Division Description Changes — Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019; Second Reading — 23rd Oct 2019

Change	Division
representatives vote 2019-10-23#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2019-11-08 13:27:54	Title Bills — Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019; Second Reading Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 - Second Reading - Clean and affordable energy Description ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ ~~<p>The question before the House now is that the amendment moved by the member for Rankin be agreed to.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p>~~ The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading motion, which is that the bill be read for a [second time](https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). The amendment was introduced by Rankin MP [Jim Chalmers](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/rankin/jim_chalmers) (Labor). ### Amendment text > That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: > > "whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Government has proven unable to deliver sensible national energy policy to support well-functioning electricity markets that will: > > (1) support new clean energy investment; > > (2) safeguard energy reliability and security; and > > (3) deliver a modern and affordable energy system for a modern Australian economy" <p>To continue my remarks from yesterday, I want to place on the record in the House of Representatives that we all know that Australia is suffering what I would say is the worst energy crisis since the mid-1970s, and it's simply not good enough for the government to not have a real energy policy after six years in government. As much as they would have you believe otherwise, this bill will not end the nation's energy crisis.</p> <p>The member for Rankin's second reading amendment to this bill, which I'm speaking to, highlights just how much of a failure the government is when it comes to national energy policy, noting that 'the government has proven unable to deliver sensible national energy policy to support well-functioning electricity markets that will support new clean energy investment, safeguard energy reliability and security, and deliver a modern and affordable energy system for a modern Australian economy. That really sums it up: a failure on every facet, in my opinion, when it comes to a national energy policy.</p> <p>I want to place on the record today that, since 2015, gas prices have tripled and wholesale power prices across the national energy market have skyrocketed by 158 per cent, smashing household budgets and jeopardising tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs.</p> <p>The lack of policy from the government has been cited by the Finkel review, the Energy Security Board, industry and Infrastructure Australia as driving up costs. These are the facts. This is not spin. This is not an invention. This is hard-core data which clearly shows that, under this government, for the last six years, we are paying more in energy costs than we have ever paid before as a nation. Today before the House we are debating a bill which is the 16th attempt by the government to get an energy policy.</p> <p>Out in the real world, out in the community, people are rightly confused. Since 2013, the coalition has failed to act on climate and energy and, quite frankly, their policy record is one of abject and complete failure, summarised by rising electricity prices and rising carbon pollution. Since I've sat in the House of Representatives, when we have debates on energy policy, normally the only response the government has are some concocted imaginings or some nonsense like, 'We won't be as bad as Labor,' or 'Labor would be worse,' or 'State governments are to blame.' That's really summing up what the debate is. It's not any arguments or alternative approaches—isn't that an ironic term at the moment! They don't actually come forward with proper policy to debate this.</p> <p>We did have that once. There was a glimmer of hope for a little while when we saw the birth of the National Energy Guarantee. I want to be very clear: whilst it was not perfect, the NEG was a mechanism designed to ensure reliability of supply and emissions reduction in the electricity sector. The current Treasurer and then former energy minister, I thought, was sold a pup. He was given orders by the former Prime Minister to go out and sell this as a policy, and we all know how that movie ended. It was ripped apart. The member for Hughes and the climate change deniers got their hands on it, went on to <i>Sky News After Dark </i>and ripped it apart. That chorus came down and said: 'We don't need it. It's not going to happen.' It was all destroyed—a bit like the leadership of the former member for Wentworth. It was dumped just as quickly as it was born, and that was supposed to be the answer to all our energy problems.</p> <p>If I was a member of the government, I'd be embarrassed that, when I go to the community or to schools or when I got up in front of people, they would ask: 'How are we going to fix energy prices? How are we going to reduce carbon pollution?' You'd have to say: 'Well, we'll wait and see. We're not sure. We keep coming up with things, and they keep getting knocked over. Some people like it; some people don't.'</p> <p>Recent reports show that state governments are privately talking to the government, in particular the New South Wales Liberal government, to try to work out what to do post-NEG. The Berejiklian government wants Minister Taylor to just revive the NEG, given pretty much every stakeholder in the energy sector would prefer a transparent national policy mechanism rather than the government simply picking winners. But media reports say the minister has said no. We still really don't know why the government doesn't come back to the table on real energy policy like the National Energy Guarantee, which the Prime Minister and Treasurer both said would bring down power prices by an average of $550. That was according to the government's own modelling. That's not Labor's research; that's what the government told us. If we had the National Energy Guarantee, power prices would come down by $550.</p> <p>I also want to make this point: the NEG has the support of every business organisation and every state and territory government, Labor and coalition alike, and would have finally delivered the price release that Australia is desperately in need of. Australia needs real action to bring down energy prices right now, not just more talk.</p> <p>After all of that, we arrive at the second go of the so-called 'big stick' policy: to scare companies into lowering power prices. The other thing about this heavy market intervention is—it's amazing when you look at the speakers list today on this. Where are the free marketeers? Where are the people who champion free economies?</p> <p>Where are there freedom lovers wanting to defend open markets? It's eerily silent. After listening to all the first speeches of 'less government, less regulation, less red tape, less green tap' and on it goes, they're suspiciously quiet when it comes to this dare I say socialist-style, market-driven, Venezuelan, Cuban-style intervention into the marketplace. It is quite ironic to hear one side of the street talk and then see the other side watching that as it goes down. I want to be clear: this is not a plan for national energy certainty. It only leads to more chaos and confusion for industry and consumers. And that's exactly what the Australian Energy Council put forward in their Senate submission on this bill. They called on the government to alter many 'poorly drafted' parts of the proposed laws, saying it would otherwise risk more frequent price changes and leave consumers confused and frustrated.</p> <p>Whilst Labor has played a constructive role, as we do, in cleaning up legislation and ensuring that the government's own homework is better, we still understand that we have an awful long way to go when it comes to dealing with energy security in this country and, in particular, the reduction of carbon pollution.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Tony Smith~~
~~The question before the House now is that the amendment moved by the member for Rankin be agreed to.~~
~~Milton Dick~~
The majority voted against an amendment to the usual second reading motion, which is that the bill be read for a [second time](https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/) (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). The amendment was introduced by Rankin MP [Jim Chalmers](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/rankin/jim_chalmers) (Labor).
### Amendment text
> *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
>
> *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes that the Government has proven unable to deliver sensible national energy policy to support well-functioning electricity markets that will:*
>
> *(1) support new clean energy investment;*
>
> *(2) safeguard energy reliability and security; and*
>
> *(3) deliver a modern and affordable energy system for a modern Australian economy"*
To continue my remarks from yesterday, I want to place on the record in the House of Representatives that we all know that Australia is suffering what I would say is the worst energy crisis since the mid-1970s, and it's simply not good enough for the government to not have a real energy policy after six years in government. As much as they would have you believe otherwise, this bill will not end the nation's energy crisis.
The member for Rankin's second reading amendment to this bill, which I'm speaking to, highlights just how much of a failure the government is when it comes to national energy policy, noting that 'the government has proven unable to deliver sensible national energy policy to support well-functioning electricity markets that will support new clean energy investment, safeguard energy reliability and security, and deliver a modern and affordable energy system for a modern Australian economy. That really sums it up: a failure on every facet, in my opinion, when it comes to a national energy policy.
I want to place on the record today that, since 2015, gas prices have tripled and wholesale power prices across the national energy market have skyrocketed by 158 per cent, smashing household budgets and jeopardising tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs.
The lack of policy from the government has been cited by the Finkel review, the Energy Security Board, industry and Infrastructure Australia as driving up costs. These are the facts. This is not spin. This is not an invention. This is hard-core data which clearly shows that, under this government, for the last six years, we are paying more in energy costs than we have ever paid before as a nation. Today before the House we are debating a bill which is the 16th attempt by the government to get an energy policy.
Out in the real world, out in the community, people are rightly confused. Since 2013, the coalition has failed to act on climate and energy and, quite frankly, their policy record is one of abject and complete failure, summarised by rising electricity prices and rising carbon pollution. Since I've sat in the House of Representatives, when we have debates on energy policy, normally the only response the government has are some concocted imaginings or some nonsense like, 'We won't be as bad as Labor,' or 'Labor would be worse,' or 'State governments are to blame.' That's really summing up what the debate is. It's not any arguments or alternative approaches—isn't that an ironic term at the moment! They don't actually come forward with proper policy to debate this.
We did have that once. There was a glimmer of hope for a little while when we saw the birth of the National Energy Guarantee. I want to be very clear: whilst it was not perfect, the NEG was a mechanism designed to ensure reliability of supply and emissions reduction in the electricity sector. The current Treasurer and then former energy minister, I thought, was sold a pup. He was given orders by the former Prime Minister to go out and sell this as a policy, and we all know how that movie ended. It was ripped apart. The member for Hughes and the climate change deniers got their hands on it, went on to Sky News After Dark and ripped it apart. That chorus came down and said: 'We don't need it. It's not going to happen.' It was all destroyed—a bit like the leadership of the former member for Wentworth. It was dumped just as quickly as it was born, and that was supposed to be the answer to all our energy problems.
If I was a member of the government, I'd be embarrassed that, when I go to the community or to schools or when I got up in front of people, they would ask: 'How are we going to fix energy prices? How are we going to reduce carbon pollution?' You'd have to say: 'Well, we'll wait and see. We're not sure. We keep coming up with things, and they keep getting knocked over. Some people like it; some people don't.'
Recent reports show that state governments are privately talking to the government, in particular the New South Wales Liberal government, to try to work out what to do post-NEG. The Berejiklian government wants Minister Taylor to just revive the NEG, given pretty much every stakeholder in the energy sector would prefer a transparent national policy mechanism rather than the government simply picking winners. But media reports say the minister has said no. We still really don't know why the government doesn't come back to the table on real energy policy like the National Energy Guarantee, which the Prime Minister and Treasurer both said would bring down power prices by an average of $550. That was according to the government's own modelling. That's not Labor's research; that's what the government told us. If we had the National Energy Guarantee, power prices would come down by $550.
I also want to make this point: the NEG has the support of every business organisation and every state and territory government, Labor and coalition alike, and would have finally delivered the price release that Australia is desperately in need of. Australia needs real action to bring down energy prices right now, not just more talk.
After all of that, we arrive at the second go of the so-called 'big stick' policy: to scare companies into lowering power prices. The other thing about this heavy market intervention is—it's amazing when you look at the speakers list today on this. Where are the free marketeers? Where are the people who champion free economies?
Where are there freedom lovers wanting to defend open markets? It's eerily silent. After listening to all the first speeches of 'less government, less regulation, less red tape, less green tap' and on it goes, they're suspiciously quiet when it comes to this dare I say socialist-style, market-driven, Venezuelan, Cuban-style intervention into the marketplace. It is quite ironic to hear one side of the street talk and then see the other side watching that as it goes down. I want to be clear: this is not a plan for national energy certainty. It only leads to more chaos and confusion for industry and consumers. And that's exactly what the Australian Energy Council put forward in their Senate submission on this bill. They called on the government to alter many 'poorly drafted' parts of the proposed laws, saying it would otherwise risk more frequent price changes and leave consumers confused and frustrated.
Whilst Labor has played a constructive role, as we do, in cleaning up legislation and ensuring that the government's own homework is better, we still understand that we have an awful long way to go when it comes to dealing with energy security in this country and, in particular, the reduction of carbon pollution.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~