Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Slowly, slowly, and then suddenly! Within the coalition, the speaker's list on this bill started as something of a renegade action to begin a long and necessary debate on the need to dump Labor's net zero agenda, especially the taxes, penalties and big government schemes that now see taxpayers forced to stump up for the generation, storage, transmission, retail and even the consumption of power, directly supporting the businesses in Australia who are no longer viable in this country because energy prices are through the roof. So much for a future made in Australia. Without taking money off nurses and tradies, the Mount Isa refinery—closed; the Port Pirie smelter—closed; Whyalla—closed; Alcoa Kwinana refinery—closed; Tomago—closing. Instead, in just a few months, we have landed on a coalition position to put Australians first. I am not sure when we as a country decided that Canberra always knows best, with unelected bureaucrats who live far, far away from communities like mine somehow best placed to decide what ordinary Australians do in their homes, businesses and communities. It's a lens through which I've come to look at most policies of government. I am a 'live and let live' sort of guy, after all, and I honestly believe that an important part of the Australian psyche still holds that we just don't want to be told what to do all of the time.

When we come to the issue of net zero, it seems that this government decided that it knows better than Australians or, more egregiously, perhaps, that it simply doesn't trust them to do the right thing in their own circumstances. Rather than leaving it to each Australian to decide whether an electric vehicle is suited to their needs, whether for commuting, recreation with a caravan or boat, or even to suit their work from the construction site to the back paddock, this government decided to impose taxes on folks who choose an internal combustion engine vehicle, pushing up the cost, as just one example, of a new Ford Ranger by some $14,000 by 2029.

I think the truly criminal part of the government deciding they know more about what sort of car you should drive is the fact that they have cooked up a scheme of subsidies that makes a Tesla cheaper for a surgeon than for a nurse. I thought Labor was supposed to represent the workers, but they are, instead, running a scheme that gives high-income earners a bigger tax break to buy an EV, and the poor old taxpayers get to foot the bill. So we'll take tax money off a nurse to make a surgeon's novated lease for his Tesla cheaper. Astonishingly, the Parliamentary Budget Office expects this rort to cost some $23 billion over a decade and, yet, Labor stand by it. Why can't we end all subsidies, taxes, penalties and every other way that Canberra is trying to direct how Aussies drive and live their lives and just leave it to them?

Internationally, the evidence is clear. Labor's net zero zealotry is doomed to fail Australians, with no country in the world having lower power prices once wind and solar account for more than 20 per cent of generation in the grid. I've been asked by local media about CSIRO's GenCost report and other government modelling that somehow, miraculously, always shows power prices coming down with more renewables. The reality is that none of this modelling has ever been right in terms of cost at the meter, the only place that it counts for Aussie businesses and households. On page 5 of the GenCost report it literally says that it is:

… focussed on the investor's perspective and not the long-term value to the consumer.

If that doesn't bell the cat I don't know what would.

Nobody wants to talk about the Labor Party's RepuTex modelling of $275 power price cuts for Australians by 2025, least of all the minister responsible for the mess, who's now cutting back his hours to spend more time junketing with the COP set. But the Prime Minister of Australia said, 'I don't think; I know that prices will come down.' Here's something else the Prime Minister said in Longford on 12 April 2022:

From time to time, if ever I make a mistake, I will own it and I will accept responsibility.

Well, Prime Minister, why won't you own this? Why won't you take responsibility, as you promised the Australian people you would? If you did, you'd do the right thing by Australians and dump your net zero agenda that has pushed power prices up while seeing emissions flatline and Aussie jobs exported overseas.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lot has happened since the member for New England proposed this motion to the House. We now know that the party the member may or may not be a member of—the Nationals—has rejected net zero. We also know that their partner in coalition—the Liberal Party—has obediently followed suit, sort of. They tried to have a bet each way, with the opposition leader saying they were abandoning net zero but that somehow they were going to stay in the Paris Agreement while also going against the entire principles of the agreement, no matter what their talking points say. Their commitment to reducing emissions only goes as far as entertaining it as a possible outcome that would be 'welcome' but certainly not worth trying to achieve. That all sounds very confusing and like a word salad that's trying to please everybody or at least not offend anybody—but, of course, it really fails to do anything. But fear not: it must be a real policy because they've also released a glossy leaflet!

It's full of dot points of lovely motherhood statements that sound great but have 'net zero' detail on how they intend to achieve them. There's no detail on addressing the shortfall in energy caused by 24 of the 28 coal fired power plants announcing their closures under the Morrison government with nothing done to replace them—nada. There's no detail on addressing the unreliability of ageing coal fired power plants that their owners know are uneconomic to repair or replace—zilch. There's no detail on addressing the lack of market interest in investing in coal fired or nuclear powered stations—zip. There's no detail on addressing the costs of energy for households or businesses that will be made worse by going away from the cheapest form of energy generation and instead backing more expensive forms of energy generation that need major capital injections—nil.

Bizarrely, this reminded me of the TV series South Park. Stay with me, and I'll give you a brief synopsis to explain. It's an episode called 'The underpants gnomes'. Our heroes, Cartman, Stan, Kyle and Kenny—you pick who is whom—meet another boy who insists the gnomes are stealing his underpants. It turns out that he's right. Our heroes trace the gnomes back to their cave, where they can see the cunning plan. On the wall is a chart. One the left, it says, 'Step 1: steal underpants.' On the right, it says, 'Step 3: profit.' And, in the middle, next to step 2, is a large question mark. That's pretty much the coalition's energy plan in three easy steps. Step 1 is get rid of net zero—tick! Step 3 has the possibility of 'welcome' outcomes. Step 2 has a big question mark. But don't you worry your pretty little head about it; it's all good. Here, look at this glossy brochure!

While this refers to their lack of energy plan, there is also a complete lack of plan to deal with climate change. The irony is that the coalition seats are largely based in rural and regional areas—some of the areas most at risk from the impacts of climate change. They are represented by people who don't believe in climate change or don't understand the science or are not willing to do anything about it or all three. Droughts, floods, cyclones, increasingly powerful and more frequent storms, algal blooms and marine die-offs as we have seen in South Australia—these affect us all, but they particularly affect farmers, aquaculture, commercial fishing and tourism, which are all largely based in the regions. The flow-on effects are felt by the towns and regional communities that support them.

Those opposite say they understand the science of climate change, but what are they going to say to their communities about their lack of action on climate change? A lack of a target or plan shows they don't care. It isn't a priority. To say, 'If it does happen, it would be welcome,' is an insulting crumb thrown from the table to keep the supplicants quiet. To those who say they care about the costs of electricity, what will you say to the households, businesses and industries in their electorates about a credible way to replace the energy generation that left the system under your watch or announced its imminent closure under your watch? When the evidence is there that coal and gas are an expensive form of generation and that nuclear is the most expensive form of generation for a country like Australia, how can they seriously look at the renewables transformation already well underway and say they want to stop progress? Will they look in the eyes of the next generation—our children, our grandchildren—and show them a glossy brochure with no substance, no plans, no targets and only the meaningless word 'welcome'? How insulting!

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to oppose the Repeal Net Zero Bill 2025. First introduced by the member for New England in his individual capacity, this is now the official stance of the coalition. This bill would unravel Australia's emissions reduction framework without putting anything else in place. It would close the Net Zero Economy Authority, which supports the workforce transition across regional Australia. It would repeal vehicle efficiency standards that drive down fuel costs. Turning away from renewables would jeopardise almost $10 billion in direct payments to farmers and landholders by 2050. It would rob regional communities and councils of another $1.9 billion in community benefit-sharing programs. It would threaten the thousands of jobs expected to be created in the next five years. There is no alternative proposal nor positive vision for the future—just repeal, rescind and omit.

This bill is a missed opportunity to make sure Australia's path to net zero delivers substantial, tangible and lasting benefit to regional and rural communities such as those that I represent. I support the transition to a net zero economy, but not blindly. It must be done with regional and rural development front of mind. That's why, when I identified serious deficiencies in the community engagement on renewable infrastructure projects, I didn't just stand on the sidelines. I went to the government and I worked with the minister to secure the Dyer review, which is helping shape best practice and will ultimately lead to community benefit.

In Indi and across regional Australia, people are ready to share in the benefits of the energy transition. These are communities who want fair warning, fair process and fair intergenerational community benefit. Their demands for meaningful engagement should not be contorted into blanket opposition, because there is support. Recent polling shows strong support for the transition to renewable energy across regional Victoria, Queensland and New South Wales, including in New England. The member for New England may be interested to know that the majority of respondents in his own electorate support Australia shifting to renewable energy and agree that investment in renewables will be a good thing for regional Australia. While the member for New England says no to net zero, his own constituents are actually saying yes. The energy transition is an opportunity for regional Australia. Many of us in this chamber represent regional towns whose origins trace all the way back to the gold rush. Australia's unique geography drove a wave of prosperity that changed our nation's fortunes and future.

Today, regional Australia is on the cusp of another gold rush, powered not by what is under the ground but by the energy sources of the 21st century: solar, wind and hydro. Dynamic regional communities are seizing the opportunities. One of the largest local governments in New England, the Armidale Regional Council, is establishing a multimillion-dollar future fund to put revenue from renewable energy straight back into the community. Rural Goorambat in my electorate has secured support for a new mobile phone tower as well as a $2 million community benefit fund, and Hay Shire Council has negotiated community benefits amounting to $26 million over the next 30 years for one of its projects.

I want all communities contributing to the transition to share in the benefit. In 2021, we were told:

We cannot pretend the world is not changing.

We were warned:

If we do, we run the risk of stranding jobs … especially in regional areas.

Who said that? It was the Morrison government's then minister for energy and emissions reduction, the member for Hume. He was right; we cannot pretend that the world is not changing. Business and industry have made it clear they want policy certainties, not U-turns. Last week the Australian Energy Council released a survey confirming that the sector is committed to net zero. CEOs agree it is too late to turn back.

It's been a little over a week since the Leader of the Opposition confirmed the coalition had abandoned net zero. I say this to my northern neighbour, the member for Farrer: it's not too late to reconsider. Instead of denial and division, I invite the coalition to bring constructive policies to the table. I invite the National Party to consider how to best promote the interests of their communities. I should not be the only regional MP pushing to make sure net zero works for regional Australia and results in intergenerational net benefit.

Emma Comer (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by offering my congratulations to the member for New England because something remarkable has happened. Every single part of the bill he has dumped before this parliament, the Repeal Net Zero Bill, is now official coalition policy. Every line, every sentence and every bold claim have all now been adopted by those opposite, which is truly remarkable, seeing as everyone opposite, except the member for New England, voted against debating on this private member's bill. Even the member for New England's seconder didn't want to have this debate.

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

A point of order—

Member for Indi and Member for New England! I'm having difficulty hearing the debate over here. I ask you both to refrain from conversation in the chamber. By all means, pop outside and carry on the conversation.

Emma Comer (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It has now been endorsed by the members for Goldstein, Moncrieff and Berowra. It has been backed by Senators Hume, Kovacic and Bragg, which is confusing, seeing as Senator Bragg threatened to quit the front bench if the Liberals dumped net zero. Does this mean there's a vacancy in the shadow cabinet? Is the member for Canning eyeing it off?

The party that introduced net zero targets when last in government have now dumped them—but then stated they support the Paris Agreement—and the former cancels out the latter; it simply doesn't make sense. From the number of backflips on policy we witnessed during the election campaign and continue to see now, you'd think they're eyeing off the green and gold jerseys of the Australian Olympic gymnastics team! The party that once claimed the legacy of Menzies has now proudly transformed itself into the party of Barnaby Joyce. The coalition are opposed to net zero emissions, but they are committed to winning net zero seats.

While they're busy trying to reinvent themselves—or, rather, regress themselves—here are the facts. The Albanese government is delivering a responsible, sensible and effective energy plan. We have delivered three rounds of targeted power bill relief, we capped gas prices when it mattered and we have invested heavily in cheap, clean renewable energy, and those opposite voted against every one of those measures. Every time we backed Australians, those opposite backed higher bills. And what happened when we took action? Wholesale electricity prices fell by a third in the last quarter, not by accident and not by chance but by this government acting when the opposition refused to. We want wholesale price drops to flow through to retail bills as fast as possible, and the experts warn that delays would do the opposite. The Australian Energy Market Commission reported that delaying renewable generation and transmission would put upward pressure on electricity bills. If you delay, you pay, and delay is exactly what the coalition is offering.

Our plan is working. Last month, renewables supplied half of the national electricity market. Last year alone, more than five gigawatts of new solar, wind, battery and gas capacity entered the system. We have approved 111 renewable and related projects, which will be enough to power 13 million homes. More than one in three Australian households now have rooftop solar, with over four million solar installations, and the great state of Queensland is leading the way. Since July, more than 120,000 household batteries have been installed, which has boosted the national battery capacity by 50 per cent. We have introduced overdue energy market reforms to ensure consumers get the best deals possible. Compare that to the decade of disaster delivered by those opposite. During those opposite's time in government, 24 out of Australia's 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure. And what did they do? Absolutely nothing. There was no replacement plan, no transition plan, no grid modernisation—net zero action. They announced 23 different energy policies and did not land a single one—not one! Their chaos created the energy mess that Australians are still paying for today.

We know what doing nothing looks like. Research shows household power bills could rise by $449 a year by 2030 if Australia slows renewable investment and leans on coal and gas. Prices could climb by more than $600 a year if a major coal plant fails unexpectedly. Treasury warns that abandoning net zero would mean lower growth, fewer jobs, higher prices and less investment. A disorderly transition would cost the economy $1.2 trillion by 2050. Recent research shows that electricity prices today would be 50 per cent higher if Australia had relied entirely on coal and gas instead of investing in renewables.

While the coalition argues about whether climate change is real, this government is lowering emissions, driving investment and modernising the grid, fighting for a safer and cleaner and more prosperous future. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There being no further speakers, the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.