Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Port Adelaide proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s failure to plan for a renewable energy future.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

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

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today the Prime Minister, who famously described climate change as 'absolutely not real'—which apparently is the parliamentary way to now describe his quote—has been dragged kicking and screaming, finally, to announce a target to take to the Paris conference in December—kicking and screaming. We are the last major developed economy to do so.

Presumably the Prime Minister was waiting and perhaps hoping that global momentum behind the conference scheduled for Paris in December would either slow down or perhaps even reverse. He did his own bit over the course of 2014 to try to marshal the troops—to marshal other leaders—particularly those in the developed world who were sceptical about climate change policy, to try to oppose the momentum being led by the United States, China, our friends in the United Kingdom and in so many other countries around the world. But the momentum has not stalled. It certainly has not reversed. It is continuing to build around the world for a conference in December that is expected to put in place an agreement to start to reduce carbon pollution levels in an ambitious way and in a way that is consistent with the agreement that 195 countries of the world made five years ago to limit global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, it would appear, and the Minister for the Environment, who has taken some time from the coalition party room meeting to participate in this debate, I am glad to say, apparently got a sense of that building momentum around the world, because reports in The Australian newspaper this morning indicated that the two ministers had taken a much stronger position to the cabinet.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is completely false.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for the Environment says that it is false. I am not sure where the leak came from on the front page of The Australian newspaper, but on those reports it would appear that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has yet again been overruled in her portfolio by a sceptical Prime Minister.

But in any event the target is out there now for the Labor opposition and others in the parliament and, most importantly, people in the Australian community to analyse and assess. To do that—I will repeat the points we made in question time—we need to see the modelling and the data on which the government has based this decision. But first impressions are that this target will place Australia right at the back of the pack. They have shifted the baseline from 2000 to 2005. As a matter of principle we do not quarrel with that. It allows better comparisons between nations. But, frankly, it would have been better if the government had been more transparent and up-front about this and had not tried to compare apples with pears, being the old commitment from 2000 levels, to the commitment announced only this morning, from 2005.

But using the same time frame—2005 to 2030—the United States has made a commitment of 41 per cent, to 2030. Germany has made a commitment of 46 per cent. The United Kingdom has made a commitment of about 48 per cent, to 2030.

Mr Hunt interjecting—

The Prime Minister tried to pretend the United States' commitment was a 2030 commitment. So don't talk to us about misleading the House, when in question time the Prime Minister stands up and tries to verbal the United States President as having made a 26 per cent commitment to 2030, when it is quite clear that that is a five-year earlier commitment. So do not try to lecture us about misleading the parliament. It is a 41 per cent commitment that the President of the United States has made when you straight-line out their 2025 commitment. The critical question is whether this commitment is consistent with our commitment to the rest of the world to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius—a solemn commitment made to the rest of the world but most importantly a solemn commitment made to future generations, to our children and our grandchildren, that we will do everything we can to limit global warming to that extent. President Obama said last week or maybe the week before that ours is the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it.

The importance of this commitment cannot be overstated. This government, this minister, must demonstrate how this target is consistent with that commitment. Even on this most fundamental question the government cannot get its facts straight. The environment minister, to his credit, tweets regularly that the government policy remains the two-degree limit. But in the energy white paper the government's entire policy is predicated on what the International Energy Agency describes as the four- degree warming scenario—not a two-degree warming scenario but a four-degree warming scenario. I ask the government to show us the data, show us the modelling, so that we can determine whether this target is consistent with those two things.

It is also a commitment that cannot just be given lip service. It needs a proper suite of policies that will actually deliver on the commitment that we have made to our children and our grandchildren, and this government does not have that suite of policies. Only last week RepuTex modelled that in the next 10 years this government's policies will allow Australia's emissions to rise by 20 per cent—not decline by 26 per cent but rise by 20 per cent, because of this government's hopeless policies. This year alone we have had a taste of that with emissions from the power sector rising by four per cent. After reducing in 2013 by seven per cent and reducing in 2014 by four per cent, they are now rising by four per cent under this government.

The central policy to deliver on the two-degree commitment we have made to our children and to our grandchildren must be a big expansion in renewable energy. Only a Shorten Labor government will deliver a big expansion of renewable energy in Australia. It is hard to think of a nation better placed to do that expansion, to surf the wave of the renewables revolution that we are viewing all around the world. We have the best solar resources, wind resources, wave resources and geothermal resources in the world. We have the best scientists and the most innovative businesses to take advantage of this revolution. PV solar, which has been taken up by citizens in every continent on the globe, was largely developed at the University of New South Wales. Wave energy is being developed innovatively in Western Australia by Carnegie, working off Fremantle. We can be leaders in this industry—and we were leaders in this industry until last year. We were the fourth most attractive place on the face of the earth in which to invest in renewable energy, until the Prime Minister launched his attack on renewable energy—until this Prime Minister launched an attack on billions of dollars in investment, thousands of jobs and significant reductions in carbon pollution. That reckless attack led to an 88 per cent decline in investment in large-scale renewables last year alone. We went from being the 11th-biggest investor to the 39th-biggest investor in just one year. We slipped below Myanmar, Honduras and Panama, among other countries. Hundreds of jobs were lost and, as I said before, carbon pollution for the first time in two years actually started to increase. We want to see Australia back in the lead, back at the head of the pack in taking up the enormous opportunities in investment, in jobs and in reductions in carbon pollution that are presented by this renewables revolution.

The Australian people are awake to this Prime Minister. He is not interested in the future. He is stuck in the past. He pulls his cardigan over his head every time there is a debate about the future of this country and locks himself with a ball and chain to the past. We are not going to do that. The renewables revolution will give millions of Australians more control over the way in which they generate and use electricity. The Prime Minister's own hand-picked panel said that the expansion of renewable energy places downward pressure on power prices for households across the country. In only the last couple of weeks, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said that a four- kilowatt PV solar system on your roof combined with a five-kilowatt/hour battery will within five years be cheaper for households in Australia than taking electricity from the grid.

Today confirms that the Prime Minister wants Australia to follow. He does not want Australia to lead. He does not want Australia even to stay in touch with the rest of the world on the issue of climate change and the enormous opportunities that are presented in investment, jobs and households' control over their energy by the renewables revolution. Labor wants to keep faith with future generations on climate change. We want to embrace the jobs and the investment opportunities that are available in a clean energy future.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was a cracker. That was an absolute beauty. When asked what their policy on renewables is, they gave no answer. When asked what their emissions reduction target is, they gave no answer. Despite the fact that for the last month they have been telling us they have a 50 per cent renewable energy target, there was not one reference. Why is that? Why is the member for Port Adelaide ashamed? Why is he unable to talk about it? And why did he say nothing about the 40 to 60 per cent emissions reduction target for the entire country? What we see here is that when they are confronted with the reality of their policies for electricity, for households, for gas, for refrigerants—for all of these elements—they shy away from them. In the same way that there was going to be no carbon tax, in the same way that they were going to terminate the carbon tax at the last election, in the next election they will have a commitment to an ETS.

Their own policy that was revealed on the front page of The Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago said they would not put the modelling out before the election. How courageous and how honest is that? But there has been a moment of honesty. The member for Hunter, in an interview on the Andrew Bolt program said of their renewable target: 'It's not a policy. It's an aspiration.' It is just an aspiration. When asked how much it would cost and how much work the ALP had done, what did he say? 'No-one knows.' That is the truth of it: no-one knows. From the words of the ALP themselves, what does their policy cost? No-one knows.

Well, we know. They have not done the work, but we have. This work is in line with what ASL Tasman has said. ASL Tasman has talked about a range of between $65 billion and over $100 billion. The Department of the Environment work says there is an $85 billion capital expenditure cost for their policy and a $70 billion renewable energy credit cost for their policy. Those facts are real. If they want to dispute them, they should show us. Confirm what the policy is and show us the answers, because we are absolutely clear about what the impacts will be.

By contrast, what we have is a 23½ per cent renewable energy target recently voted through on a bipartisan basis. Why? Precisely because the phantom credits problem that we had warned about before the last election came to pass. The impacts were real and significant on the industry. By contrast, we will deliver a doubling of renewable energy under the renewable energy target over the next five years. We will deliver at least a doubling in small-scale solar over the coming years. We have already seen two major announcements in recent weeks, since the conclusion of that legislation.

On the renewable energy side, theirs is a 50 per cent target that they are running away from. It is suddenly an aspiration. It is a policy which is uncosted, according to the member for Hunter. If you have any differences in terms of your own policy let us know, but we have costed it using conservative modelling at an $85 billion capital cost and a $70 billion electricity cost in terms of renewable energy credits. Beyond that, though, on our side there will be a doubling of large-scale renewable energy and a doubling of small-scale solar under the target. They are the realities and they are the things that we are getting on with.

Then we turned to something broader, because most of the speech of the member opposite was about the international targets and the domestic objective. Today, under this government, Australia has added to the achievements of the past. We are one of the few countries to have met and beaten Kyoto I and to be on track to meet and beat Kyoto II. They are the realities. For all the talk, Australian is one of the good guys that have done the right thing by the world. We have actually committed, and now we see that we have put on the table a minus 26 to minus 28 per cent target for 2005 to 2030. The United States has a target of minus 26 to minus 28 for 2025. We see that Japan is minus 25, Korea is minus four per cent and China is approximately plus 150 per cent, and then you see that New Zealand and Canada are clustered around minus 30 per cent. So we are in very good company. We are doing better than many others.

Then we also see that, of all the developed countries and the major economies, we have the highest per capita reductions. So when we talk about people making a contribution, on our watch Australia will do the heavy lifting, and we are proud of that. I am really delighted. I am thrilled with the outcome today. It is better than I had ever hoped. I am really delighted that Australia has made this commitment. It will serve us well over time.

By comparison, what we see is something very interesting: a Labor Party that, over recent weeks, has committed to and has frequently publicised the fact that they want to go for a minus 40 to minus 60 target. But that target is on 2000 figures. It is higher if taken from the 2005 figure, and what does it mean? As we saw yesterday, using their own modelling by their own government of their own target using their own carbon tax of $600 billion at a carbon price of $209 per tonne, what does that translate to? That translates to a $5,000 per household impact in 2030, and if you have got an alternative let us know.

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How do you sleep at night?

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pretty well, thanks mate. How about you? According to Joel Fitzgibbon, none of you guys know what the truth of it is. We will continue an emissions reduction fund which has delivered four times the emissions reduction of the entire carbon tax and electricity tax experiment. We delivered 47 million tonnes at $13.95 per tonne of abatement contracted by the Clean Energy Regulator in an independent auction by an independent agent of government, and that could not have been a better outcome through a better process.

By contrast, what we saw on the other side was a policy which delivered abatement at well over $1,000 per tonne. It is not the cost of carbon; it is the cost per tonne of abatement. Twelve million tonnes at $15 billion—that is the reality. Right now what we want to know is: how much will your carbon tax cost, how much will it hurt Australian families and how much will electricity rise? These are the figures which their own modelling shows from their own time in government about their own policy: $600 billion at a carbon tax of $209 per tonne, $5,000 per household and a 78 per cent increase in wholesale electricity prices. We used their modelling. We drew on their modelling, published in the climate change mitigation scenarios prepared by the Treasury and the Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education when Labor were in government. It was not us; it was them. It was not our modelling; it was their modelling, done by the Treasury and the department of industry. They are hoist on their own petard.

So Australian families and Australian pensioners will pay higher electricity prices because of this 50 per cent renewable aspiration, and I say that knowing that they know that it will not be achieved. What it will lead to, as we saw last time, is a massive carbon tax equivalent. More than that, they then add on top of it an emissions trading scheme, which is a carbon tax by any other name, and they do that against a target of minus 40 to 60 per cent. Those are their policies. What we have done is what a government should do: we have modelled, we have planned, we have prepared, we have released, we have briefed, we have consulted. We have done all of those things. They created a 50 per cent figure out of thin air. As Joel Fitzgibbon said—how much will it cost; no-one knows. That is the truth of it. They have not done the modelling, and they will not do the modelling. What did Joel Fitzgibbon say about their emissions trading scheme? He said, 'You can call it a tax if you like'. What do we see at the end of the day? We see a tax of households; we see a policy that they have not modelled, but we know that it is an $85 billion capital cost and a $600 billion economic cost for the two together. (Time expired)

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Two important things happened here in Canberra today, the first full sitting day of parliament, which is back after the recess. The first was that the government announced these embarrassing targets that we will take to the world—

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh really, embarrassing?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, they were embarrassing. For a nation that prides itself on doing its bit in the world, we have an environment minister in name only who announces these embarrassing targets. The other thing, of course, is that this week marks six months since the Prime Minister said, 'Good government starts today.' He marked that occasion by getting absolutely monstered in the party room over the important topic of marriage equality. While the Minister for the Environment was speaking, I was reading a story that said that in the Liberal Party room today:

News of the push leaked while the party room meeting was underway. This caused angry scenes inside the party room as to who was leaking, according to further leaks.

While the Prime Minister was having a bad day, and while it was a dark day for climate change in this country, there are good people all around Australia who are doing the right thing when it comes to renewable energy.

I was thinking today, when I was contemplating this important MPI about renewable energy, about three people from my electorate who came to visit me from a group called Solar Citizens. I am thinking of Bob from Woodridge, Linda from Slacks Creek and Tom from Daisy Hill, who are all in my local electorate of Rankin. They are good local people taking advantage of solar energy who want their countrymen and countrywomen to do the same thing because they know something that the Prime Minister does not—they know that renewable energy means jobs, they know it means a cleaner environment to hand to their kids, and they know that it means investment. They know that it means lower power prices over the medium and long term as well. It did give me heart, because it showed that Tom, Linda and Bob understand something that the Prime Minister does not about jobs, investment and power prices.

As the Prime Minister goes around defending the member for Mackellar's job and the member for Sturt's job, it struck me that he might not have noticed that there are 800,000 people in this country who are unemployed—the first time it has cracked 800,000 since the mid-1990s. We have an unemployment rate higher than during the GFC, which is a stunning fact when you consider that unemployment is higher today under Treasurer Hockey than at any point under Treasurer Swan or Mr Bowen during the global financial crisis and its immediate aftermath. It got me thinking that if this were truly a good government, it would not deny Australia the renewable energy sector jobs; it would not deny Australia the cleaner air, or the investment in our economy that our economy so desperately needs.

The problem is that we have a Prime Minister who is stuck in the past and who only has a reverse gear—captured by the extreme right, the sceptics, the deniers and the dinosaurs. The effect of this approach has been catastrophic for jobs and confidence. The member for Port Adelaide ran through the stats, which show that Australia was a terrific performer on renewable energy until the change of government, and then we went backwards from being the fourth most appealing investment destination for renewable energy before the election to being the tenth after it. We know the reasons for that—the Prime Minister's actions when it comes to trashing renewable energy in this country.

The biggest scare—the Prime Minister likes his scare campaigns and we heard more of them in the environment minister's contribution, if you could call it that—is over power prices. The thing that is really interesting about this is that when the climate sceptics over there who control the Liberal Party wanted to commission a study that said that renewable energy forced up power prices, they looked for a real sceptic and they found Dick Warburton. They asked him to do a review and they said, 'Hey Dick, would it be all right if you wrote a report saying that renewable energy forces up power prices?' Warburton had a look at this and unfortunately for the government, as the member for Port Adelaide said about their 'whoops' moment, even Dick Warburton had to conclude that renewable energy was driving investment, creating jobs, putting downward pressure on power prices and reducing carbon pollution, which really does show what an extraordinary lie this all is about the cost of renewable energy. This is something that the Australian people understand, even if their Prime Minister does not. This side of the House stands with the 80 per cent of Australians who support renewable energy. We believe in the transformative opportunity that renewable energy represents for jobs, investment and power prices. We know that $2.5 trillion will be invested in renewable energy in our region, and we want to get a slice of the action. A good government would want that too. This is far from a good government and Australians know it. There will be a clear-cut choice for the Australian people at the election. We have a target for 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030. It is how we will restore investor confidence in a job-creating sector that has been trashed by a backward looking Prime Minister who lives in the past.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we are seeing here today is a Labor Party that is completely removed from everyday Australians. In an attempt to pander to the urban elite, they are completely trashing the opportunities for working Australians. They have a leader who is a champion for working Australians—as long as the TV camera is on him and he is looking down a coal mine or something like that, he is a champion—but when he is sitting in the party room and they need to make some decisions to stand up for working Australians they fold and go to the urban Green preferences. That is what this is about. There is no recognition of the facts that are going on here.

I have heard the member for Hunter has been mentioned today. I will tell you something about the member for Hunter. In his electorate there is a town called Kandos. In the same week that the Labor Party, then in government, introduced the carbon tax the Kandos cement plant closed. Over 100 years, multigenerations of good, hardworking Australians worked in that plant. It closed down and now cement for central New South Wales comes through the heads of Sydney Harbour from a country that does not have any emissions control and the people of western New South Wales miss out.

We see absolute dishonesty here today and a lack of recognition of what is actually happening. The shadow minister, the member for Port Adelaide, was involved in the agreement on the RET, which was made in June, which secured the future of energy over the next number of years and it secured doubling our rate of renewable energy. So the number of wind farms that we have seen in the last 15 years needs to be replicated in the next six. It will be a difficult task. It is possible, but that is about the capacity we have to do this. The idea that there is actually nothing happening in this space is an absolute distortion of the facts. In fact, in my electorate I now have three solar farms, one of them being the largest in the Southern Hemisphere and one at Moree, which was actually funded by this government. That now provides energy in a practical sense in places where the grid needs that extra boost. In fact, residents in places like Dubbo, in my electorate, have the largest take-up of small-scale solar on their roofs than anywhere else in Australia. But a 50 per cent increase in renewables that we are seeing from the opposition is just nonsense.

I ask the shadow minister: are we still going to have compensation for our high energy emitters—aluminium and the other industries? Because, if we are, that pretty well means 100 per cent renewables for the rest of us. I want to know how he will explain to the battlers and the pensioners of Australia, as they shiver under their doonas in the winter and as they swelter without their air-conditioners in the summer, how this fanciful target of 50 per cent will be of any benefit to them. We need to have a sensible discussion on this matter, based on the actual facts. We need to get away from this university-high school type debate we are now having where it is all about who has the highest target wins, despite the fact that there is absolutely no practical way of that happening. Why do we not have a sensible discussion of what is possible, what it means and what it will cost the Australian people?

In the Parkes electorate the Labor Party is absolutely on the nose—you might be doing well in Vaucluse and in Melbourne, in the most concreted parts of Australia—out there where people actually work for a bob, where they understand that they need energy to survive and that in summer it is nice if their mother and father can afford to turn on the air-conditioner, they understand what is going on here. This is a ploy by the Labor Party to pander to the wealthy, urban elite, to make them feel like they are doing something to protect the environment, when they are actually living in the most altered part of the country. (Time expired)

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a pathetic contribution we have just seen on this MPI on renewable energy. What is clear is that not only are the National Party dictating to the Liberal Party on marriage equality but they are also dictating on economic policy. The entire economic policy of the coalition is to stick their head in the sand, to consign Australia to being the rust-belt economy of the Asia-Pacific. The truth is that this is not an argument about the environment, it is not an argument about feeling good; it is an argument about hard economics and what is in the economic interests of Australia? It is clearly in the economic interests of this country to have jobs of the future, to abate carbon at the lowest possible cost through an emissions trading scheme and other associated policies, to take a rational policy and implement that policy and to make the transition as smooth and efficient as possible, rather than adopt the government's direct command and control, Bolshevik style, that would do Comrade Lenin proud. That is what has been clear in this debate.

The previous speaker talked about real jobs. I am not sure whether the Minister for the Environment even bothers turning up to cabinet anymore; he just has a little side meeting with Minister Macfarlane of the 'Rolled Cabinet Ministers Club,' who does not bother turning up. We have seen their ideological masters in Maurice Newman and the wind turbine noise conspiracy theorists, who think that wind turbine noise will somehow end the world. This is a purely ideological debate from their side, with no basis in science or economics. And this country is suffering as a result.

When I discovered the MPI was going to be on renewables I thought, 'Let's go to some source material, let's see what the government have said about renewables,' because they are supposed to be the year of good government. I went to their document shield, Real Solutions, their election policy which Tony Abbott hid behind. How many mentions of renewable are there in this? Guess. Zero.

What about Battlelines, a great read? How many mentions of 'renewables' in Battlelines? Zero. What about the greatest political suicide note since Fightback—Not Your Average Joe? Zero mentions of renewables. What about a certain member's long-term contribution to this House, because we should be judged by what we speak on in the chamber, our contribution to the public debate. I had a look in Hansard for the Prime Minister's contribution over the last 21 years and guess how many times he has mentioned 'renewables' in 21 years of parliament? Three times.

Just to give some context, once every seven years, the former chief of staff to the Treasurer—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister has mentioned BA Santamaria four times. He has mentioned bananas three times, bikes six times and apples 10 times. So, in the Prime Minister's mind, apples are three times as important to this country as renewables, which I think will give some heart to the Nationals but probably not to anyone else in this country.

That is the sad pity of where this debate is. Those on the other side have presided over the greatest investment strike in renewable power ever seen. As the shadow minister mentioned, there has been an 88 per cent decline, falling from $2.7 billion under Labor to less than $200 million. We have fallen from 11th in the world to the 39th, putting us behind that paragon of renewable power investment, Myanmar. The Burmese generals get it; Australia does not get it, unfortunately. This is all under a government instituting Direct Action; something that has produced a $66 carbon price. The real tragedy of all of this is that it is not my generation that will suffer; it is my kids' generation and my grandkids'. If we do not take action and transition to the lowest possible cost, they will suffer. We will face carbon tariffs; we will face a rust belt economy where we cannot compete because we will be too carbon intensive—and my region will suffer more than most.

I am proud to have the biggest power station in the country. I am proud to have four coalmines still operational. I am proud to have the CSIRO's clean energy flagship in the Hunter region. We can lead this country as a clean energy hub, but we need good investment from a government that accepts the science of climate change and that accepts the good economic policy of an emissions trading scheme and renewable energy industry policies. That is the way forward—not their aggressive, reactionary, DLP, BA Santamaria rhetoric that will condemn them throughout history as reactionaries who led Australia down the wrong path and condemned future generations to being the poor white trash of Asia.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been away from this place for a bit, and the arrival of a new child always focuses one's mind to the distant future. I think the important part of this debate is to remember that we need a balanced approach to this. Everyone would have to accept that it is wealthy nations that can do something substantively about the environment. All of us want to achieve a cleaner, greener environment, but we want to do it from a position where we strengthen our economy. By weakening our economy, we will not have the resources to do what we need to do with respect to protecting our environment. That is why, while I was on leave, I was, quite frankly, gobsmacked to hear that the Labor Party had adopted, effectively, a policy position that called on 50 per cent of renewable energy by 2030.

As I travel around my electorate and talk to producers, principally fruit processors—and I am grateful for them—they tell me that, aside from wages, the second most significant input cost to their business is the cost of electricity. I thought to myself immediately, 'What is a policy position like this going to do, if it were ever government policy'—my goodness—'to the cost of electricity?' Quite frankly, this policy would see the cost of electricity rise to a point where you could not fly a rocket over it!

The member for Hunter is someone who I have come to spend a bit of time with, particularly on the joint committee for agriculture, and he seems to be a sensible bloke. I probably like him more than I should! It is one of the things you learn about coming into this place, that you seem to make friendships on both sides of the place. He was asked, 'What would this cost?' Not once, not twice—as if on Mount Sinai—he said 'No-one knows.' And that is the reality; no-one knows how incredibly expensive this shift would be.

On the other hand, our government is taking a sensible approach to renewable energies. We have adopted, effectively, a target on renewable energies which is sensible, balanced and achievable, as opposed to far-fetched, fanciful and entirely unachievable. What it will see—and we saw from earlier contributions—is a doubling of the renewable energy rollout over the next few years, as we have seen in place already. That is the point. We have to ensure that we can achieve this. It is one thing to speak to our base and to move further and further to the left because we are concerned for our vote being diffused by the Greens, but it is another thing to come into this place to govern and implement policies which are achievable—and that is what we have seen from a government which has helped push us to a point where we will reach our Kyoto targets.

By 2020, we will be there. Indeed, we will exceed our targets; we will better our targets. And so it will be, I am sure, in terms of the targets, which are sensible and measured and have been announced recently. We are not going to do it with froth and bubbles, with respect. It is hard work. It is about practical, on-the-ground measures. It is very easy to come in here and simply say that we will achieve a 50 per cent target by 2030. But we are not having a real discussion about what that does to the Australian economy, how it weakens it and how it makes it even more difficult to achieve positive outcomes for the environment.

I have said very little about Labor's reckless 40 to 60 per cent target in carbon emissions. That will be a $633 billion-hit to the Australian economy. I do not know when we started speaking about millions and billions so easily, but it will be a $633 billion-hit our economy. That is money that we could be applying to a cleaner, greener Australian economy. It is a six per cent fall in per capita income per person in the nation. It is a $4,900 reduction in take-home pay. It is equivalent to a carbon price of over $200.

The nation knows that only a healthy and prosperous country can do something about its environment, and we should avoid this— (Time expired)

Justine Elliot (Richmond, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be speaking on this MPI—the government's failure to plan for a renewable energy future—because this is an issue of great concern right across the country and in my electorate of Richmond as well. It is one of the areas that is most often raised with me by constituents. The fact is that the Abbott government have failed the people of Australia, as they have no plans for a renewable energy future—just as they have no plans to tackle climate change.

As the shadow minister rightly pointed out before, the Prime Minister today has been dragged kicking and screaming to announce these targets. We know in the past the Prime Minister has said that climate change is not real. We know that is his view. Yet today we see these targets that are not good enough—and I agree with the member for Rankin, who said that in fact they were embarrassing. It blatantly shows those opposite have no vision for the future, no vision for the country.

On this side of the House, Labor are focused on the future and we have the policies we need to improve the renewable energy sector. Renewable energy is overwhelmingly popular with Australians because they understand how effective it is and they understand how important it is. That is why we constantly see surveys and polls reflecting that, with more than 80 per cent of Australians supporting this sector. In my area I would suggest the figure is even higher, because on the New South Wales North Coast we have one of the biggest uptakes of solar power in the country. Locals tell me how important it is to expand renewables not only as an energy source but also as a suite of measures to tackle harmful climate change; they understand that.

We have a very proud record. When Labor were in government we committed to expanding solar power because we understood how important it was. When we came into government in 2007, there were only 7,000 homes with solar panels on their roofs. Now there are more than 1.3 million—a huge increase. This massive increase was underpinned by Labor's support for the industry through a number of measures, including the renewable energy target, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. All of these policies have all been huge successes. Also in our time in government, jobs in the renewable energy sector increased to 21,000, wind power tripled and    there were billions of dollars of investment in Australia's renewable energy sector.

As we have heard, in 2013, Australia was ranked in the top four most attractive countries in the world to invest in renewable energy. Since the election of the Abbott government, we are now ranked 10th. What a shameful drop, and really a reflection of this government. It is most embarrassing. What is also embarrassing is the Prime Minister's attacks on renewable energy. They are quite frankly astounding, insulting and damaging. He has openly criticised an industry that employs tens of thousands of people. Let's look at his record. He has stifled the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, he has gutted the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and he has tried, but failed, to abolish the renewable energy target. This was due to the huge community and industry support for the sector. I think the Prime Minister's efforts really show how out of touch he is with the majority of Australians.

Many people were rightly concerned about recent reports that the Prime Minister has instructed the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to stop investing in wind farms. This act is only part of this government's ongoing war on renewable energy and its constant attacks. These attacks on this sector put thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment at risk. This is particularly true of regional and rural areas, where the renewable sector is one of the few growth areas. We need to have this sector growing. That is something the Liberals and the Nationals just do not understand. They do not understand how devastating it is when they attack the sector.

In contrast to all of this, the opposition leader the shadow minister for the environment have outlined Labor's plans to see 50 per cent of our energy generated by renewables by 2030—a great ambition and a fantastic target. So at the next election there will be a very clear choice between Labor and the Liberal-Nationals when it comes to renewable energy. It is a clear choice, especially in regional and rural areas, where we see the National Party not supporting renewable energy. They do not support one of the growth industries in our country areas. The Nationals are part of a government determined to destroy the renewable energy sector. That is what the Prime Minister and the Liberal-National government continue to do.

But Labor is committed to action. The fact is that a Shorten Labor government will put a strong commitment to renewable energy at the centre of Australia's response to climate change. We are committed to that. Our goal for renewable energy will cut pollution, drive investment, create jobs and importantly push down power bills for families and small business. We understand how important that is. We want to see more investment in this area. We want to see more investment in solar, wind and wave energies and in new technologies as well. We are absolutely committed to that because we understand the value of renewables.

There is a very, very clear choice at the next election. There is Labor's rock-solid commitment to renewable energy, making sure that we have more jobs in that area and greater investment. Then you have the Liberal-National parties, who are doing everything to destroy this sector. People know that. People in the country know that, because you are destroying their jobs and you are destroying the chances of investing in a future for regional Australia. The fact is that people will hold the Liberal-National parties to account, and they will especially hold the National Party to account for trying their best to destroy the renewable energy sector.

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the subject of renewables, let us get this topic fairly and squarely on the basis of truth rather than the mythology of sea-green mist ghosting being peddled by those who sit in opposition. One assumes that Labor really does not have a handle on the costings and benefits arising from renewable energy. The final RET legislation that passed through the House was a negotiated outcome, where some members of Labor actually understood the needs of moving forward. Finally, investment strategies could be determined, with supply of renewables and a great outcome achieved, as well as employment opportunity. By 2020, more than 23.5 per cent of Australia's electricity will be provided by renewables, which is well above expectations. The program will lead to a doubling of renewable energy in the next five years.

We on this side of the House are balancing the best that Australia has to offer. We have a very sound solar industry, which continues to thrive. More than 1.4 million households, small businesses and community organisations have installed solar, which is in addition to the 900,000 solar hot water systems we have got going. The investment has been underpinned by the renewable energy target scheme. Under that scheme, some people have been getting more than $3,000 in rebates. This is equivalent to about 30 per cent of the total cost of installation. Yet Labor's 50 per cent target announcement was made without any analysis. We look at it and it looks like it is going to cost us about $85 billion. Who is going to pay for this? Nobody other than Australian families and Australian workers. Labor know this will drive up electricity prices, but they are too scared to admit it. This is fact. It is exactly what happened last time. Just talk to the families and businesses who copped massive electricity bills.

The government will implement new measures to support large-scale solar and other renewable energy deployment, including options to support other innovative renewable energy technologies. Many people living in Gilmore wish to see investment in other renewables, such as wave energy and biochar development. Those sitting opposite really have no idea. Our plan for renewables is sustainable. It will lead to research, development and investment into other options for renewable energy without costing our existing industries, which actually employ huge numbers of people in our nation.

After all, the options being proposed by Labor are really quite scary. Firstly, the proposal includes a new supercharged carbon tax, which will actually destroy jobs, push up electricity prices and hurt our Australian families and businesses. Labor was categorically rejected because of the carbon tax. That is one of the reasons why we are on this side and you are over there. I just wonder how the residents of Cunningham and Throsby, many of whom are directly involved in the coalmining industry, will feel when they are informed about this amazing policy reintroduction. If those opposite are re-elected and a super carbon tax comes along, the result will be very high electricity prices and the closure of 37 coalmines. I mean, really?

Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's rubbish. It's absolutely untrue.

Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it is not.

Our emissions reduction scheme is working. We are reducing emissions. We are successful without a carbon tax. At the same time, we are investing in human potential and the environment with the Green Army. How many young Australians are learning to love the land that they live in, becoming environmental advocates and having hands-on experience with environmental initiatives? They are growing personally. This is one of my community heroes. This is Paul. He is in Killalea State Park. He is a Green Army advocate—a young kid who was unemployed and is now working for the environment and making such a difference for our environment. I can only commend him.

I, for one, will be disappointed when I have to knock on a bakery door—if you guys get back in and put the carbon tax back on—and they say: 'My electricity bill has gone back up $900 a quarter. I have to sack two employees. My refrigerant bill has gone up four times.'

Opposition members interjecting—

Really and truly, do you understand what you did to small business? You killed some of them. Your whole policy—the policy you took to government last time—was destructive for jobs and it was destructive for business. You really need to re-evaluate where you think your policy is going, because your calculations are wrong.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If ever there were a case study of the complete and utter failure of a government to plan for the future, it would indeed be the Abbott Liberal government's failure to plan for a renewable energy future for Australia. They are so out of touch, out of favour and out of order. Their views are now so completely skewed on this issue that contributions opposite have dared suggest that current policy mechanisms put in place by this government are going to add—somehow, miraculously—to employment gains for Australia.

We hear members opposite launch the very sad but predictable attack on Labor's commitment to renewable energies here. The spectre of the carbon tax is very quickly raised on each and every occasion, by those members opposite saying what damage it did to jobs. Let us remind members opposite of the unemployment figures that are around today. They are the very highest since Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, was himself the minister for employment: 800,000. In my electorate of Newcastle, 610 shipbuilding jobs have gone under his watch. So let us not pretend that members opposite have any answers when it comes to employment.

Indeed, if members opposite took any notice whatsoever of the feedback from their so-called listening posts, mobile offices or even regular interactions with their constituents, they would know full well that renewable energy is overwhelmingly popular with Australians—not just in the metropolitan areas, as was suggested by the member for Parkes, but indeed in regional Australia, in areas like Newcastle and the Hunter Region. We know that more than 80 per cent of Australians have now locked in their support for renewable energy.

I speak as a member who has the electorate with the largest coal export port in the world. I am not naive about the contribution of fossil fuels to my regional economy. But you know what? The last thing that I and members in my region should do is bury our heads in the sand and pretend that we do not have to plan for some kind of transition to clean energy in the future.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's leadership.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is leadership. It is what is sadly lacking from this government. This government is going to leave regional economies like Newcastle and the Hunter hanging out to dry, because it has no plan around a renewable energy future. It has no plan for jobs of the future anywhere.

Let us have a quick look at the Liberal track record on renewables. We know, as a number of my colleagues have pointed out, that Australia was ranked in the top four most attractive countries in the world for investment in renewable energies. Since the election of the Abbott Liberal government, we have now plummeted to the 10th. Just last week, I met with wind energy providers in my electorate, who came to thank me for Labor reaching a position—albeit compromised—around the Renewable Energy Target last session, because their industry was haemorrhaging. They had not had a single cent of investment since the election of this government. They know that they are an important part of the future energy mix in Australia. Indeed, they were thankful for Labor's vision and our recent announcement during our national conference that 50 per cent of our energy would be generated by renewables by 2030. I have to say that that is a far cry from what this government has on the table.

There will be, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, a very clear choice at the next election. It is only Labor that actually has a plan for the future, that looks ahead, that cares about not only the jobs of today but the also the jobs of tomorrow. It is our plan that will establish a clean energy future for Australia. It is the Abbott Liberal government and this Prime Minister who remain stuck in the past at a time when Australians are absolutely crying out for a vision for the future—a vision that must include renewable energies, and a vision that must be good for our economies and good for our environment.

Brett Whiteley (Braddon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For those that may be listening—sitting in their cars, watching on TV or online, or the small number in the gallery—it is very easy and very tempting to be drawn in by rhetoric. It is very easy to have big number targets to make a political party look like they are in touch with the nation. It is very easy, just like it was to say, 'We're going to have surpluses,' and never deliver. The member for Sydney, as the opposition spokesman, talks about another $20 billion worth of foreign aid, but we have never seen any commitment to that in a budgetary sense. Those opposite talk about tax reform; they are full of rhetoric, but when it comes to actually leaving things on the table for a serious debate, they run a million miles. So I would say to those people listening: don't ever listen to my rhetoric, don't ever listen to the Prime Minister's rhetoric and certainly don't listen to the rhetoric on the other side. Look at the outcomes.

When it comes to renewable energy, which this MPI is about, let's talk about the outcomes. There was great discussion in the Howard era around signing the Kyoto agreement. But here is the reality: we surpassed the Kyoto agreement. We then moved to the next phase of a bipartisan commitment of 20 per cent of our energy use to be renewable by 2020. We are well on track for that to be 23½ per cent. So don't listen to the rhetoric. Look at the outcomes.

It is true that when you ask or do a survey of your constituents that renewable energy is very popular in the community. If you ask anybody whether we should be working towards more renewable energy, of course the response will be 70 or 80 per cent positive. But here is the kicker, which no-one ever wants to talk about: if you add just the slight addition to the question of 'Do you support more embracing of renewable energy at any cost to your family's budget?', I would suggest to everybody listening today that that number would be nowhere near 70 or 80 per cent. People would want clarification on what the cost of that popular embrace would be.

So let me tell you the facts as they stand right now. If you want to pay the cost of generating energy through coal or, in fact, hydro—I come from the state of Tasmania and we were dealing in renewable energy well before most other people's electorates in this place—it comes at a cost of around $35 or $40 a megawatt hour. If you want to deal in gas to generate your energy, the costs are $65 a megawatt hour. Wind is somewhere between $85 and $115, so let's call it $100 a megawatt hour. Solar comes at a cost of over $200 for every megawatt hour. Why do I raise this? I raise it simply to make this point: it comes at a cost to someone.

If you want to achieve renewable energy targets that are being pushed by the opposition, without any regard to the financial impact on the bottom line of the budget and, in turn, on the bottom line of family budgets, you have to take this into account. If you want renewable energy there are two options. Firstly, the government, the taxpayer—the government does not have money; we only have the people's money—has to subsidise those generating costs so that it is affordable to use solar, as we did with the subsidies we provided for years, so that families can afford that good feeling of renewable energy. Secondly, forget the subsidies. Who pays? The consumer has to pay the total cost. They are the facts. There are no other options. I hear those opposite being very quiet. You can hear the crickets over there. There are no other options. Either the government subsidises it or the taxpayer pays it. Either way, the taxpayer pays.

So I would ask everyone listening: do not take account of the rhetoric; take account of the outcomes. What would be the outcome for an Australian family as a result of the targets that those opposite are espousing? I will tell you what it is: it would be absolutely disastrous. Your electricity bills across Australia, folks, are way too dear now. If you think they are dear under the current arrangement and you want to take on board their policies then the cost will go up tenfold overnight. (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has concluded.