Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Ayres. Minister, last week the Australian Energy Council released its Delivering Australia's energy transition affordably report, based on a survey of energy sector CEOs. In this survey, one retail energy sector CEO told the Australian Energy Council:

The biggest risk to this whole transition is that the general public haven't really cottoned on to the fact that there's a cost to the transition … Governments have made promises about bill reduction, but it is not coming anytime soon.

A generator CEO told the survey:

The infrastructure required to do the renewable transition is all far more expensive than anyone expected.

Another CEO said:

My feel is that bills will increase for at least the next decade, given the scale of capital being deployed in the industry.

Minister, why are you continuing your net zero plans, given that there are predictions that power bills will increase for at least the next decade, when you promised the opposite?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, because it is the cheapest way of modernising Australia's electricity system, and, as we go through the challenging national interest task—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Ayres, please resume your seat. When Senator Canavan asked that question, you could have heard a pin drop in this place. The minute the minister got to his feet, those on my left thought it was time to interject. It is not. If you can't listen in silence, leave the chamber. Minister, please continue.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We saw what the alternative might be; we had a little glimpse into what the alternative might look like, over the miserable decade—the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison decade—of indolence and failure on energy policy. We saw what that did for Australians. That wrecking impulse that is so fundamental to your approach in this area of policy hurts ordinary Australians. It costs jobs. It cost jobs when you were in government. The only difference now is that the position that the Liberals and Nationals have adopted is more extreme and more likely to lead to dislocation and disinvestment than in the last decade.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Canavan, first supplementary?

Senator McKenzie, your constant interjections are incredibly disorderly, and they are rude towards the orders that I am giving. As I said, if you can't listen quietly and in silence, leave the chamber. Senator Canavan, first supplementary?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in its report, the Australian Energy Council itself noted its members are concerned that 'Australia's transition to cleaner energy will come with sustained upward pressure on household and business electricity prices'. The report also noted that 'the large-scale capital investment required to replace and decarbonise has the potential to drive bills higher for years to come'. Minister, when will Australians see a reduction in their energy bills?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's funny that you mention the Australian Energy Council. The CEO of that organisation said just last week, 'We are now on a trajectory for a highly renewable system supported by gas, battery storage and pumped hydro, and that is generally going to deliver the lowest cost outcome.' She then went on to say, 'Keeping coal open for longer is likely to increase costs rather than decrease costs.' She then went on to say: 'We can't keep coal in the system forever. There are some coal plants that can run for a longer time and are a bit more reliable, but there is a large proportion that do need to exit by 2035, and we can't delay that.' I just wonder how hard you must have had to search through what energy experts say to find something that comes even remotely close to backing your silly argument.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A second supplementary, Senator Canavan?

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has not answered the question of when power bills will come down. Minister, in the survey one retail energy sector CEO noted:

… the cost of this transition is really going to affect the people who can afford it the least, so the people that are already struggling to pay their power bills are going to get slammed with more cost …

Another retail CEO said:

So bottom line is, we're going to make a large segment of the population more vulnerable again with electricity.

Minister, why are you promising net zero when it's hurting the poorest and most vulnerable in our society the most?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The plan that has been adopted and implemented by the government is far cheaper than the costly shemozzle that has been authored by you and Mr Joyce and imposed upon those profiles in courage over there. It is cheaper, it is more responsible and it is more reliable. The truth is that that wrecking impulse has driven the set of policies that you represent. When you wreck, Australians pay. They pay in terms of jobs and they pay in terms of their bills. Over the last period, they paid the consequences of the decade of disinvestment that was authored by you.