Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, 2016 was the hottest year on record, and last decade was the warmest ever. Climate change is getting more and more urgent. If we do not take action now, our children will pay for our mistakes. There is no doubt that the Abbott-Turnbull government has been loath to accept the scientific realities of climate change. By removing a price on carbon, reducing the RET, and ignoring expert advice advocating an emissions intensity scheme, the Abbott-Turnbull government has completely destroyed the policy plan for certainty of investment in our energy sector. This failure is impacting on Australians through higher electricity prices. In their submission to the Finkel review, the Australian Energy Council stated:

…the lack of national policy certainty is now the single biggest driver of higher electricity prices. … the electricity cost of sustained national policy inaction is effectively equivalent to a carbon price in excess of $50 a tonne.

That is the view of the Australian Energy Council. This government has overseen a dramatic reduction in investments in renewable energy. In 2014, investment in large-scale wind, solar and other clean energy sources fell by an astounding 88 per cent to $240 million, the lowest since 2002, putting us behind countries like Panama, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. While coal will play an important part of our energy mix for the foreseeable future, all Australians realise our nation must make a transition to a cleaner renewable energy.

Governments need to plan to manage this transition. Labor's emissions intensity scheme is widely considered by industry experts and stakeholders to be the most affordable approach to providing investment certainty while supporting our transition to clean energy. An EIS encourages electricity generators to reduce their carbon emissions and to invest in newer, cleaner technology and gain a financial advantage. This ensures a competitive advantage for clean sources of electricity whilst minimising the impact on wholesale electricity prices.

Under the Turnbull government, emissions have continued to rise, with recent data revealing a 2.2 per cent increase in emissions in 2015-16 from the 2014-15 levels. So, instead of improving our situation in Australia with respect to global warming and climate change, we are actually going backwards. An EIS would reduce emissions and keep power bills up to $15 billion lower over a decade. A gradual transition to renewable energy sources is the right move for our nation not only in terms of easing environmental impact but by creating new and high-skilled jobs for Australians.

The solar sector employs 2.8 million people globally and, in the US, solar now provides twice as many jobs as coal. Costs associated with solar power continue to plummet, dropping 58 per cent in the past five years, with an expected fall of 40 to 70 per cent by 2040. This government's unwillingness to tackle the issue head-on is condemning future generations to clean up the mess whilst denying them those jobs and opportunities that would flow from embracing a solid transition to renewable energy.

This is also costing us a lot more money on our power bills. Because the private sector, which owns most of the generation assets in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia, is not investing in new base-load technology and new base-load power, we are all seeing constrained supply, and it is pushing up our power bills

The Turnbull government recently announced that they want to use taxpayers' money to invest in new coal-fired power stations, which are only marginally less polluting than the current coal-fired power stations and twice as polluting as gas. The CEO of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Oliver Yates, recently stated that ultra-supercritical coal plants do not meet the CEFC's definition of low-emissions technologies and are thus ineligible for funding. Mr Yates also said that new coal plants are not commercially viable, because of the strong likelihood of future carbon liabilities.

Clearly, seeking to use the CEFC's fund to fund coal-fired power is a backward step. The Australian public deserves better than a government hell-bent on crazy coal plans, bashing renewables and attacking Labor, particularly when the security and future wellbeing of generations are at stake and when it is pushing up electricity prices.

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

I had a disturbing conversation this morning with a friend of mine who lives in a metropolitan capital. I was talking about the economics of regional, rural and remote Australia and how bullish the prospects are at the moment. He told me that was in direct contrast to what he had been led to believe about how the economy in rural Australia was travelling, so I thought I would take this opportunity to perhaps dispel the myth that somehow rural, regional and remote Australia is not travelling well, as it seems—from his assessment of the media—is the myth that is spreading.

You could pick almost any commodity group from the rural sector and find that there is a story of bullish prospects and strong prices. Beef is at an all-time high—we have never seen prices like these. Sheep meat is consistently strong. But it is not just in livestock. In my electorate I have a significant amount of horticultural effort, and we see this success right across, from almond and citrus orchards in the Riverland all the way down to crayfish in the south-east of South Australia. But it is not just farming. It is also the forestry sector, which, to put it bluntly, cannot cut enough timber at the moment. These prospects for jobs and economic activity are really welcome.

When I think about all of this in the context of what we do in this place, I think: I am not going to be someone who stands here and says that this economic achievement, this economic benefit, is all because of what we have done in Canberra. Far be it from me to say that. It is more or less down to the industry of the farmers, the foresters and the fishermen in electorates across the country, like mine. But, when I think about what we have done, you have to go a long way past the decisions we took, some time ago now, around the trilogy of free trade agreements. Indeed, December last year marked the first anniversary of the groundbreaking China-Australia Free Trade Agreement and the second year of the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Farmers in my electorate are in pole position to take advantage of the growing middle class throughout Asia and its increasing demand for high-quality foods and services that a region like mine has to offer. These critical trade deals are the driving force behind Australia's forecast for agricultural production, which will, for the first time, surpass $60 billion in 2016-17. That is an all-time record. We have never been at that level. This is up 6.1 per cent on last year, and it is 16 per cent higher than the average of $52 billion over the previous five years. We are on a bullish push, and it is being driven from the bush.

I would draw the chamber's attention to specific examples, whether it is exports of hay and chaff to China up 37 per cent or an increase of almost $102 million for exported oranges, which is up 56 per cent. These are all fantastic achievements. But I can drill down even further into the detail. I can tell you that, for the very first time for my electorate, stone fruit was exported from Australia into China. So it is not only that we are establishing and have established free trade agreements with China and other nations like Korea and Japan, but we are also working on the non-tariff barriers.

It was the breaking down of those non-tariff barriers that meant stone fruit producers in my electorate could get their high-quality stone fruits into China for the first time. That is a game changer. It might not sound like much to others in this chamber, but it is most definitely a game changer. What we have done through that process is prove to the Chinese authorities that we can send fruit from the Riverland into China fruit fly free. That has been a significant barrier to trade for our citrus industry in particular, and it is the reason why we are looking at such great economic prospects in the region. Last Thursday, a small parcel of land, 226 acres, sold in my electorate. If you had bought it four months ago and you had paid $3,600 an acre, you would have paid all of it. I can tell you, it sold on Thursday for $5,100 an acre. That is driving real wealth and real growth.