House debates

Tuesday, 2 June 2015

Bills

Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015; Second Reading

4:35 pm

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

Recently, I had a meeting with representatives of ACCIONA Australia. ACCIONA is one of the largest investors in renewable energy projects in Australia and abroad. During the meeting with the representatives of ACCIONA, one of the company directors asked me a very direct question. He said to me: 'Why is it that the Australian government is seeking to reduce the amount of renewable energy that it will produce over the next five years?' I was quite shocked. My reply was: 'There is only one answer to that question, and that is: because Tony Abbott is our Prime Minister, and Tony Abbott does not believe in climate change and does not believe in taking concerted action to promote renewable energy in our economy.'

Since his election as Prime Minister, Australia has become probably the only developed nation in the world to go backwards on tackling climate change and on policies that promote progress and greater uptake of renewable energy in our economy and our society. As a result of that, our kids will pay the price. Our kids will pay the price in the form of more pollution in our economy into the future, of lower economic growth in the longer term and of fewer new jobs being created in the industries of the future. In the long term, we will pay with higher electricity prices. There are many reports that detail this fact.

The Prime Minister has deceived the Australian public. Before the last election, the Prime Minister gave one of his many ironclad guarantees—no change to the renewable energy target. The 41,000 gigawatt hours by 2020 was supposed to be a bipartisan commitment. It was supposed to be beyond politics—something that all Australians could feel comfortable with; that, no matter who was in power in Canberra, our national government would be taking action to combat climate change and to promote renewable energy. Once again, this is another broken promise from a Prime Minister who makes a habit of deceiving the Australian public.

As soon as he was elected, the Prime Minister sought to appoint a known climate change sceptic to review the operation of the renewable energy target. When that announcement was made, the new investment in the industry completely stopped. It ceased. All of the progress that had been made under the Howard government and under the Gillard and Rudd governments was halted. Projects were stopped and, over the months that ensued, jobs were lost. The renewable energy target, up to that point, had facilitated $20 billion of new investment in large-scale renewable energy and billions of dollars of new investment in small-scale solar panels and solar hot water. That investment was growing. In 2012, the renewable energy industry employed 24,000 Australians. These are highly skilled, high-wage jobs of the future—jobs that we need to be promoting into the Australian economy.

Other nations are investing heavily in renewable energy—in particular, some of our closest trading partners. It is remarkable to see the transition that has occurred in the last five years in the Chinese economy. The Chinese get it when it comes to investment in renewable energy. They understand that the jobs of the future and the transition from an industrial based economy to a clean energy economy will be based on the promotion of renewable energy. So they are investing more than any other nation, in dollar terms, in renewable energy projects—in research and development, in commercialisation, in funding, in manufacturing, in installation and in production of power through renewable energy. Unfortunately, because of this Prime Minister's deception of the Australian public, Australia has gone backwards in this area because all new investment was halted when the Warburton review was announced.

We have seen the loss of bipartisanship, which has affected investment in the industry. The change sent shockwaves through the renewable energy industry because, as I said, prior to the election those investors—and many of them are big banks, superannuation funds and big corporations—were given a guarantee by the Prime Minister that there would be no change in the renewable energy target. You could invest safely and you could invest with the comfort that the government was not going to change the policy. In an area like this, government policy, stability and certainty is crucial to investment and jobs. Then the Prime Minister backflipped. Then the Prime Minister deceived the Australian public. The destruction did not stop there. The Prime Minister will continue his campaign to decimate the renewable energy sector by cutting $600 million to the commitment for solar roofs, towns and schools to just $2 million in the 2014 budget and slashing funding to the Australian Renewable Energy Agency in the 2013 MYEFO, before adding the agency to the abolition list in the 2014 budget. The biggest shock and the biggest broken promise came after the review of the renewable energy target. The Prime Minister's RET review created uncertainty in the market that would ultimately see investment in Australia practically stop.

Despite the Prime Minister's insistence that the renewable energy target drives up power prices, the RET review found—and this is important evidence—that the current RET of 41,000 gigawatt hours would put downward pressure on household power prices in the medium to long term. That is a finding that has been backed by the Clean Energy Council when they commissioned a report from ROAM Consulting which found that, over the medium to long term, the uptake and increase of renewable energy will actually put downward pressure on electricity prices. The reason is that, once the initial investment is made, the source of the power is free. Wind is free and solar energy is free. So, once the initial investment is made, over time prices come down. So there is actually an advantage to our economy—for businesses and for households—by promoting more renewable energy, but the Prime Minister wants to put the brakes on that. The Prime Minister does not want to see us move from coal to more renewable energy. The ROAM report found that the effect was that households will pay $50 more for their electricity in 2020 if the renewable energy target were eliminated. The current RET of 41,000 gigawatt hours is driving investment in new projects. It is also reducing Australia's carbon pollution and it is driving new jobs.

Labor believes in climate change. Labor believes in renewable energy. In government, Labor expanded the renewable energy target to ensure that at least 20 per cent of Australia's electricity would come from renewable sources by 2020. In government, we established the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, or ARENA, to manage $3 billion in renewable energy investment and the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation to provide a new source of finance to renewable energy, low emissions and energy-efficiency technology. This was a process of ensuring that there was support to get many of those important renewable energy projects off the ground—start-ups, if you like. It is support from government for start-ups in renewable energy, ensuring that they have the commercial backing to make those projects viable. As I said, once they are established, once the capital investment is made, the long-term running costs are very low because the energy source is free. The result was spectacular growth in jobs. From 2007 to 2013 direct employment in the industry doubled, to over 24,000 jobs. Wind capacity trebled to 3,000 megawatts and over one million solar PV systems were installed. We went from 7,400 systems at the end of the Howard government to over a million households and businesses with solar panels on their roofs, generating renewable electricity for their households and businesses through that process. That was Labor's commitment to a renewable energy target. It was Labor's belief in investment, a greater uptake of renewable energy and using government policy to promote that in our economy.

The Abbott government are seeking to cut the RET. The renewable energy industry has been gobsmacked by the approach of the Abbott government. As I said, they failed to see, because they were given a commitment before the election that there would be stability and certainty in the industry and that the government would not change the goalposts midway. But that is exactly what they did. As a result of that, as I said, new investment halted.

The industry has been absolutely begging the political parties to reach an agreement on this issue, to ensure that there is ongoing certainty into the future so that there will be investment and that jobs will not be lost. Labor has heeded those calls and we made offers that were reasonable to the government to ensure that the renewable energy target continued and that there continued to be investment in jobs growth into the future. It is pleasing to see that the government finally did adopt Labor's approach, come to the table and agree to the compromise offer.

The Clean Energy Council recommended 33½ thousand gigawatt hours. We have agreed on 33,000. It estimates that that will drive about $40.4 billion in investment and will create more than 15,000 jobs. The agreement will see projects start to be built again and businesses begin to enjoy certainty again to allow them to assure their staff's job security.

I want to congratulate Mark Butler, the shadow minister, for the wonderful job that he has done in representing the views of the renewable energy industry. I think without Mark's advocacy and deft negotiation in this matter, we may have seen the renewable energy target in this area fall over.

Labor also negotiated principles that we are pleased to see have achieved outcomes, including no change to the small-scale solar scheme, which includes rooftop solar and solar panels for small businesses; full exemptions for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries, which relieves some pressure on those industries that are enduring downturns and job cuts; and removal of the two-year reviews, which provides the long-term certainty that the industry so desperately needs to survive and to thrive.

The final point to make is that I am deeply disappointed that the government continues to pursue its plans to include the burning of native forests in the renewable energy target. It is something that I and my Labor colleagues are opposed to. Burning native forests for energy is neither clean nor renewable. And the best advice is that that is so.

The definition of 'waste' is not what those opposite would have you believe. We are not just talking about the bits that are left over after logging. 'Waste' can be large parts of trees and, in some cases, entire trees that are not up to scratch for other uses. We simply do not see a case for the inclusion in the RET of burning wood waste and, on that basis, we will oppose that aspect of this bill.

Comments

No comments