Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that at 8.30 am today four proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Bernardi:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The need for the government to take immediate and meaningful steps to reduce electricity prices for all Australians.

Is the proposal supported?

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

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate for agreeing to debate this important issue. Few things exercise the minds of Australians more than when they receive these little envelopes in the post claiming they are electricity bills. It fills hearts with dread. It puts fear into everyone who struggles with their household budget. The reason for this fear can be laid fully and squarely at the feet of government—both stripes of government, the blue team and the red team, because for the last 10 years they have been tinkering with the electricity market. They have been corrupting the electricity market, in the sense they have sought to make it uneconomic and somehow subsidise it into existence. In doing so, they have squandered and destroyed the competitive advantage that Australia previously had—that is, an abundance of fossil fuels and an abundance of cheap electricity—and now we have amongst the most unreliable and most expensive electricity in the Western world, and it is getting worse.

This has all been done under the guise of climate change. Any thinking person knows that nothing Australia does to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, even if you believe that they are pollutants, is going to change the climate one jot or one tittle. Yet tens of billions of dollars have been thrown into wind power and solar subsidies to somehow change the climate.

In the latest incarnation of it we had the national emissions guarantee, which, of course, was abandoned when Labor's greatest Prime Minister, known as Mr Turnbull, was deposed from office. Twice he lost his leadership of the Liberal Party, twice on the basis of trying to implement an emissions trading scheme which was against Australia's economic interest. It has no benefit or relevance to the environmental circumstances in which Australia finds itself and yet it was going to damage even further every aspect of Australia's way of life and the affordability for Australian families and for industry to get ahead and create prosperity for our country. Nothing is more important to the Australian people than having reliable and cheap power, because that is what is going to propel economic growth in this country. It is what is going to allow Australians to heat their homes in winter, cool their homes in summer, keep the lights on, enjoy the benefits that an electronic age has today and also provide them with the jobs and the quality and the standard of living that they deserve.

It is time for governments of whatever persuasion to act in the interests of Australian citizens, not in the self-indulgent interests of the United Nations. Just today I read about the Paris climate accord. For those who are ever suspicious about its real motivation, it is about who administers a $100 billion fund to support a bunch of two-bit, often corrupt countries that are seeking to extract cash out of Western democracies under the guise of being disadvantaged because of climate change. It is nonsense. It is errant nonsense. We know that the Pacific islands are not sinking and yet they continue to demand money from Western nations. What's even more galling is the coup leader from Fiji was, until a couple of weeks ago, president of this auspicious body designed to extract $100 billion from Western nations. It's little wonder Russia's not participating. It's little wonder America has walked away from it. It's little wonder China and India aren't being held to account for their emissions. It's because they all know this is a giant con.

It is time for the Australian government, whether it is a coalition government or whether—God forbid—it becomes a Labor government after the next election, to start acting in our national interest. That means getting out of the electricity market, getting out of subsidising the uneconomic and the unaffordable and providing some market certainty and operational security for those countries that want to invest in electricity infrastructure but not subsidise them. If you want to help the electricity market, commit to investing or putting the $450 million the government spends every single year towards new generation— (Time expired)

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Bernardi for raising this very important subject as a matter for debate today. There is certainly a need for the government to take immediate and meaningful steps to reduce electricity prices. I am very proud and pleased to say that I am part of a government that has been doing just that over recent times. The Senate will be well aware that the coalition federal government had the courage—some might say 'stupidity', but let me use the word 'courage'—to intervene in what has, up until now, been an issue for state governments. Many people—and, I might say, including me—asked, 'Why does the Commonwealth want to get involved in an issue that the state governments have shown themselves just absolutely incapable of dealing with?' We saw the fiasco under the Labor government in your state of South Australia, Senator Bernardi, where they couldn't keep the lights on at all. There are difficulties with the Labor state of Victoria, where the Labor government can't work out whether they want brown coal or black coal. My own state of Queensland is apparently anti-coalmining, yet the budget of my home state of Queensland is run by a typically financially incompetent and corrupt Labor government. They simply need the royalties from coalmining to balance their budget. And what they don't get from royalties for coal—they use the profits from the government owned generating company to pay them huge dividends every year so that they can make some attempt to balance the budget in my home state of Queensland.

In my state one of the real problems—why we pay such a lot for our electricity—is that all the generating companies in Queensland are owned by the Labor government. They rip out huge profits from residents and businesses in Queensland each year. Senator Bernardi spoke about the Paris climate change accord. To a degree, I agree with what he said, although we don't need to legislate on emissions from Australia, because the target that was set for Australia—about 26½ per cent—Australia has all but met, and we're confident that within the time required Australia will be one of the few countries in the world that will meet its emission reduction targets. Many other countries pay lip service to it. They get a warm, fuzzy feeling from saying what they're going to do. But very few of them do as Australia does and actually meet those commitments. I agree with Senator Bernardi that we don't need to legislate for that. It is, after all, an aspirational target, and certainly Australia's aspirations have been to meet what we committed to. But again, like Senator Bernardi, I don't think that we should be legislated to meet targets set by others who barely do the work themselves.

Senator Bernardi also mentioned some of my friends in Pacific Island countries who, cleverly—they might be Pacific Islanders, but there's no doubting their wisdom and their ability to extract a dollar where they see it—talk about how they need money for climate change. And I say to them: 'You don't mean climate change, do you? You mean resilience to climate change.' I'm one of those who acknowledge that the climate is changing—because it always has. Once upon a time the earth was covered in snow. Once upon a time there was a rainforest in the centre of Australia. Clearly those two things don't happen anymore, so the climate has obviously changed. If carbon emissions were the cause of that—and I say 'if'—then Australia's contribution to carbon emissions is less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions.

As Senator Williams mentioned earlier, I asked the Chief Scientist, Dr Finkel, at an estimates committee hearing not long ago what impact Australia's emissions have on the changing climate of the world, and his answer was, 'Virtually none.' So, there is virtually no impact from Australia on any climate change from Australia's emissions, yet the Labor Party would have us increase our emissions reduction to somewhere around 50 per cent; I think those are their latest dreamings. The Greens want 80 per cent or 100 per cent. As the Chief Scientist says, we can make it 100 per cent and it will make absolutely no difference to the world's climate change, because Australia's emissions are so small. Emissions from China, Russia, India and America keep rising, and none of those countries are involved in the Paris climate change accord. So, again, I agree with Senator Bernardi on those sorts of issues.

This is a government that has taken on the task that should have been the task of state governments, most of which are Labor. But our government wouldn't stand by and see Australians being slugged with unaffordable increases in the cost of electricity, so we've taken on the challenge. It's not easy, but we're doing what the states should have been doing over the past 10 years, because we understand that Australian families are struggling with the cost of living and rising power prices. We know that small business, which is the backbone of the economy, is also struggling with power prices. In fact, a constituent who owns a skating rink in Townsville and the same sort of facility in Bundaberg came to see me and told me that he is paying almost three times as much for electricity in Townsville as he is in Bundaberg—so work that out and tell me how that operates. You have to ask the Queensland government owned electricity generator and retailer what that's all about.

I live in North Queensland, not far from an area that has unlimited quantities of high-quality black coal. That is the coal that used to give Australia a competitive advantage by providing perhaps some of the cheapest and most efficient electricity anywhere in the world. But over the years the Greens political party and the Labor Party have ignored the interests of their workers and of the residents of Australia, who are now paying enormous prices for electricity. Because Labor and the Greens are concentrating on renewable power, which is highly subsidised by the taxpayer and very expensive for the consumer, electricity prices have gone up, while huge reserves of high-quality black coal not far from where I live are left untapped. As a very good ad on the television at last says, 'We export all this to Japan, which is converting Australian coal into high-energy, low-emissions energy. We export our coal to the world, but we can't use it in Australia, according to the Labor Party and the Greens.' I'm pleased to say that even the CFMEU, not a union that I usually have much truck with, at least now is working out that the Labor Party's policy on renewable energy is wrong and not good for the workers it's supposed to represent.

To conclude, I see Senator Burston sitting here, who I'm delighted to say told me earlier—I hope this is right, and it is not for me to promote Mr Clive Palmer, I might say—that Mr Palmer has announced that he is going to build a coal-fired power station in the Galilee Basin with his own money. If that is correct, Senator Burston, then all credit to Mr Palmer, because if he does that we will be able to get cheaper electricity into the grid from a modern, efficient, low-emissions, coal-fired power station in Queensland. I am delighted. I hope that information is correct, Senator Burston, because that would really brighten my day.

This government is concerned about the rising cost of electricity for ordinary Australians. We have taken steps to see how we can force the generation companies and the states into reducing that cost, because we are concerned about the cost of living for all Australians.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Families and Communities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The subject for debate is the need for government to take immediate and meaningful steps to reduce electricity prices for all Australians. I hope there isn't anybody in the chamber who disagrees with that proposition. I don't find myself in agreement with Senator Bernardi very often, but that is a question that I think we do agree on. I think Senator Bernardi and I would disagree on almost every other question about how that's to be achieved. Before I go to the substance of that disagreement and why I disagree with him, I want to make some remarks about Senator Macdonald's contribution just now. The essence of his contribution is that the Commonwealth has no role in energy policy. What an ahistorical, silly, irresponsible attitude to take on one of the most substantial policy issues facing the nation. What a ridiculous contribution.

When I say ahistorical, I will invite Senator Macdonald to have a look at the history of what he has called, tellingly, the national electricity market. Australia's electricity market is actually quite remarkable. It comprises the world's longest interconnected power system. We are a big continent with a small population that's highly concentrated, and the way that we've managed that is to build quite a remarkable national market which sees energy flow from all over the country to where it is needed. To do that absolutely requires a national perspective.

I'm not entirely surprised that Senator Macdonald, with his typically parochial attitude, comes in here and says, 'This is a matter for the states.' But that is not the historical record. The NEM was absolutely developed with the involvement of the Commonwealth. It is a product of COAG negotiations and there are a range of institutions that answer directly to the Commonwealth minister in relation to energy. Senator Macdonald's contribution was, simply, factually wrong. That has been the case since 1988 when the national energy market was initiated.

On the question of the development of renewables in this country, I will also give some credit where credit is due. The Renewable Energy Target, the instrument which drove the investment in renewables in South Australia that Senator Macdonald likes to complain about so regularly, was initiated by John Howard's government. It was initiated in 2001. It is an institution that has had bipartisan support in recognition of the fact that the contemporary environment requires us to transform our electricity system. The truth is that we are now in a position where renewables present the cheapest form of power available to us. When combined with other mechanisms, such as storage and gas, they present an opportunity for reliable power that is significantly more affordable than investing in new coal-fired generation, which is the proposition put before us again and again by the climate deniers on the coalition backbench and just occasionally their frontbench, as Malcolm Turnbull learnt to his cost and insufficiently for him to keep his job, apparently. Those on the other side will not rest until they've got a climate denier and a coal enthusiast in the top chair. They've got that in Scott Morrison, haven't they? He's a guy who was willing to go into the chamber, fondling in a weird kind of way a lump of black coal. What a disgrace!

It represents a complete rejection of the economic advice. It represents a rejection of the advice provided by all of the government institutions whose exclusive focus is on understanding the nature and the dynamics of the electricity system and the electricity market and providing advice on that. Their advice, consistently, is that our path ought to be renewables. It rejects the advice from industry. I have sat on inquiry after inquiry where industry has come before us and said, 'For heaven's sake, all that we require to resolve the situation in the electricity market is certainty about carbon pricing and then we can get on with the job, because we know that we have technology that can meet the future needs of households and business and we can do it in an affordable way.' That is what the government has been told by business. That's what we've been told by business. It's what parliament has been told by business. More than ample advice has been provided to this crowd about what the path forward ought to look like, and they will not heed it. They choose not to heed it because they would prefer to engage in a culture war that speaks to a narrow part of their base than to deal with the information and evidence before them. They would prefer to deal with a loopy dream about the future of new coal-fired power stations than to deal with the advice provided by industry, by economists and by technologists. They would prefer to play politics than deal in a serious way with the policy questions that are before them.

What's become clear now is that, in its fifth year of office, the government has no energy policy. Mr Morrison walks in here, his first day on the job as Prime Minister in the parliament, and what is his energy policy? He doesn't have one. He's able to tell us what it's not, because the NEG is dead, just like the clean energy target is dead and the emissions intensity scheme is dead and the CPRS is dead—all serious attempts by the policymakers in our national institutions to develop a coherent energy framework and all killed off, one by one. Every serious policy instrument was killed off by the knuckle draggers on the other side, by the people who will not support those who seek to make a policy. So we are well into the fifth year of this government and Mr Morrison doesn't have an energy plan. He said the NEG is dead. He's going to head off to the party room tomorrow. I don't think there's any indication at all that he's going to take a new policy to the party room tomorrow. He'll probably stand up and mouth the same meaningless platitudes that I heard in question time today about how they want low prices. The thing is that we know what's required for low prices but it's news that this crowd doesn't want to hear, so we find ourselves without an energy policy at all. One thing we know about it is that it's not going to be the NEG. And it's also not going to deal with climate change.

Again I say this: every serious, credible industry player acknowledges that our energy system is going to need to become less carbon intensive and that the cheapest way for the Australian economy overall to meet its emissions reduction goals is to make changes in the energy sector. Making changes in the transport sector is expensive and difficult, making changes in the agricultural sector is expensive and difficult but making changes in the energy sector is actually affordable. All the modelling shows this. And yet the coalition come here, rule out changes to the electricity sector and make no commitment at all about how they're going to treat emissions that come from farming and transport. And I say this to those on the other side who might have constituents with an interest in farming or an interest in transport: what do you think is going to happen if you fail to reduce emissions in the electricity sector? How do you think the Paris commitments are going to be met? The natural and logical consequence of not doing anything in the electricity sector is that you have to work harder and lift heavier in those other sectors. No-one's being honest with those constituents about that question.

This is a farce. It is nowhere close to a coherent energy policy, it is nowhere close to a coherent climate policy, and it will have real consequences for Australia. What industry has said is that they just need certainty. They need a clear energy policy framework so that they can get on with planning their investments. As it becomes apparent that certain plants are going to close because they are 25, 30, 35, 40 years old and absolutely at the end of their life, we need industry to step up and make new investments. And they can only do that if they understand what our commitments are in terms of emissions reduction in the electricity sector, how that is integrated into the way that prices operate in the National Electricity Market and what the return will be on their investment if they do step up and invest. They say they're ready to do it. All they need is an integrated policy that will deal with climate and energy, but for five years they've been asking and for five years they've been waiting, and five years in they've still got nothing.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have represented the Liberal Democrats in the Parliament since being elected five years ago. Clive Palmer was elected at the same election. During that parliamentary term, I fought for and voted for lower electricity prices at every opportunity. However, those of us who cared about everyday Australians facing rising electricity prices were thwarted by Clive Palmer. Clive Palmer voted to save the renewable energy target. His own list of parliamentary achievements says so in Palmer's typical black and yellow. He saved the renewable energy target. The renewable energy target is responsible for high electricity prices, so Clive Palmer is a major contributor to high electricity prices.

For nearly two decades, the renewable energy target has mandated the payment of financial support to renewable electricity generators from the rest of the electricity market. It has cost customers and reliable fossil fuel generators very dearly. For nearly two decades, this mandate to provide financial support to renewable electricity generators has hung over the heads of would-be investors in reliable fossil fuel based generation. As a result, there has been hardly any new non-renewable electricity generation and, with supply so constrained, electricity prices have gone through the roof. This is the fault of Clive Palmer.

But now Clive Palmer is filling our airwaves, saying he wants lower electricity prices. What a bald-faced lie! When he had the chance he squibbed it, and if he were given another opportunity he would squib it again. Clive Palmer says in his ads that he wants more coal-fired power in Australia. Yet when he was in parliament he saved the Renewable Energy Target, which is effectively a ban on new coal-fired power in Australia. Clive Palmer says in his ads that he thinks the GST should be taken off electricity. But when he was in parliament Clive Palmer didn't lift a finger to make this a reality. It was I who, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, introduced legislation to make electricity GST free. Clive Palmer did nothing for everyday Australians. For Clive, it's all about Clive. He's a hypocrite who will say anything to get himself back into politics. A vote for the Liberal Democrats is the only vote you can trust to cut electricity prices at every opportunity.

Jim Molan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The matter of public importance today is the need for the government to take immediate and meaningful steps to reduce electricity prices for all Australians, and that's exactly what we're doing. We have a minister who has but one job, and that job is to do exactly what this MPI calls for. We have a minister who has background and knowledge in this area and has the support of the government. We have an energy policy, despite what Senator McAllister says, and that energy policy is as complex as we want to make it, but, quite simply, it consists of a safety net price—that is, a default market offer. If you're on an inflated offer and go to this standard offer, the ACCC estimates the price of your electricity could fall by between $180 and $416 a year, and small businesses could save up to $1,457. That safety net price or default price is the first part of the policy.

The second part is a big stick. It gives the government serious new powers so the ACCC can stop energy companies ripping off customers. The third part of our policy is new energy generation. That is a technology-neutral program to underwrite new, stable, low-cost generation for commercial and industrial customers. As Senator Cormann reminded us and, in particular, the Greens today during question time, we remain committed to achieving our Paris agreement, just as we met and exceeded the Kyoto target.

Senator McAllister suggested that we in the coalition should consult constituents who are involved in transport and farming. I certainly have those constituents and I certainly have consulted them over the last three or four months. What they tell me is that they want lower prices, and we will deliver those lower prices for them. This government is absolutely committed to reducing power prices while keeping the lights on. We know that power prices have risen by 56 per cent over the last 10 years. We understand Australian families are struggling with the cost of living and the rising power prices, which are impacting on their household budgets. Small businesses, the backbone of this nation, are also struggling with rising power prices. This prevents them from being able to employ more people and take advantage of new opportunities.

We will not be distracted from our goal of lowering power prices for Australian households and small businesses. The electricity sector needs to re-establish its credibility and trust with the community, and the coalition government will ensure the interests of customers come first. As I explained before, we're taking very practical actions to lower power prices: stopping price gouging by energy companies, providing customers with a price safety net, backing investment in reliable generation and encouraging more competition in the market. We've turned the corner on power prices, with reductions announced already in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia from 1 July 2018. And I can assure you, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, that the coalition government is not afraid to use a big stick on the big energy companies to stop the big rip-offs.

And we stand on our record and on our policy. We have secured more gas for Australians. Prices are down by up to 50 per cent. We did this by introducing the Australian Domestic Gas Security Mechanism, securing an agreement with LNG exporters to offer gas to the domestic market, and committing $90 million in the 2017-18 budget to expand gas supply and increase competition in the market. As a result, gas prices have now fallen from close to $20 a gigajoule in early 2017 to $11 a gigajoule in 2018.

We have reined in the power of the networks; if Labor had done it sooner, that would have saved Australia $6 billion. Past over-investment in networks is the biggest contributor to the increase in electricity prices over the last 10 years, and this government has abolished the Limited Merits Review regime. We have got customers a far, far better deal. After meeting with government, retailers have simplified their offerings and written to around 1.6 million households in this country to tell them better deals are available. Over one million people have visited the government's website to compare offers. We are changing the rules to get retailers to lift their game, including banning dodgy discounting practices; getting retailers to notify price rises more quickly so that customers can shop around; and speeding up metering in stores. As I said before, we have seen retail prices come down in Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia as of 1 July.

Labor's appalling policy was essentially based on hope. Electricity bills under Labor will soar, and gas and coal fired power stations will close, if the share of wind and solar generation increases dramatically. This comes from engineers who have warned after analysing the nation's energy supply. The analysis casts severe doubt on Labor's claim that a 50 per cent renewable energy target, the centrepiece of the opposition's energy policy, would reduce electricity prices. It found that bills were likely to soar by 84 per cent, or about $1,400 a year, for the typical household if wind and solar power supplied 55 per cent of the national electricity market. And that's what Labor's policy is. A RET of 50 per cent would not reduce bills; 50 per cent renewables means an 85 per cent in bills to $1,400 for the average household.

As the head of the ACCC, Rod Sims, reminds us, electricity prices have gone up by 50 per cent over the last 10 years, but standing offers have gone up to 100 per cent. So we need a strong cop on the beat. We need a government which is prepared to act to create a truly competitive market in the energy sector. Many people are still stuck on high standing offers. The default offer should be set by government, and that is certainly now within the power of the ACCC. The ACCC has given us a blueprint to get the offers down.

Labor's record on all of this, if we are considering how to get prices down, is very, very interesting. During six years of Labor government, power prices doubled and they went up each and every year. The Labor government gave us pink batts, the carbon tax, cash for clunkers and a citizens assembly as their response to rising power prices. Federal and state Labor policies have continued to increase pressure on prices through job-destroying gas bans and moratoriums, unrealistic renewable energy targets and open hostility to reliable dispatchable power. Bill Shorten wants a 50 per cent renewable target on a national level, which will mean more subsidies and therefore higher prices and greater unreliability.

Labor also wants Australia to go far beyond the rest of the world and cut carbon emissions by 45 per cent. This reckless policy will harm our economy, and it will definitely cost jobs. Under Labor's emissions intensity scheme, households would pay $300 a year more on their power bills compared to under the coalition. Labor's true thinking was revealed by its Labor Environment Action Network, which said, 'High prices are not a market failure, they are proof of the market working well.' That's not a view held by most Australians. In the last polls taken, 70 per cent of Australians reported that they would like to move out of Paris if that meant lowering their electricity prices. The fact is that Australians will pay higher power bills under Labor and they will be left in the dark.

Of course, the impact of lower energy prices on Australia's ability to generate jobs in the way that we've generated them over the last couple of years—a million jobs since 2013—and on running the economy is absolutely critical. The budget is now in a good position and the economy is in good shape. When we took over from Labor in 2013, not only because of the appalling Labor Party energy policy but for a range of reasons, the economy was on the way down and the budget was in trouble. We changed that and we will lower prices for energy. (Time expired)

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, of course, left the Liberal Party in February 2017. He said at the time that it was because he thought there was an irredeemable political force dominating the Liberal Party. Today, he told us that Malcolm Turnbull was, in fact, Labor's Prime Minister. If he had been a little more patient, he may well have discovered that he would be part of that coalition that now dominates the Liberal Party. He would find that the positions he complained so bitterly about would in fact become the dominant view of this government—that is, an intense hostility to modernity and a contempt for the modern world in many respects. He may well have found that if he'd just had that little bit more patience he would have got a prime minister who doesn't actually believe in climate change and who doesn't actually believe in the importance of science. He would have had a Minister for Energy who has demonstrated his intense hostility to the need for action to be taken to support Australian industry in terms of understanding our role within the world.

What we've got here is a proposition before us—and I see that the government now finds that it has to compete with the governments of Brazil and other such places in condemning energy companies as worse than banks. It has been said on many occasions that there need to be interventions, the like of which South American regimes of various stripes would blush at. But, of course, this is all coming from a free-marketeer government that is so desperate, faced with the prospect of its falling public support, that it has to seek out these various measures to change what has been a fundamental policy failure now for well over 10 years. It's a policy failure that has seen this country crippled when it comes to dealing with one of these great issues that confront this parliament in terms of the future of the nation in regard to energy, in regard to energy prices and in regard to climate change. These are the great moral questions, the great economic questions and the great social questions that have confounded government after government. Despite the very best efforts of various elements in this parliament to reach out to try to get a bipartisan approach on these questions, we've not been able to secure that simply because there are a group of people in this parliament who are so reactionary and so hostile to the modern world that they refuse to engage in anything other than running banal advertisements on TV.

We saw them throughout the football finals last year—the so-called 'Powering Forward' campaign, which claimed that the government had now improved affordability, reliability and sustainability in the national energy market. They spent $9.3 million to do that. They're doing it again during this football finals season, asserting, again, that they have suddenly turned the corner and achieved great change as a result of the miraculous rejection of everything they've stood for throughout the last 12 months. They're still aiming to run these quite disgraceful advertisements at some $300,000 every 60 seconds, seeking to persuade football enthusiasts that something is actually happening in this country on the question of climate change.

What we saw month, after month, after month was the government claiming that they had the answer with the National Energy Guarantee, only for them to abandon it. Then the Prime Minister they so despised had to be removed—a Prime Minister who described himself as a 'progressive' in his exit interview, a word we haven't heard for a while. They replaced the former energy minister, Mr Frydenberg, with a new energy minister, Mr Angus Taylor, who was described as 'mad and morally irresponsible', according to Liberal moderates. They suggested that the position the government had adopted as a result of Mr Morrison's complete capitulation to the spineless attitude of this government when it comes to dealing with fundamental issues confronting this country was nothing more than 'morally irresponsible' and 'mad'.

This position was reflected not just by Labor governments but by the government in New South Wales. Senior Liberal figures were dismayed at the direction the Morrison administration had adopted in regard to energy policy, and they were concerned at the appointment of Mr Taylor, who, as I said, had campaigned against wind farms and renewable energy subsidies. But, of course, he had declared that the energy companies were in fact worse than the banks. What was their response to this? We'll have a royal commission. But will we look at the issue of privatisation, of deregulation? Will we look at the effect that government policies have had on the capacity of these companies to take advantage of their market power? Of course not. What we'll do is find a device by which we can distract people in the hope that they can somehow or other, as Senator Molan just told us, 'rebuild credibility and trust with the community'.

Well, we saw the results of that this morning in the opinion polls. We saw the result of a party, once again, seeking to remove the leader because he couldn't satisfy them. No matter how craven Mr Turnbull was when it came to attempting to satisfy the knuckle draggers and shellbacks of the Liberal Party, no matter how extraordinarily despicable he was in his attitude, he could never ever satisfy them. So, of course, he had to be replaced with Mr Morrison, who was egging him on all the time, suggesting he should call a spill and take them by surprise. Then—surprise, surprise—who ends up as the beneficiary? Mr Morrison, who could then say: 'I did it without any blood on my hands. I had no blood on my hands whatsoever.'

Mr Morrison can put his baseball cap on. He can shoehorn himself into the latest commentary at the Sharks. Of course, he's a fairly recent convert to that football club in Sydney. He had a bit of trouble in Melbourne, where he doesn't quite understand the culture, when he introduced himself to the punters there and got asked the question, 'Who are you?' 'I'm ScoMo,' he said, expecting that everyone would immediately pick up this marketing device as being the answer to the fundamental failure in policy, which is the current situation.

What has the Liberal Party done? They've produced yet another change in the government and, for the first time in recent history, they've not been able to produce a post-spill poll boost. The outcome of all their deliberations, all their manoeuvrings, all their backstabbing and all their bitterness and strife has been to actually go backwards still further. So this is how they are going about rebuilding credibility and trust with the community. They won't deal with the substantive policy questions that are actually required in this country. They think that you can secure the confidence of the public as a marketing exercise by putting on a baseball cap and strutting around the back streets of marginal electorates and pretending to people that they're doing things when, of course, they're not. Having told people for months that if the NEG was not delivered there would be a price increase for electricity and that if there was an implementation of the NEG there would be a lowering of prices of some $300, all of that has been thrown away as a result of the change of heart over this last weekend.

As the former Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, made the point, the coalition simply can't get it right when it comes to these fundamental issues because they have no real esprit de corps about those fundamental questions, about why they are actually here. What is the point of the Liberal Party when it comes to the future of this country? They have lost sight of that basic premise, and we will see after the election just where that takes them. (Time expired)

Brian Burston (NSW, United Australia Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the matter of public importance raised by Senator Bernardi. I speak as Senate leader of the United Australia Party, so I suggest that Senator Leyonhjelm listen very carefully. I know he's watching. The earth below our feet is teeming with energy-rich natural resources. Australia's mineral wealth is outstanding. We have tonne upon tonne of clean coal and we have the largest deposits of uranium in the world. There is another area in which we are top of the tree on a global scale, and that is not good. This, of course, is the area of energy costs. When it comes to energy costs, we are positively a poppy so tall it would rival a sunflower for attention. Energy prices in Australia are scandalous. They are higher than in New York or London. Australians are paying a higher percentage of their stagnant wages on energy than people in any other developed country. This might be pardonable if Australia were a remote island in the Pacific with little ability to support itself, but we are an island continent exporting hundreds of millions of tonnes of coal around the world to assist others in maintaining their energy supply at a reasonable cost.

I live in the Hunter Valley, home of the largest coal-exporting port in the world. Australia also exports uranium. We have a third of the world's supply of uranium and we were the third-biggest exporter of it in 2017. Again, it's more of the family silver that we're flogging off at the cost of our own people. A rudimentary understanding of economics tells you that the way to drive down prices is to increase supply. If we are to make Australia truly great, as the United Australia Party pledges, we need a root-and-branch rethink when it comes to electricity production. At the moment, though we all wish that renewables were the answer, the fact is that they cost Australians money. They don't reduce bills. It is time that we built a new generation of base load, job-creating, coal-fired power stations. Chairman of Waratah Coal, Mr Clive Palmer, today announced that Waratah Coal will build a new coal-fired power station in the Galilee Basin in Queensland, the document stating that fact being lodged with the Queensland state government. I support Senator Bernardi's matter of public importance.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a need for the government to take immediate and meaningful steps to reduce electricity prices for all Australians. The so-called national energy market is, in fact, not a market at all because there is limited competition between the companies which control the $11 billion of electricity traded annually. Competition needs to be restored so that an electricity market can be created and coal-fired power stations need to be built.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, ACCC, recommends that market participants be limited to owning or controlling dispatch of no more than 20 per cent of generation capacity because, currently, artificial shortages of electricity are being created to drive up prices. Network costs—by that, I mean the cost of transmission lines—need to be written down in the books of state governments and other entities, because so much of that cost has been wasted on gold plating assets. Let me explain: they are encouraged to build transmission lines, or poles and wires, they don't need and to a much higher standard than needed, because they are then financially rewarded. Consumers should not be asked to continue to pay for services in their quarterly bill that they do not receive. Finally, the government needs to break up the integrated players, who both own electricity generation assets and sell electricity to customers. Too much transfer pricing is taking place, with the result that consumers are being gouged. I would support a royal commission into the conduct of the integrated electricity providers who have gouged customers. It is time the truth came out.

The ACCC report Restoring electricity affordability and Australia's competitive advantage is full of sensible recommendations. I challenge the government to implement them rather than doing nothing, as they have with the Callaghan report into the petroleum resource rent tax. Delay in implementing just one of those recommendations concerning the netback price of gas is costing Australians $1 million a year.

The government needs to stop subsidising intermittent and unreliable energy sources, to the tune of around about $10 billion by 2020. If it wants to keep doing that, then it should be subsidising new coal-fired power stations, because its policies have seen us retire old coal power stations, which are the backbone of the network, and made replacements impossible to finance. If we let Labor into government here, they will put us on a 45 per cent emissions trading scheme. What's been found is that at 55 per cent we're going to be seeing an increase of 84 per cent in our power bills. (Time expired)

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on today's MPI concerning the need to reduce electricity prices. Electricity and gas prices represent the fastest rising household expense behind tobacco. My home state of South Australia has the highest retail prices in the country. This is bad news for households and bad news for businesses. I have had business after business roll through my office, raising concerns with me about the price of electricity and describing how it puts their viability at risk.

Both households and businesses want to see energy prices lowered—that's obvious. But how? Coming from an engineering background, I advise the chamber that we must do this by first laying out the top-level requirements. The first requirement is reliability; the power must be there when we need it. We want to have clean power. We must move towards cleaner energy sources in a controlled and planned manner, making sure that Australia's emission targets are met. We need to make sure the price is affordable, that we remain competitive. We also need investment certainty so that businesses can invest. We've seen in South Australia what happens when you pursue one element—in their case, clean, renewable energy—without considering its effect on price and reliability.

How do we achieve meeting all of the requirements? Centre Alliance supported the research behind the NEG. It was a good compromise between reliability, price and the need to deal with climate change. There were other solutions. Former Senator Nick Xenophon and former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in conjunction with Frontier Economics, came up with an EIS back in 2009. It wasn't liked by Labor at first, but they eventually adopted it—but by the time they did, unfortunately, the coalition had decided they didn't like it. Then we saw Finkel, then we saw the NEG and then we saw the NEG-plus with an ACCC report component to it. Now, after a leadership change, we go to something different that does not address all of the requirements, and that is problematic. There are many solutions to our power woes. We can make it work, but, before we can do that, we must first make the parliament work. Thank you.

Tim Storer (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The focus of this MPI is on electricity prices, but, for many, it is electricity bills that are more important. Reducing electricity prices is one way to bring down energy bills, but not the only way. Improving the energy efficiency of houses, for example—as my private senator's bill currently before the parliament seeks to do—will significantly reduce household power bills by addressing demand as opposed to supply. The bill offers landlords a tax offset of up to $2,000 a year for energy efficiency upgrades to their rental properties. More energy-efficient houses will use less electricity and have smaller electricity bills—it's that simple. And that's why I believe my legislation should be supported.

But the government also needs to take steps to reduce electricity prices, as that will flow through to bills. Basic economic theory tells us that increasing supply of a commodity to a market will reduce the commodity's price. If we want to maintain downward pressure on electricity prices, we must increase supply. But, unless we want the government to go it alone, we must establish some policy certainty so that the private sector has the confidence to invest.

As we have seen through the success of the renewable energy target, the private sector will happily invest in new supply, provided the right policy environment is in place. Currently there are 54 renewable energy projects either under construction or soon to start construction in Australia, delivering $11.2 billion in investment and creating nearly 8,000 jobs, including over 1,300 in my home state of South Australia.

Let's not be naive. History shows us that achieving policy certainty on the intrinsically interconnected issues of energy and climate change has been exceptionally difficult. That's why I'm deeply disturbed by the government's abandonment of the NEG. Whilst not perfect, it was a workable framework and had the endorsement of a critical mass of key stakeholders, as well as most MPs and senators. Importantly, it also provided a platform for reducing emissions in the electricity sector.

Climate change is not going away, and, as one of the richest and most high-emitting nations per capita on earth, we must do our fair share. Any energy policy that fails to also deal with the issue of emissions will be dogged by continuing political uncertainty. That is why the private sector will not invest in coal-fired power stations in Australia going forward. The carbon risk of an asset that will cost $3 billion, take eight years to build and operate for 50 is simply too high. The good news is that solutions to decarbonising our electricity sector are also solutions to our high energy prices. The government's NEG modelling found that $400 of the $550 forecast to be saved would be due to renewable energy investment under the NEG, and modelling by RepuTex Energy from July found that 45 per cent would drive down wholesale prices. So a higher emissions reduction target means more supply and lower electricity prices.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion has expired.