demand.

The effects of these changes are concentrated in the southern states (NSW, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory) where gas resources have been diminishing for some time …

The ACCC report specifically states:

To address the projected shortfall in 2023 significant additional volumes of gas will need to be:

Now, I don't see how the government will be able to stick to the Prime Minister reducing power bills if they do not specifically support the additional production of gas. It is this lack of support that is hurting Australians already, with the report highlighting that users are now receiving offers of higher prices with less flexibility.

Australia is now paying the price for some incredible mistakes by the Andrews Victorian government. A government ban on onshore gas exploration as well as fracking and coal seam gas exploration has exacerbated this problem. We only have this supply problem because the Andrews government cut off supply without a thought of how it was going to be replaced. This is a problem entirely of the Andrews government's making, and it is at a time when the cost of living is increasing. Australians are paying for that incompetence and the lack of willingness from the Albanese government to do anything about it.

Here is a quick history lesson. Victoria has had a long history of cheap, abundant natural gas. It has one of the strongest gas industries in the world. The Bass Strait gas and oil wells powered Victoria, turned it into industrial powerhouses, because we had cheap, available gas. Now, with those Bass Strait oil wells drying up and no replacements because of the bans and moratoriums, we are bringing gas down from Queensland, paying extra and expending more energy to transport that via the distribution transmission network. Yet what a lot of people on that side, across the chamber, seem to forget is that a lot of the gas coming out of Queensland is from coal seam gas, fracked coal seam gas. It's a little bit of an inconvenient truth for you, maybe, but it's the actual truth. The only way to drive a disconnect between high global gas prices and our domestic east coast prices is to invest in more supply, which my home state of Victoria has an abundance of but is not being allowed to access.

As published by the International Energy Agency recently, the world has experienced the first global energy crisis in history. Now, I don't know how they missed the 1970s oil crisis, but let's put that to the side. Yes, in a large part, this is because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine; however, it highlights what should be a bleedingly obvious point: there are, and always will be, unexpected events and outcomes. If the last three years have taught us anything it is that we really do not know what the future holds and that we can only be prepared for the future by ensuring we are protected against a whole range of scenarios.

While this government is not responsible for a surge in global prices, it is responsible for how it responds. Australians expect that this government act to fulfil its promise to the Australian people and lower their power bills. Now, the Labor Party are correct when they state that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. On a plant based level, when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining, wind and solar are the cheapest form of generation. However, as cited in JP Morgan's 2020 annual energy paper, putting more renewable energy on the grid will not guarantee lower prices. I repeat: it will not guarantee lower prices. This is because energy prices rest on an average cost of generation, not the actual cost of sustaining a power source that cannot deliver energy on a continuous basis unsupported. The term we use is firmed. The report notes that the costs include transmission; backup thermal power; and, potentially, if it ever comes, utility-scale battery storage. None of this will come cheap, and ultimately costs will be passed on to the consumer.

Whatever fills the intermittent power void will initially be expensive, and it most definitely won't be easy. Labor's community battery for households policy is to fund 400 community batteries of 500 kilowatt hours each, which is supposed to provide power for 250 households. Assuming the 22 kilowatt hour nightly load, it would take over 80,000 batteries to meet the power consumption of Melbourne's 1.8 million households. Even if the 400 proposed batteries were all built in Victoria, they would only meet 0.5 of the city's winter night-time demand. A 500 kilowatt battery could provide sufficient power overnight for only 23 households. This is equivalent to needing one on every street, not in each suburb.

Snowy 2.0 has the capacity of 350 million kilowatts, the capacity to meet Melbourne's nightly demand for over a week. Labor suggest they can source batteries at $500,000 each, which equates to $1,000 per kilowatt hour. Snowy 2.0, costing $4.5 billion for 350 megawatt hours, comes out to only $12.90 per kilowatt hour. This $500,000 estimate does not reflect market prices and is unlikely to include costs for installation and maintenance. AEMO's latest integrated system plan, released in June, states that we are going to have to double electricity by 2050 as we electrify the economy.

As coal-fired generation withdraws—and it will, and it should—weather-dependent generation will start to dominate. Investment will be needed to treble the firming capacity provided by new, low-emission firming opportunities that can respond to a despatch signal with efficient network investments to access it. Now we're seeing the economic risks of mismanagement playing out before our eyes.

Despite Labor claiming that they had conducted, 'The most comprehensive ever done for any policy by an opposition in Australia's history since Federation,' it is clear that their plan cannot work and will not work. Europe serves as a good example. It severely miscalculated by reducing its production of fossil fuels faster than it reduced its own consumption of fossil fuels. It has now been caught off-guard and is suffering at the hands of Russia due to its energy reliance. We should not make the same mistake.

Karen Grogan (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to thank Senator Payne for this opportunity, for giving this chamber the chance to talk about the Albanese government's comprehensively modelled and thoroughly developed Powering Australia plan. I invite members to have a look at that plan and the modelling rather than throw around baseless emotive accusations.

I want to thank Senator Payne, because I welcome any opportunity to talk about the Labor government's plan to create 604,000 jobs, with five out of every six new jobs to be delivered in the regions. I welcome any opportunity to talk about the $76 billion in investment that will be spurred on by this plan. I welcome any opportunity to outline our plan to deliver 82 per cent renewables by 2030. This means $20 billion to modernise our ageing electricity grid, $3 billion to invest in renewable metals and energy component manufacturing, and 85 new solar banks and 400 community batteries across the country, all of which will be backed in by a shot in the arm to our modern skills base with 10,000 new energy apprentices and a New Energy Skills Program.

Over the last couple of hours, we've heard a lot of debate in this chamber about this. A lot of the argument that I've heard disconnects a range of the policies and looks at them in isolation. The utilisation of renewable energy requires the upgrade in the grid. I say to those opposite, no, the investment in modernising our grid is not a waste. It is not fruitless. It is the sensible plan that should have started long ago to make sure that the cheapest power we can possibly get in this country is delivered in the most efficient way. That is exactly what an Albanese Labor government is going to do. We have laid out the plans. That is what we are going to deliver. That is what will impact those energy prices and the bills that Australians are paying across the country. These are the plans that will make a fundamental difference.

I do not doubt that the chamber and the Australian people would have liked to have known a range of things before the election. Obviously, the outcome is that we are in government on this side of the chamber. The clarity and the honesty should have been there. There were a range of things hidden from the public in the lead-up to the election. The manner in which that was done can only be seen as a political stunt to hide information. There were price rises that were well and truly locked in, but the minister decided not to advise the Australian people of those. The minister decided to hide that information. That information would have told small businesses in New South Wales that their energy prices were about to go up by 19.7 per cent. At the same time, they were saying that they were looking after businesses. I don't think that really can be true. In my own home state of South Australia, domestic or household bills were predicted to go up by 7.2 per cent. Well, of course they weren't going to tell anyone that. And, if you're a Tasmanian, they were going to go up by 11. 8 per cent. So it seems quite obvious that that stunt was purely and utterly political. This is information that is released every year at the same time, apart from this year, when the previous government hid it.

When we start talking about gas, the former energy minister had promised a gas led recovery. What we've actually seen is industry and the community left vulnerable as we faced a global gas crisis. We've seen the lack of a clear policy framework stifle investment and prevent cheaper renewables that could have filled that gap as we were facing this crisis.

When senators opposite talk about energy security and prices, I think the Australian people know not to take them seriously. They know that they are using this as a political plaything. They knew that their signature energy policy, Snowy 2.0, was running 18 months late; they never mentioned that either. The Australian people knew that, when the former government proposed $1 billion to support 3,800 megawatts of new generation, come the election, not one single dollar and not one single kilowatt would have been delivered. The Australian people knew not to trust those opposite to materially provide policy certainty to the Australian community. They trusted us. They trusted an Anthony Albanese Labor government. They trusted us because we have got a plan, and, as the senator opposite's motion indicates, it is a comprehensively modelled plan—well pointed out!—and it is a plan that can be delivered. It's a plan that will ensure that the renewable energy future is very, very bright. We know renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. This has been proven by CSIRO, AEMO and numerous other sources. It is the cheapest form of energy, and it is the form of energy that we should pursue.

I'm proud to be a South Australian and to have seen the significant leadership in our state by a new Labor government, and they have shown the renewables sector to be a prominent piece in their plan. The opportunity presented now by the joint work of an Albanese federal government and the Malinauskas state government is so exciting, and we're already starting to see that gap being filled, and the hope in our community and in business that the policy malaise is in the past.

I know that regional communities see their future in the renewables industry. Investment in solar, wind, grid-scale battery technology and, notably, for South Australia, hydrogen means that those regional communities have a pathway to lead us out of the uncertainty that has plagued us for years. The excitement that I see when I travel to towns like Whyalla and Port Augusta is palpable. They can see what the opportunities are here, they can see that it's real and they can see that we can deliver on it. The excitement will be underpinned by a very sensible, mature policy approach from the federal and the state governments that will actually look at energy that is stable and affordable and will help boost the industry developments that are planned for those regions and broader regions across Australia. But we know there's no quick fix, and we are taking the short-term and the long-term steps necessary to ensure that we do not again end up where we have been for the last nine, long, obfuscating years.

We've taken the short-term steps necessary to stabilise our gas market. AEMO has taken steps to work with the market, using mechanisms available to ensure gas supply is shifted appropriately between the states to meet demand. The Minister for Resources has announced that the government will improve and extend the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, as well as progressing a capacity mechanism within the states.

Long term, we have embarked on the policy agenda I outlined earlier, our Powering Australia policy, one that we are all very, very proud of. It is a policy that means the generations that come after us can be confident that we have a secure energy grid, that we have secure plans that are not going to threaten our environment, a policy that makes sure that families, small business and industry can keep the lights on and keep the manufacturing plants running without breaking the bank, a policy that means jobs, particularly in regional communities, that define our communities' character will flourish into the future. That is what Labor brought to the election, and that is what the Australian people wanted.

I thank you for the opportunity to stand here and talk about this matter of extreme public importance and talk to you about the Powering Australia plan—that will deliver. It will deliver stable, reliable, affordable electricity into the future.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is not my first speech. I rise today to speak about the need to reduce electricity prices. High and ever-rising prices contribute to the significant cost-of-living pressures that are being felt by people across the country. I would like to talk about the solutions.

Renewable energy and electrification: these solutions are right in front of us. Across the ACT, households are enjoying the benefits of the clean energy transition. While electricity prices soar across Australia, they are falling—yes, falling—by more than five per cent, when you account for inflation here in the ACT. The ACT is the only jurisdiction in which prices are falling, prices that are already cheaper than most places across mainland Australia. Just across the border, in New South Wales, households pay as much as $800 more on electricity each year. This saving is just the start, with further and more significant savings to be had as households start to enjoy the benefits of electrification.

These benefits are set out in a proposal I put forward for a 'suburb zero' pilot. Under that two-year pilot, participating households would be fully electrified—EVs, rooftop solar, battery storage, all electric appliances and heat pumps. All of these technologies exist and are available, off the shelf, today. Modelling by Rewiring Australia shows that electrification could save participating Canberra households more than $5,000 each year—$5,000 every year. This will put downward pressure on electricity prices and deliver real savings for households. And, just as household electrification reduces cost-of-living pressures, it will also put downward pressure on inflation.

We have heard a lot about inflation recently on the news and, indeed, here this chamber. A clear way to ease inflationary pressures is to reduce the cost of electricity prices, particularly to residential customers. This has been recognised by the Inflation Reduction Act in the United States, which commits some $369 billion of investment in clean energy to reduce the inflation caused by reliance on fossil fuels.

The economic argument for renewable energy and electrification is clear: electrifying our households is a capital investment in the future, like buying a mortgage or an education. Businesses should be given confidence to invest in renewable energy and electrification should be incentivised for consumer uptake. I'm proud to represent a community that has seen the opportunities and been a leader on some of the opportunities the clean energy transition presents us with, but we still have a long way to go. I want to work with everyone in this place to maximise the benefits for all Australians.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make some remarks about this matter of public importance. It was a big mistake that the Labor Party decided it would promise to make a particular saving on people's electricity bills because, in this country, it is the market that is going to be funding the transition—that's what we want to happen—not the government. So without knowing how much capital the country was going to be able to attract, it was always going to be quite a fraught calculation. Of course, the reality is that this whole area of public policy has been a real nightmare for the country over the last 10 years—there has been too much politics—and that has hurt the country. Now this is another example of where a cheap, glib political attempt is going to unravel and damage the argument, because of course the promise that was made by the Labor Party before the last election will not be delivered in this parliament. It won't be delivered in the short term, for the reason I just gave you: that the government has no idea how much private capital the country will be able to attract to fund the transition. Anyone who has read the AEMO reports knows that this transition is going to cost an absolute bomb.

So this is a government that has already broken one promise on this issue. But the promises that it has delivered, it has delivered on behalf of its owners—its parent companies: the union movement and the super funds. It has already delivered on its promise to abolish the ABCC and on its promise to hide the superannuation funds' donations to the Labor Party and to the union movement. So it is a government for vested interests—delivering for the union movement; delivering for the super funds—and it is breaking promises that it made to Australians.

Now, on the matter of emissions reduction, which is a matter of great national importance, what is important is the outcome. It is the outcome that is important, not the embroidery. One of the key outcomes we are seeking here, as a country, in a race for global capital, is capital. We want the capital, and so we need to evaluate and make a judgement about what is going to be the best way to get that capital. One of the ways to not get the capital is to engage in cheap, juvenile, glib promises that you break only a few weeks after the election because of course you don't know what's going to happen in global markets; you don't know how the country will get the capital.

Mr Bowen, who's the minister, has said about the legislation that he introduced last week:

I've said repeatedly that we have designed our Powering Australia plan so that it can be implemented whether legislation passes or not …

So apparently the legislation is a maybe; it could be important, but it may not be. We don't know yet. We'll see how that goes.

But what is very important, and what is most important to me, is that we get the country on a medium- to long-term plan for having accelerated emissions reduction, because the 26 to 28 position is not a credible position; it needs to be higher than that. So we need to try to find some sort of accommodation where we are sending the right signal to the rest of the world that we are committed to emissions reduction and we are committed to enhancing our position over the long term.

But, in the short term, this matter of public importance is about a broken promise. It is about a broken promise to the Australian people that their bills will be cut in the short term, whereas, in fact, their bills will go up. Now, that is very regrettable when you consider that the promises for the donors and the owners of the Labor Party—the unions and the super funds—have been delivered in full. The Labor Party has already gutted the Your Super, Your Future reforms. The Labor Party has already gutted and abolished, in some form, the ABCC, and it has said that, if it can't abolish it in law, it will just de-fund it; it will go around the democratic process. So, if you are a person in Australia, you are not likely to have your election commitment fulfilled. But if you are a donor or an owner of the Labor Party—if you are a trade union or a super fund—you will have your promises delivered in full.

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Bragg. The time for the discussion has expired and I shall now be proceeding to the consideration of documents.