John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

In reflecting on, and responding to, the Governor-General's speech I want to start by borrowing some insights from Tim Colebatch, which occurred in Melbourne's The Age newspaper some time ago. In an article entitled, 'We simply can't have our cake and eat it too,' Mr Colebatch observed:

… events are moving far more rapidly than public opinion. And rather than use their positions of influence to persuade the public to catch up with reality, as Paul Keating did, the politicians are lining up with public opinion as if to defy it. That makes short-term sense, but also makes it impossible for them to tackle the long-term challenges.

I do not agree with everything Mr Colebatch wrote in his article but I intend to agree with that.

The policy and legislative program of the new government, as outlined in the Governor-General's speech, resonated with politicians lining up with public opinion as if to defy it. There was much in the speech that sounded as if it would make people happy. However, sounding as if you are doing something good can be very different from doing the things that are actually needed to make this country and our people more prosperous.

I start by asking: how will fast-tracking free trade agreements with South Korea, Japan, China, Indonesia and India make more Australians prosperous and happy? There is no level playing field when it comes to global trade, yet successive Australian governments defy that fact. On the altar of free trade we have exposed our economy and our manufacturing industries to be slaughtered by those countries who subsidise their industries, who dump goods here or who use low-paid and even slave labour. We expose our industries to countries that are damaging their environments.

On the altar of free trade we are killing off our manufacturing industries by failing to provide them with non-tariff protections and supports. I say we need to be much smarter about industry policy. Politicians need to stop mouthing the words they think will make people happy and start providing leadership and intelligent solutions. Here is one example. Countries we share free trade agreements with have economic trade zones. These zones provide non-tariff support and assistance to their manufacturers. Australia does not have one economic trade zone on our shores, yet collectively our trade partners use hundreds of trade zones to support their manufacturers.

The whole of Australia's car and component manufacturing industry could have operated within Australian based economic trade zones and enjoyed an advantage equal to that enjoyed by their overseas competitors. Overseas car and component companies operate within economic trade zones established by their governments, giving them a significant cost advantage. Why didn't the Australian government accord the Australian car industry this cost advantage? This is not about giving handouts; it is about producing and enacting effective policy settings that will create lasting improvements to assist and sustain our industries, grow jobs and create wealth. Why doesn't the new government embrace the effectiveness of economic trade zones and establish some right here in Australia to assist our manufacturers? This approach would be consistent with the new government's approach to reducing regulation and red tape. Economic trade zones epitomise reducing red tape and removing unnecessary cost imposts from productive, wealth-producing industries.

I am not a big fan of the catchcry evoked in the new government's policy program that decries so-called red and green tape. I advocate economic trade zones because they would reduce unnecessary cost imposts on our productive industries and help put us on an equal footing with our competitors. However, I also support robust regulation of industry, particularly when it comes to preventing the environmental and social harms that unregulated or under-regulated industries can cause. Politicians should not line up to encourage the public to support weakened and lax regulation in such important areas. The new government's so-called state based one-stop shop approach to regulation is a recipe for weakened regulatory arrangements.

I would like to provide my fellow senators with some real-life examples of the failures of the state based one-stop shop approach to environmental and planning regulation. This approach has been in place between Victoria and the Commonwealth for the last four years. Throughout much of that time, I have been trying to assist communities invaded by large industrial wind-energy facilities. The state based one-stop shop approach has accorded the Victorian planning minister the power to veto Victorian environment and planning laws and Commonwealth renewable energy law. In the case of ACCIONA's Waubra wind farm, since 2010 Minister Matthew Guy has been repeatedly advised by his department and the EPA that the Waubra wind farm is breaching the conditions of its planning permits regarding noise nuisance for local residents, yet he has repeatedly refused to make the call and formalise this non-compliance by calling it what it is and enforcing the conditions of the planning permits.

In the state based one-stop shop approach, state based ministers, departments and authorities can sit on vital information. They can withhold decisions and render Commonwealth laws impotent. Non-compliant wind farms are racking up multiple millions of dollars in renewable energy certificates paid for by energy consumers. They are being financed by our banking and superannuation industries. They are receiving public grants and subsidies. All of this is creating a huge financial risk in our financial sectors. These power stations are not eligible for any forms of financial assistance until such time as they can show compliance with their planning permit conditions of approval. All of that risk is developing because of the state based one-stop shop approach to under-regulation. This is not an example of federalism working well; quite the opposite. This approach eats away at a balance of powers between state and Commonwealth governments—a balance that exists to ensure accountability between governments and protections to taxpayers, the Australian community and our environment.

I am reminded of important information on bird habitats and other species disappearing off the public databases of the Victorian Department of Environment and Sustainability. This is happening in the locations earmarked for wind farm development. The disappearance of this information is important when it comes to the referral process under the Commonwealth Environment Protection Act and the way it interacts with the Victorian environmental effects statement process. For example, information about brolga nesting sites, growling grass frogs, southern bent wing bats or golden sun moths either disappears or is ignored at a state level. That is most convenient when it comes to considering the impact of the Mount Gellibrand wind farm proposed for south-western Victoria. The site is surrounded by Ramsar listed wetlands and is home to a whole variety of critically endangered and nationally important species. There was no environmental effects statement or EES prepared for this site at a Victorian state level. Instead, the Commonwealth and the Victorian governments conspired to allow a huge industrial facility in the midst of a high-value conservation site without any conditions of approval.

In my experience, a state based one-stop shop approach to environmental regulation means no regulation. It means government acting as a facilitator that allows industry to do what it wants, regardless of the environmental or social consequences. When the new government says that Australia is open for business, that should not mean we do business at any price, regardless of the cost to our people, their communities and their environment. On those terms, such business is bad business.

I am alerted to a further example of this in the Governor-General's speech about the new government's focus on the resources sector. Australia is now facing a gas crisis. This crisis is not because we do not have enough gas or because we are running out of gas. This crisis is the creation of bad government policies accruing over the last 20 or so years. Australia is facing escalating gas prices that might see our domestic price for gas quadruple over the next few years. The flow-on effects for households and industry will be devastating.The reason for this is the amount of gas we are exporting. Governments have overreached the amount of gas available for export and have not protected Australia's domestic interests.At the same time, high electricity prices are driving people to use gas, and environmental considerations are encouraging people to prefer gas as a lower emission fuel.At a time when our gas reserves are of high strategic importance, governments are allowing them to be sold off as fast as they can be exported.

What i s the answer to this problem? Both state and federal levels of government are saying we should open up more of Australia to coal seam gas development , or ' fr acking'. I do no t agree. I think we need a lot more information before we can even begin to consider going down that path. If governments want to resolve the problem of over committing Australia's gas resources for sale and export , then we need to change that policy. It will not be solved by opening up a whole new set of problems associated with fracking.

We also need to be more efficient and smarter with our use of gas. On that note, I want to conclude with an example of a clever Australian company . C eramic Fuel Cells Pty Ltd has just sold 45 BlueGen micro combined heat and power units into the largest virtual power station project in Europe that will support a region in the Netherlands to achieve zero ca rbon dioxide emissions by 2020. The same company has just sold 10 BlueGen units to a UK social housing organisation to help al leviate the fuel poverty of low- income households. In November last year , it sold another 1 , 000 Blue Gen u nits into the Baltic region, it s single biggest order.

C oming out of research and development by the CSIRO, this micro combined heat and power technology is the most efficient small heat and power generator on the planet, operating at 85 per cent energy efficiency. A BlueGen reduces household electricity and gas bills from about $2,000 per year to about $200 per year , a 90 per cent saving o n energy bills. Operating 24 hours a day, it can produce enough electricity for tw o homes and create heat as a by- product that is enough to meet the hot water needs of a family home. It does all this with about one - ninth of the gas used by an instant gas hot water heater.

T his technology does not burn gas and it does no t create emissions. It splits gas into its various parts and runs it through an electro- chemical process to create electricity and heat. This clean, efficient and socially responsible technology is an example of Australian ingenuity at its very best. Wh en Ceramic Fuel Cells is doing exactly what we want our Australian manufacturing companies to do, why aren't Australian governments supporting the uptake of this technology here in Australia? Why isn't BlueGen attracting a feed- in tariff? I suggest there is far too much ideology in Australia's energy and manufacturing policies and too little common sense and scientif ic and technical understanding. We are making poor decisions as a country about the energy technologies we will and will not use, the manufacturing industries we do and do no t support, the ways we are exploiting our precious resources and the communities and families w e are leaving behind in our two- speed economy.

We should be implementing a strategic policy to support our innovative technologies industry and its manufacturers at a time when we are losing thousands of manufacturing jobs and our electricity prices are sky rocketing. We should be introducing economic trade zones to support our manufacturing industries. We should be supporting sensible exploitation of our resources in our interest, in Australia's interest. We should be maintaining and bolstering our regulatory systems to protect our communities and our environmen t. Our role in this chamber and in the other place is to provide leadership that persuades the public to catch up with the reality. We can only deal with the challenges that confront us by telling the truth, by being smart and by caring for ordinary Australians. That is the sort of business I a m open to.