Time to review
We finally have the Coalition’s energy policy and while the name may not be the greatest, the government finished the day thinking it was on to a winner.
It managed to not only neutralise Tony Abbott (for the time being) it also managed to flummox Labor enough that it couldn’t come up with a strong attack line. How long will that last? Probably not as long as the government would like.
Looking back and looking forward, here is what we know
- Everyone so far has come out, if not in support, then in consensus with the plan
- National Energy Guarantee is not the greatest name for a policy
- Energy has not run out of steam as an agenda item
- Recommendations, he had a few, but Alan Finkel is OK with 49 out of 50
- Going forward, it will all be about the reaction. Yes or no from Labor, and industry
- You might be interested in Brendan O’Connor’s press club address on IR tomorrow
And let’s not forget we could get a high court decision at any moment.
That’s it from the wonderful Mike Bowers, the Guardian team of Katharine Murphy, Paul Karp and Gareth Hutchens and I for today. We’ll be back tomorrow for more fun and games, where we will hear even more about the government’s new favourite topic–energy. I hope to see you back here tomorrow morning around 8am, but in the mean time, hit up Bowers on Instagram or Twitter and take a look at some more images of the day, or let me know what you think at @amyremeikis. Anything you want to see more/less of? Let me know and let’s build this thing together.
Have a great night.
Updated
Scott Morrison was just interviewed by Sky News’ David Speers.
He promoted the government’s new energy policy, and said Labor had no reason not to support it.
He also defended the claim that the energy policy will reduce households’ power bills, and relied on analysis of modelling (modelling he hasn’t seen) to prove his point.
David Speers: Labor wants to see the detailed modelling. If you were in opposition you’d be saying the same about something as big as this?
Morrison: There’s no reason why Labor cannot commit in principle to this right now.
“There’ll be further work done, as was said today, by the Energy Security Board. That was announced in the press conference. Their initial estimates put the savings at $115..
Speers: How confident are you about that saving?
Morrison: “Well, I’m as confident as the Energy Security Board is and they are one of the most esteemed group of people looking at energy market issues, and their economists and professionals, that you could assemble in the country.
Speers: Have you had a look at the modelling?
Morrison: “What it is is an analysis. There is further modelling to come. That’s what they’ve been tasked with, and that’s what was said in the press conference today. But they’re looking at...
Speers: So it is modelling or an analysis?
Morrison: “Let me finish the point. What they’ve said in their analysis is that wholesale prices could be 8-10% lower than they would under a CET under the National Energy Guarantee (NEG). That is their professional view at this point. They will do more work, as they should, because that point now is to take this forward as a proposal to COAG, because remember the Energy Security Board was set up by COAG and now they can put that recommendation to them.
Speers: But this is important, I mean you keep stressing … the savings, but it’s based on what, analysis or modelling?
Morrison: “It’s based on exactly what was said at the press conference by the Energy Security Board today. They’ve looked at a whole range of previous schemes and they’ve looked at how that plays out, and they’ve come up with that estimate and they’ve indicated they’ll be conducting further analysis.
“Remember this is what’s happening - the subsidies are being stripped out from this, so you’re removing an entire cost within the system, so there are obviously going to be lower, they have to be lower…
“I’ve got the Energy Security Board’s letter to the government here today and this is what is says: it says “It is expected that following the Guarantee it could lead to a reduction in residential bills in the order of $100-$115 per annum,” and that’s what it says. That is the advice.
Speers: Averaged over a decade. So what would [the savings] be in the first year or two?
Morrison: “I can only tell you what it says in this letter, because that’s the information the government has.
Speers: Have you asked them about this? Are you aware it might only be $25 a year?
Morrison: “I think the further work will provide for that, but the one thing you can’t walk away from is under this plan prices will be lower. They can’t be higher.
Speers: Can you guarantee that?
Morrison: “Well they have to be David.
Speers: So you guarantee they’ll be lower?
Morrison: Of course they will be lower than what they could otherwise be because the subsidies aren’t there. If I sell you something and there’s a $15 subsidy in there that you’re paying and I pull the $15 out, well it’s going to be cheaper. That’s what we’re doing.
Updated
Alan Finkel didn’t quite ever go as far as saying the National Energy Guarantee would be as good as his preferred Clean Energy Target, but he claim pretty close, calling it a different “credible mechanism” that:
- maps “almost hand in glove” with what he recommended about the need for a transition in the energy market
- is “absolutely capable of achieving the goal” of reliable energy that meets emissions targets; and
- is likely to have “a similar price impact” to the CET.
When pressed as to why the CET is described as the “preferred” mechanism in his report, Finkel noted that his report didn’t model the Neg, and he gives a similar answer when asked if he is now agnostic between the two.
Updated
Statement from Australia’s Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, on the Government’s energy announcement #auspol pic.twitter.com/Tj37Reu8Xh
— Political Alert (@political_alert) October 17, 2017
Matt Canavan is calling the policy a “win for common sense”.
Word out of the party room meeting was Canavan was one of the dissenting voices. He tells Sky it will “last and give businesses the certainty they need”.
He says it is more likely a new coal fired power station could be built under this policy, than what the Labor party was putting forward, but the policy is “technological neutral”.
Updated
Alan Finkel says he was consulted on the Neg at a late stage, but did not see any price modelling.
He says there is “more than one way to skin a cat” and 49 out of 50 of his recommendations” were very rapidly agreed to” and now a “different version of not the clean energy target, a different version of the orderly transition recommendation.
The clean energy target is not a headline item, it is bullet point number two of three bullet points, it is not even introduced as a clean energy target, it is introduced as the need for a credible mechanism and there are multiple ways of achieving a credible mechanism.”
So Finkel is saying he recommended a credible mechanism to transition to lower emissions–and that a clean energy target is not the only way to do that.
The IPA has also released its thought on the Neg:
“The government’s decision to keep emissions reductions at the centre of Australia’s energy policy is a missed opportunity,” said Daniel Wild, research fellow with the free market think tank the Institute of Public Affairs.
“The government should eliminate emissions reductions as a component of Australia’s energy policy. Accounting for just 1.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions Australia makes no noticeable difference to the global climate or the global temperature.
“The world is moving away from emissions reductions policies after seeing the destructive effect they have had on energy markets. The United States has signalled its withdrawal from the Paris agreement and so should Australia.
“The claim that the world is moving towards renewables is a myth. There are 1,339 coal plants in operation around the world, with another 1,500 in the pipeline.
“However, the government’s decision not to continue with the renewable energy target from 2020 and not introduce a clean energy target is a sensible decision.
“This is a middle-of-the-road proposal that will see the renewable energy target continue to operate until 2020 and keep emissions reductions at the heart of Australia’s energy policy.
“Rather than waiting until 2020 the government should immediately abolish the renewable energy target. That would be the surest way of putting downward pressure on prices and improving reliability.”
Updated
Chief scientist Alan Finkel is due to speak to the media later this afternoon.
Updated
Labor has followed up question time with a press conference with Mark Butler.
“We have had confirmed in the last couple of hours that there hasn’t even been any detailed modelling about the impact on business, on households, on the energy industry itself, so we have to have some real facts around this ... once we have those facts, our obligation, our commitment is to sit down with business, with the energy industry, with the state and territory governments that after all are going to be expected to implement this thing if it goes forward and start to talk to them about a way forward on energy policy.”
Updated
And just a bit more on that 2+ hour joint party room meeting from this morning.
Energy minister Josh Frydenberg gave a long presentation, complete with slides and graphs, about the government’s new energy policy.
He was joined by Audrey Zibelman, the chief executive of the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), and John Pierce, the chairman of Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC).
Questions or comments were invited to Frydenberg, and where appropriate to Zibelman and Pierce.
The discussion on energy went from 9am to 11.20am.
Thirty MPs spoke in the discussion, and almost all of them endorsed the policy.
“Congratulations. Bloody brilliant,” said one MP afterwards (apparently).
One backbench colleague began by saying well done, and he was very happy the government was not proceeding with the clean energy target. But he still had concerns about energy prices, and he suggested the government should build a coal-fired power station.
He said “If it’s a choice between reducing emissions and reducing prices, where does this policy take us?”
Malcolm Turnbull, Pierce and Zibelman addressed his concerns directly. There there were a number of reasons why policy would reduce prices but emphasised, repeatedly, that it would create certainty for investors.
A National party backbencher also criticised the policy, saying he was concerned about its attempt to maintain fidelity to the Paris targets. He said the Paris target shouldn’t be a consideration.
The policy was endorsed by acclamation.
Updated
Back in the House and Michelle Rowland wants to discuss the “government’s second-rate copper NBN” as the matter of public importance.
The Victorian Council of Social Services has reacted to the Neg.
So about that National Energy Guarantee idea... 🔌 pic.twitter.com/gqqns8FOzp
— VCOSS (@VCOSS) October 17, 2017
Whatever did they do in the time before smartphones?
We finish on a Dixer from Greg Hunt, where he gets to tell us the importance of keeping the power on in hospitals.
So energy, energy, energy and Malcolm Turnbull appeared to actually feel good about the day. Labor didn’t really get a strong attack line in, but expect that to change as they wrap their head around the policy and look for those cracks.
Updated
Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull decides to answer another question from Tony Burke, who wants to know about those savings (which don’t start until 2020 and on average last until 2030).
“Did the Energy Security Board provide any other lower figures to the government about possible household savings?”
The prime minister is quite careful … “The only information I have relating to the savings are contained in the letter from the Energy Security Board that is now – that is now public document. And that provides the $110 to $115 figure.”
Updated
Updated
Another question for the prime minister, which is punted to the energy minister.
It’s more of the same.
Updated
From before Linda Burney was booted. Although, it could still make sense if someone added a question mark.
The opposition send a message to the PM during #qt @AmyRemeikis @GuardianAus @murpharoo #politicslive pic.twitter.com/IccCi5uw9C
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) October 17, 2017
Malcolm Turnbull has decided he is done answering certain questions. When Mark Butler asks, again, about the different policies the prime minister has held, the energy minister steps up in his place.
“Given reports that the member for Warringah spoke against the prime minister’s latest energy policy in the party room today, when will the prime minister announce that he’s against this one too?”
Labor finds this VERY funny.
Josh Frydenberg responds by laying out Labor’s different energy policy positions. Basically all this is doing is showing us how neither party has ben able to hold on to a particular line over the last decade.
The last time I looked, Labor was for a clean energy target, before that an emissions intensity scheme, before that a CPRS, before that an ETS, before then a $15bn dreaded carbon tax, Mr Speaker, which when we on this side of the House abolished, saw the greatest single drop in electricity prices ever recorded, do you remember that great democratic forum like Pluto, Socrates, Aristotle and the citizen’s assembly, Mr Speaker – do you remember that one? Do you remember the ‘cash for clunkers’, Mr Speaker, do you remember the pink batts, Mr Speaker, do you remember spending billions of dollars to keep coal-fired power stations open and spend billions of dollars to close them, Mr Speaker. I mean, what was the result of all that mess? What was the result of all that mess?”
Updated
Christopher Pyne gets a Dixer, but having already spoken about how terrible unions are this week, he moves on to the issue at hand.
And he has found the humour in the Great Regulatory Impact Statement Hunt.
“I just thinking during question time over the period I sit with in the box [at the local footy] there with Rita and with Mike, with Ray and Beryl, with Mario, and Mr Speaker I have to say in all the years I have been going to Redlands footy games they have never stopped me and said, “Before I can settle the government’s policy, I’ve got to see a regulatory impact statement.” I have been in parliament for 24 years, Mr Speaker. I have been to a lot of supermarkets, I have done a lot of door-knocking, I have been to a lot of events, a lot of footy games, I have been to RSL functions, no one has said to me, “Look, I’m sorry, before I can settle on the government policy, you got to show me a regulatory impact statement,” Mr Speaker. And yet that’s what wehave been reduced to in this House today because that’s all the Labor has left – from the only issue that matters here today is affordable and reliable electricity prices.”
Updated
I’ll let the great Mike Bowers share this one
Tony Abbott arrives late to #qt to cheers from opposition benches @AmyRemeikis @GuardianAus @murpharoo #politicslive pic.twitter.com/Vm7sFFPTCl
— Mikearoo (@mpbowers) October 17, 2017
It’s Julie Bishop’s turn to talk about how amazing the Neg is in a Dixer.
We then move on to Shorten once more, who handily lists out all the different positions Turnbull has held on energy.
“Can the prime minister confirm that so far he has supported an emissions trading scheme and opposed it, supported an emissions intensity scheme and opposed it, ridiculed Direct Action and endorsed it, derided so-called clean coal and embraced it, supported a clean energy target and today abandoned it. When the member for Warringah is … calling the shots, how can anyone believe this prime minister says about lowering bills?
The man who is now selling the National Energy Gurantee, or the N.E.G names all the experts who agree with the policy and bemoans those who embrace three-letter acronym policies.
What a pathetic question from the leader of the opposition. This is the Energy Security Board. Kerry Shott, AO, chair and the deputy chair, both warmly welcomed by the member for Adelaide. The CEO of the Australian Energy Market Operator. Paula Convoy, chair of the Australian Energy Regulator. Apparently they’ve all been caught up in some sort of political conspiracy. Really, Mr Speaker, it’s about time the leader of the opposition recognised that his pathetic political games have failed. His slogans have failed. His embracing of one three-letter acronym after the other without understanding what any of them mean has failed. What Australians want to see is action. They want to see leadership. They want to see policy. They want to see real expertise and they want to see real expertise and that is what we have received from the Energy Security Board.”
Updated
Next up is Anthony Albanese:
“So far today the prime minister has refused to guarantee that prices will fall. Does that mean that the so-called National Energy Guarantee has no guarantee, no modelling and no regulatory impact statement? What is the point of a national guarantee if the prime minister … cannot guarantee power price also go down?”
Not sure if the regulatory impact statement whereabouts will capture the heart and minds of voters, but we move on to the prime minister. Who does not answer the question, but has a lot of fun doing it.
“I’ve never seen anyone so bereft of a feather to fly with than the leader of the opposition. He doesn’t have a policy. He has nothing. Just a bunch of whines and complaints. He has no plan for Australia’s energy future at all. That’s other than, if you assume that all of us intend the necessary consequence of our actions, then this is what he intends – he intends more blackouts. He higher prices. He intends less reliability, because that is what his policies have all delivered in the past.”
Updated
Barnaby Joyce is called to the floor by the member for Wide Bay, and it has to be said, Joyce isn’t as excited to call out basket-weavers as he usually is. His heart doesn’t appear to be entirely in it. Still, he gives it a red-hot go.
We on this side believe the people working in a rail company are not politically incorrect, people who have blue-collar jobs are not politically incorrect. We believe they still deserve a job. We understand you will have cheap power, cheap wages or no jobs. We will make sure that people maintain their jobs in the manufacturing industry. We know that so far the Labor party have come up with one thing. They’ve come up and they – their biggest attack point is they say, where is your regulatory impact statement?
“Well that is it. Can’t you imagine them at the Manic Monkey Cafe, where Dewdrop is talking to Moonbeam and says the Coalition doesn’t have a regulatory impact statement. That is about their concern – the extent of their concerns for blue-collar jobs.
We have $66bn reasons to make sure that those people who are doing it tough do not get the Labor party bill, the Labor party bill, because the Labor party bill makes people poorer. There’s no doubt about it. A Labor party bill will make you poorer. If you’re doing it tough in the Hunter Valley, a Labor party bill will make you poorer. If you’re doing it tough in Shortland, a Labor party bill will make you poorer. Without a shadow of a doubt, the Labor party is now run by those with a philosophical ilk of the Manic Monkey Cafe, basket-weaver number one. All their friends running a power policy that will drive blue-collar workers out of a job.
“You can see it in Queensland. The new mantle of the dearest – you can see it in Queensland. Queensland Labor beat South Australian Labor as the most effective power policy to put you out of a job. We have brought forward a policy that shows we’re not scared of coal-fired power. We will make sure that it still remains in the mix. We will make sure there is the capacity of base-load – the capacity of base-load power to keep people in their jobs.
“We stand by blue-collar workers, something which Labor has given upon. They have no soul they had under Curtin. They no longer believe in the people they were put here to represent.
“They turn their back on the working class people every day, every day – they turn their back on the working class people and they look towards the basket weavers. They face them and they take their dollar.”
Updated
In the Senate...
The Greens leader, Richard Di Natale, has offered a string of questions to the attorney general, George Brandis, about the National Energy Guarantee. Di Natale accused Malcolm Turnbull of “leading the most pro coal, anti renewables party in this nation’s history” and “a capitulation to Tony Abbott and the far right of his party”.
Brandis responded: “The share of renewable will increase to 28-36% of the energy mix. It will increase. And the share of coal and gas will reduce. So the premise of the question is wrong. This is what grown-up governments do: they listen to advice of experts.”
Di Natale also suggested the coal and gas industry have “cashed their cheque” with the Coalition government and asked Brandis if he accepted that coal kills people.
Brandis: “No I don’t accept that for one moment. On any view coal will be an important part of the energy mix for decades to come.”
Brandis accused the Greens of “undergraduate stunts” and “impugning the motives of the prime minister”, while suggesting Di Natale was a wealthy doctor who could afford to signal his virtue on energy sources because he could afford renewable energy.
Updated
Bowen is back with a question for the treasurer regarding the regulatory impact statement and whether it exists.
Morrison gives us a history lesson.
“The cabinet submission is consistent with the handbook and the requirements of the process. I could ask that the shadow treasurer when he introduced ‘cash for clunkers’, what was the regulatory impact statement on that? What was the impact statement on being the worst immigration minister in the history of the Australian federation, Mr Speaker? That’s 50,000 people, half of them who turned up on his own watch, and $11.6m in blow-outs of expenditure created on his watch. Did he put that in the cabinet submission when he went in there and he for his failed policies – we should approve this because we will blow out the cost by $11.6 billion and see thousands die at sea.”
Tony Burke interjects to say if the statement doesn’t exist, he should just say so, but Burke is not the boss of Morrison and can not make him answer questions.
Updated
The member for Gilmore, Ann Sudamalis, is quite pleased to ask Frydenberg about how the government will deliver “affordable, reliable supply of energy across the nation”.
Frydenberg is not only happy to tell Sudamalis how the government will deliver affordable, reliable and secure energy across the nation, he even decides to tell her how Labor will not.
“They’ve done nothing in government to cut the retailer costs and did nothing in government to heed the warnings about increasing gas exports. No wonder the power bills increased by more than 100% when Labor were in office. We know, Mr Speaker, when it comes to the leader of the opposition, don’t listen to what he says, but watch what he does. He said he was in favour of a better deal for education but he voted against the Gonski reforms. He said he was in favour of lowering company taxes but he voted against our reforms. He said he was in favour of better childcare benefits but he tried to stop our reforms. And now he says he’s in favour of greater investment, certainty in the energy sector. Well, this is a test of his ticker, Mr Speaker. In is a test of the leader of the opposition’s ticker. Will he stand up for Australian families? Will he follow the advice of the experts? Will he adopt a bipartisan approach to ensure that power bills for millions of Australian families are lower and that we get the investment certainty in the energy sector … ”
Sadly he runs out of time.
Updated
Stop the presses. Or at least help me up off the floor. A question has been all but answered during question time.
Denison MP Andrew Wilkie has the crossbench question today and he uses it to ask about the TPI Federation, which helps support permanently injured veterans.
“The TPI Federation has written here repeatedly seeking a resolution to the dreadful situation whereabout 28,000 totally and permanently incapacitated veterans have seen their economic loss compensation fall to just 65% of the minimum wage. Prime minister, given the gravity of this issue, and the Parliamentary Budget Office’s validation of the independent analysis supporting the claim by the TPI, will you take personal responsibility and intervene to facilitate an immediate increase of $176 a week in the economic loss compensation payments to Australia’s TPI veterans?”
Malcolm Turnbull tells the House he has a personal connection to the TPI Federation.
I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr Speaker, my grandfather was a member of the TPI Federation. I know, well, the work of the federation and respect the advocacy they provide, and particularly that of TPI president Pat McCabe. All Australians are immensely proud of our men and women in uniform. We thank them for their service and we owe them a debt we can never repay. Ensuring our veterans have adequate support and compensation is a vitally important role of government. It is one to which I am personally deeply committed. In gratitude for their service, the government provides $12bn annually in pensions and services to veterans and their families. We best honour the diggers of 1917 by providing the best support in every respect to the servicemen and women and the veterans and their families of 2017. The honourable member raised the TPI pension in relation to the minimum wage. I can advise the member that the TPI pension is $1,73.80 a fortnight. I’m advised that more than 80% of TPI recipients receive income support payments, known as the service pension, of up to $894.40 per fortnight. It is important to recognise the TPI pension is part of a package of benefits available to veterans which can also include additional income support payments and medical coverage for all health conditions through their Gold Card. Now, in recognition of this important issue, I’ve asked the minister for veterans’ affairs to work with his department and the TPI Federation to analyse the basis of the federation’s research and the data used in it. And I want to thank the honourable member for raising these important issues and for the TPI Federation’s ongoing role in representing the interests of Australia’s veterans. Now, Mr Speaker, my government will always do the right thing by our veterans. I recognise there are various components to these entitlements and compensation. But unless – I’m less interested in the definitional distinctions that and as a former serving officer would have a keen insight into, than making sure veterans have the support they need and making sure that they have financial support appropriate with their service. If they need medical support and treatment that it is provided. If they need psychological support for mental illness, it is provided, too. I can assure the honourable member and all our veterans that my government is committed to them, just as they were committed to our nation in their days in uniform.”
Updated
David Coleman gives the government another opportunity to talk about how amazing the amazing Neg is.
Scott Morrison very happily takes the floor
Labor have given up on reliability … all in the name of putting subsidies before idol of their own ideology. But on top of that they say that the CET will deliver certainty. I’m pleased to quote the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia who said today: “The National Energy Guarantee will provide more certainty than the clean energy target. The government plan has great potential to deliver affordable, reliable power, reduce emissions and boost market confidence and we are looking forward to the further work.” This government has a plan for reliable, affordable energy that delivers on our environmental obligations. The Labor party has a plan for a electricity bill of – an electricity bill of $66bn on families and business.”
Updated
The Australian Bureau of Statistics has released its latest estimate that 10.8m Australians have voted in the marriage law survey, or 67.5% of enrolled voters, as at Friday 13 October.
The first ABS turnout figure two weeks ago revealed 57.5% of Australians had voted as of 29 September. The result was heralded by the Equality Campaign as very promising, and the acting special minister of state, Mathias Cormann, said the postal survey was headed for a very credible turnout.
The figure crept up by 5% last week to 62.5%, meaning it has increased 5% for each of the last two weeks. Voting closes on 7 November and the result will be announced on 15 November.
Fantastic news that 67.5% of #SSM survey forms had been returned as of October 13 #VoteYes #PostYourYes #MarriageEquality #auspol pic.twitter.com/h5rCecVKZW
— Christine Forster (@resourcefultype) October 17, 2017
Updated
Mark Butler has a question for Frydenberg.
Can the energy minister gets through a question time without using his “inconvenient truth” joke? These are the questions which plague mankind.
Butler wants to know about the modelling. And whether the government has any.
“Can I confirm to the house that the Energy Security Board, made up of the Australian Energy Regulator, the Australian Energy Market Operator, and the Australian Energy Market Commission have written to the government and outlined that on the basis of their analysis that prices will fall for an average household $100-115.”
Updated
Annnnnnd Linda Burney has been removed
Meanwhile, outside the chamber …
Govt announcement an important step, keen to work together to make it work. With bipartisan support, it will provide investment certainty
— Andy Vesey (@AndyVesey_AGL) October 17, 2017
Updated
Jason Wood, the member for La Trobe has the first Dixer and is reading it like it is the first time he has seen words put together in that particular order.
“Will the prime minister advise the house how the government’s National Energy Guarantee will guarantee reliability, ease power bills and reduce emissions for hardworking Australian families and businesses including in my electorate of La Trobe. What would be the impact of alternative approaches?”
There would be so much impact from those alternative approaches the prime minister can almost not get the words out. He uses a lot of the answer we heard earlier in the response, with a couple of extra attacks:
We all know very well what the impact of Labor’s policies have been. What we have seen is unaffordable power and unreliable power. We’ve just come from a press conference where the energy market operator has described how she has to intervene again and again in the South Australian market to keep the lights on. That’s because of the instability in that market created by the force-feeding of masses of intermittent renewables like wind without any regard for stability or back-up or storage. What we’ve seen with the Labor party’s approach to energy has been a triumph of ideology over good sense. What we need now is the engineering and the economics. That guides our energy policy and we have seen the work of engineers and economists on the energy security board with their recommendations.”
Updated
Bill Shorten opens with an easy one.
“My question is for the prime minister. When can the prime minister guarantee Australians that the cost of their power bills will go down?”
Already the warnings have started. Tim Wilson is warned. Josh Frydenberg has been told to pipe down. We are not even 60 seconds in. Someone should do more to lock up the vending machines before QT, because this sugar high can go nowhere good.
Malcolm Turnbull starts with an attack and does his best not to peacock around the despatch box.
If the leader of the opposition is to be taken at his word, his renewable energy objective would result in a $66bn subsidy. [A] $66bn subsidy. That would be imposed on Australian families. A subsidy that is completely unnecessary. A subsidy which is effectively industry policy, pouring billions in additional costs on to Australian families. That is what – that is his policy. What we’re doing is committed to ensuring that our energy policy delivers affordable, reliable power and that we meet our international commitments. And we’ve just seen, we’ve just seen, we’re taking up the recommendations of the Energy and Security Board. The members of that were applauded by the member for Port Adelaide. He welcomed them.
“The leader of the opposition will have to reflect on the expert advice of the Energy and Security Board. This is someone who has called for bipartisanship in energy policy. That’s what he’s called for. What we have is a recommendation from an expert board, appointed by Coag, appointed by more Labor governments than Coalition governments. This is what they’ve said in their formal advice, ‘It’s expected that following the guarantee could lead to a reduction in residential bills in the order of$15-115 per annum over the 2020-30 period, wholesale prices are expected to decline by 20-25% per annum over the same period. Compared to the clean energy target as specified in the Finkel review, this guarantee could be expected to lead to wholesale prices that are on average 8-10% lower under that period.’
“Now, Mr Speaker, we have arranged for the opposition to have a briefing from the Energy Security Board. We look forward to them getting fully briefed. We them to get on board and adopt this we encourage them to get on board and adopt this expert recommendation that for the first time will level the playing field, end the subsidies, end the taxes, ensure that we have, ensure that we have a genuinely technology-agnostic energy market that enables us to have energy that is affordable, reliable and responsible. That is what Labor should support. Stop the nonsense about their claimed bipartisanship and get real and get on board with the plan that guarantees Australia’s energy future.”
Updated
Straight into question time
Katharine Murphy will have a full report on the ins and outs of what is happening with the Neg and what legislation, if any, will be needed.
But first, we head to question time. Energy, is an obvious one, and I am sure, based on yesterday’s performance, we’ll hear a bit more on the NBN. Other topics? Take a guess below.
Updated
This press conference has no fewer than six people sitting behind the desk. But it only looks like two flags. Disappointing.
Asked about the cost reduction of electricity bills from $110 to $115 (which doesn’t start until 20202) Frydenberg had this to say:
So off the back of this work, the commonwealth government will be asking the AMC to do detailed analysis and modelling of this specific proposal in the lead-up to the discussions at Coag where we would provide, if you like, firmer estimates of those price effects. The price numbers you’re referring to are based off, if you like, analysis and modelling of the market and the alternative schemes that we’ve looked at in the past. It is an average over the 10 years. The more detailed work will give a profile. The things that are driving it are basically three things. The reduction in uncertainty, that the minister referred to. And the unlocking of investment and hence increases in supply, and that’s quite an important component. The second driver, or reason you’d expect pries to be lower is that the mechanism uses existing market processes, existing market contracts, so people have more options available to them about how they meet these obligations. And thirdly, I would expect that the higher levels of contracting that this mechanism will bring about will lower barriers to entry and improve competition, both at the generation and the retail level.
Updated
Malcolm Turnbull and Josh Frydenberg have released a joint press statement:
The Turnbull Government will accept the recommendation of the Energy Security Board (ESB) for a new National Energy Guarantee to deliver more affordable and reliable electricity while meeting our international commitments.
As our energy system transitions, we must ensure households and businesses have access to affordable and reliable power.
The independent Energy Security Board advises the guarantee will give certainty to investors and therefore encourage investment in all forms of power. This means electricity bills will be lower than currently forecast and lower than they would have been under a clean energy target.
The Energy Security Board estimates typical household bills will fall by an average of $110-$115 per year over the 2020-2030 period.
The guarantee is made up of two parts that will require energy retailers across the National Electricity Market to deliver reliable and lower emissions generation each year.
- A reliability guarantee will be set to deliver the right level of dispatchable energy (from ready-to-use sources such as coal, gas, pumped hydro and batteries) needed in each state. It will be set by the Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) and Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo).
- An emissions guarantee will be set to contribute to Australia’s international commitments. The level of the guarantee will be determined by the commonwealth and enforced by the Australian Energy Regulator (AER).
Past energy plans have subsidised some industries, punished others and slugged consumers. The Turnbull government will take a different approach.
The National Energy Guarantee will lower electricity prices, make the system more reliable, encourage the right investment and reduce emissions without subsidies, taxes or trading schemes. It is truly technology-neutral, offering a future for investment in whatever technology the market needs – solar, wind, coal, gas, batteries or pumped storage.
Unlike previous approaches, we are not picking winners, we are levelling the playing field. Coal, gas, hydro and biomass will be rewarded for their dispatchability while wind, solar and hydro will be recognised as lower emissions technologies but will no longer be subsidised.
Importantly, this plan builds on the Finkel review, which recommended the creation of the ESB that has now recommended the National Energy Guarantee.
The government will now work with the ESB and the states through Coag to implement the National Energy Guarantee.
As well as delivering a better deal for households, the plan will support business, particularly emissions intensive, trade exposed firms.
The guarantee builds on our existing energy policy which involves the retailers offering consumers a better deal, stopping the networks gaming the system, delivering more gas for Australians before it’s shipped offshore and the commencement of Snowy Hydro 2.0 to stabilise the system.
We now have an opportunity to break from the climate wars of the past and forge a sensible, sustainable path forward.
Updated
Just to take you inside the Coalition party room for a moment. That meeting this morning went for more than two hours and during that time, we are reliably assured that those who expressed contrary views to the government policy were, in no particular order:
- Tony Abbott
- George Christensen
- Matt Canavan
-
David Gillespie
The Nationals MP Andrew Broad wasn’t exactly a contrarian, but he did float an alternative plan, which he’s spoken about previously and was knocked back.
Only Abbott didn’t want the decision made then and there, we have been told. The party room heard from energy officials who answered questions, and then Turnbull offered the room a chance to go out and dwell on it for a bit, telling them they could reconvene later this afternoon to decide, or even next week.
Abbott stood up to say the decision needed to be delayed, but he received no support, and the rest of room chose to have the matter settled, wanting it “sorted” so they could “move on”.
Where does it go now? Well, time will tell.
Turnbull has opened his official press conference on the policy. Details to come.
Updated
The Senate has started its business of the day. And what pressing issue received its precious time?
Energy? Housing policy? Health? Human rights?
If you had “how to pronounce Richard Di Natale’s name”, please take a bow and collect your prize at the door.
George Brandis says ‘senator Di Na-tar-lay’. Di Natale had the hide to have a different view on how to pronounce his own name.
I know Senator Brandis prides himself on his diction, but my name is Di Na-ta-lee, no Di Na-tar-lay so if you would like to refer to me by my proper name, I would be most appreciative.”
Brandis heard him and apologised.
I mean no offence Senator Di Nar-ta-lee, that it is the way I pronounce the English language, I am sorry if my pronunciation isn’t perfect. But in any event, Senator Di Na-tar-lay, what I can assure you is that when the [energy] announcement is made you will discover what has fallen from your lips in the last few minutes is completely wrong.”
Updated
Katharine Murphy is receiving a briefing on the Neg. Here is a bit from what we know so far
On emissions reduction trajectory, govt says we can assume 26% on 2005 by 2030. Govt will have to legislate that target @AmyRemeikis #auspol
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) October 17, 2017
The energy market regulators will work out the required emissions reduction trajectory year by year @AmyRemeikis #auspol
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) October 17, 2017
The reliability obligation will be assessed state by state. Will be imposed within the national energy market rules @AmyRemeikis #auspol
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) October 17, 2017
Updated
Hastie also has a bit to say about the Australian defence force policy on gender reassignment surgery, in that they will fund it. The ADF has treated 27 cases of gender dysphoria over the past five years, at a cost of $1m.
Marise Payne defended it in the Senate against attacks from Pauline Hanson yesterday.
Hastie, speaking to Sky News, takes us on a trip down memory lane to 2005 when he was a third-year cadet at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) and he was addressed by Rear Admiral James Goldrick, who told the room “some of you may have joined the defence force for your own reasons, but the bottom line is you are here to prepare to fight Australia’s wars and win those wars” and that has been his view.
So if we accept that premise that the ADF exists to fight and win Australia’s wars, then we need a really good war-fighting capability and we need to be selective with our personnel.”
Hastie tells stories of “young Australians who wanted to join the ADF but have been denied”.
One friend of mine who now farms north of Tamworth was denied because he had a rugby injury with his shoulder. I had another constituent very recently, who is a young tradesman, who had a very, very mild shellfish allergy and he was knocked back from Defence and then I had someone else, who is a national track athlete who has been in remission from cancer for some time and he was knocked back by Defence as well, because of their perceived ongoing health costs. So, you know, we are selective and my view is, if you present with gender dysphoria then you absolutely need help, psychological help and counselling, but we need to be very, very judicious in how we spend taxpayers’ money and the bottom line, is, as I have said, is our war-fighting capability.”
Updated
Andrew Hastie has also been out and about on the sell.
Basically, what we are doing is, we are going to bring a mechanism to bear on the market whereby energy retailers will be forced to buy coal, gas, for every megawatt hour of renewable energy they purchase. So we are moving incentives, the economic incentives away from exclusively the renewable sector and broadening them out and that will drive down prices, it will also make energy more reliable and affordable for Australian people.”
You may remember the Greens leader, Richard Di Natale, has promised to stop the Queensland Adani mine by any means necessary, including standing in front of bulldozers, arrest threat be damned.
George Christensen, whose electorate relies heavily on mining jobs, had a different idea.
George Christensen wants coal mine protestors (including @RichardDiNatale) to be charged with terrorism and serve 1+ yrs in prison. pic.twitter.com/cYH18kx3M9
— Alice Workman (@workmanalice) October 17, 2017
Updated
The alert which went out with Malcolm Turnbull’s video named it the National Energy Guarantee. So it’s official. It’s the Neg.
The PM has announced a national energy guarantee to deliver affordable and reliable electricity. WATCH it here first https://t.co/TifMa8k111
— The PMO (@thepmo) October 17, 2017
Updated
Labor caucus met this morning.
It was the last full caucus meeting before the results of the same-sex marriage postal vote are announced.
Given the timing, they resolved that in the event a yes vote prevails in the survey, Labor will push for the Turnbull government to pass Dean Smith’s private members’ bill as soon as possible.
They say Smith’s bill is consistent with the key recommendations of the unanimous Senate committee report, and believe it will strike an “acceptable compromise” between achieving marriage equality and protecting religious freedoms.
They also noted Labor’s position on the conscience vote on same-sex marriage (they will let party members vote as individuals) but said if a yes vote is returned they will push for Smith’s bill to be passed in its current form.
Updated
Progress at today's party room. The Clean Energy Target has been definitively dropped.
— Tony Abbott (@TonyAbbottMHR) October 17, 2017
Someone came prepared. Just minutes after the party room sided with the energy policy, the prime minister’s office released a video on Facebook. It is all very uplifting. Affordability! Reliability! Security! All of the “itys”! Tellingly, the video does not say how much power bills will drop by, though.
Updated
A bit more detail about the Neg
I’ve happened across a briefing note prepared for the government by the Australian Energy Market Commission which gives more detail about the energy overhaul.
The briefing paper confirms two new obligations will be imposed on retailers “and the small number of large users of electricity who have registered as direct participants in the wholesale market”.
These obligations are for reliability support and emissions reduction. They would commence from 2020 and RET-financed projects would be grandfathered from that date.
The obligations would require wholesale ‘market customers’ to enter into contracts for sufficient generation to meet a specified component of their electricity load with dispatchable generation,” the briefing paper says. “Concurrently, they would also be required to meet their electricity requirements with generation resources that met a specified emissions reduction goal.
“This would mean that retailers would need to establish a portfolio of contracts or direct generation sources with existing and new dispatchable generation or verifiable demand response – to meet their reliability requirements – and with low emitting and renewables generation – to meet their emissions reduction obligations.
“This will address issues with the RET by incentivising investment not just in a specific type of capacity but instead in a range of technologies that can both lower emissions and be dispatched to meet system requirements.”
That’s all clear enough. The briefing paper argues electricity prices will come down for two reasons. It’s a lot more complicated than what I’m about to share, but let’s start with this observation.
As discussed above, a major contributor to the current relatively high wholesale prices has been the undermining of the contract market by the volume of capacity financed outside the national electricity market via the RET and, policy uncertainty with respect to the mechanism that will be used to achieve Australia’s emission reduction target.”
So the AEMC says prices will come down once the market knows what the carbon policy will be, and once the RET (which is a system which generates certificates) trends out of the system.
Now, to the emissions reduction obligation.
This sort of scheme could work in parallel with a separate emissions reduction obligation on retailers and large users,” the AEMC says. “In addition to a requirement to hedge their load, there would be a further requirement for that energy consumption to meet an emissions intensity target.
“This target would need to be derived for the electricity sector from the government-set emissions reduction goal. That target would then translate into an obligation for a particular generation emissions profile that would need to be achieved across the sector.
“The AEMC or Clean Energy Regulator could be tasked with translating the government’s goal into a sector-specific target. This obligation would work with the contract market in a similar way to the reliability obligation.
“Retailers would be required to meet their load obligations from generation with a particular emissions intensity – for example, below a historical average level. This would incentivise retailers and large users to contract with renewable or low emissions generators, balancing the need for dispatchable capacity with their emissions intensity.
“This would create additional incentives for investment in low emitting but firm generation capacity, allowing those generators, such as solar thermal, to attract a premium.”
I’m off to a briefing shortly.
As they say in the classics, more to come.
Updated
So now we wait to see the outcome of the Coalition signing off on the new energy policy. There have been some questions over whether or not it needs to be legislated. The short answer is, it doesn’t seem so, but we don’t have all the detail. If it is just a regulation change, they won’t need to put it through parliament. But we’ll know more very soon.
Updated
So the Neg is alive. (Every time I hear that term I just think of negging and wonder if anyone ever Googles these things before they name them and then I remember, no, they don’t.)
And James McGrath has left the Coalition party room early to appear on Sky with Laura Jayes, to say he can’t talk about party room.
Updated
The Coalition party room has approved the energy policy
Press conference to come
Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts have held a media conference to claim credit for what they call a backdown in government policy.
“It’s RIP for the RET,” Roberts said, before mixing metaphors and warning renewable targets may be put “on steroids before being given the kiss of death”.
Roberts is worried that the $115 saving the government is claiming will occur may come after a further increase in prices. Roberts brandished a graph of energy prices increasing relative to inflation, labelled “Di Natale hockey stick”.
When asked if One Nation caused the government to move on renewables and drop the clean energy target, Hanson replied: “I do take credit for that, we’ve been very vocal on this from the very beginning.”
Roberts attacked proposals for demand management, which he summarised as “where the producer of the product pays people not to take its product – this is nuts”. “We’re seeing an energy market that is really an energy racket, the energy market is completely destroyed.”
Roberts said the government’s new policy was “an atrocious policy dressed up with lies around it”. When it was pointed out that One Nation was claiming credit for it, Roberts clarified “I took credit for the language” – perhaps a reference to his earlier claim that “coal” is no longer a dirty word.
When asked for their solution – Roberts said abolish all subsidies for renewables including the RET and to let the states take responsibility for their own energy needs, breaking apart the east coast electricity market.
“It will generate investment in the cheapest forms of energy, which is hydro and coal,” he said, before adding nuclear would also provide synchronous energy and One Nation was “open to considering it”.
Updated
In between the party room meetings, One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts has been spreading his gems of wisdom about the Coalition’s energy policy among the Canberra press gallery.
Despite his leader claiming the credit ...
Good to see the Gov plans to scrap RET & CET like One Nation has been suggesting. About time they joined us in the 21st century. -PH #auspol
— Pauline Hanson (@PaulineHansonOz) October 16, 2017
... Roberts is not a fan.
Now they are not telling everyone that they are actually putting the RET on steroids before they give it the kiss of death. So we are going to have an increase in power prices even more dramatic than we were expecting and then they are going to kill it off. So the government tells us they are going to cut power prices by $115 a year. What they are not telling us is how much power prices will increase until that occurs. So we will see $115 less than what it will be. But what it will be is frightening.”
It must have looked good when he practised it in the mirror, so Roberts then presents a letter from Malcolm Turnbull, which was written after he sent him “a copy of the Moran report, which was a critique of the Finkel report”. You may have missed the Moran report, but don’t worry, it was published on this climate sceptics blog.
The Finkel report is a highly destructive blueprint for this country and the Moran report tears it to shreds, absolutely destroys it. The Finkel report is based on lies. And the Turnbull government is now continuing to tells lies about climate and it raises more questions, how the hell are they are going to comply with the Paris accord without renewables, so what are they going to do? They need to come clean, we have got three words into the vocabulary of this country. We have affordability into the energy debate, due to our work, reliability into the energy debate due to our work, we have security into the energy debate, due to our work and we’re going to introduce a fourth word – truth. Because I have been pursuing the CSIRO for the last 12 months and they have not got what they claim they had. And I’ll be talking more about that in the next few weeks.”
So there you have it. The master of empirical evidence, who apparently couldn’t work out an email address, or fully understand his citizenship history has the climate debate sorted. Obviously there is no need to continue with this today, we can all go home.
Updated
The Greens have completed their party room meeting and it went as you would expect.
The party room is not a fan of the energy policy, (shocking, I know), so it will be looking to Coag and the states to tell the government to go jump and go it alone when it comes to renewables.
They want to suspend standing orders in the Senate and call for a debate of the energy policy and hope Labor will join them.
As for other issues, the Greens are standing against the government’s housing affordability plan, which would allow homebuyers to dip into their super and reminded everyone the government has until close of business tomorrow to bring its citizenship changes – the ones which include the stricter English language test etc – up for debate.
Updated
The Labor party is pleased the government went with James Shipton for the head of Asic and not John O’Sullivan.
Chris Bowen said Shipton has their support as well.
I want to congratulate and welcome the appointment of James Shipton as the new chair of Asic. This is an appropriate appointment. Mr Shipton has a good mix of corporate experience and regulatory experience. His experience as a regulator in Hong Kong will come in as an asset for him in his role in the new chair of Asic. As well, he’s been a thought leader when it comes to regulation in academia in the last few years, and of course, he’ll draw on his corporate experience. This is an appropriate and good appointment which Labor welcomes. The chair of Asic is an important position. It is appropriate that it receives bipartisan support. I give that bipartisan support to Mr Shipton and wish him well in his stewardship of Asic and look forward to working with him in the future.”
As for O’Sullivan, Bowen read from an email (from Godwin Grech to O’Sullivan) he once sent.
“RE fees – what I have in mind is that once Rudd and his hacks sign off on Ford Credit – you and I can change the contract to reflect your preferred fee arrangement and push that through quickly next week. I will not be running it past Henry – that is Ken Henry, secretary of Treasury – and co. Godwin.”
That was at 10.02am on the 19th of March 2009. At 10.24am on the same day Mr O’Sullivan replied “Thanks Godwin, sounds sensible.”
Updated
“Optimism” is one of the words a couple of Coalition sources have used in relation to the party room briefing.
Then there is also this:
Abbott In Emissions Reduction Non-shock Shock #auspol https://t.co/HzhQvol85m
— Katharine Murphy (@murpharoo) October 16, 2017
Updated
Things appear to be going well in the Coalition party room ...
Energy Minister @JoshFrydenberg has been applauded by party room as he explained the Govt energy plan @SkyNewsAust
— Laura Jayes (@ljayes) October 16, 2017
Updated
Party room meetings are occurring as we speak. The Coalition will be selling its energy policy to its backbench. Craig Kelly has indicated he supports the policy, at least broadly, which is part of the battle won. But let’s see what happens beyond those instant reactions.
Labor is formulating its response, but so far has been pretty clear in rejecting the government’s plan. The theme which appears to be emerging is from Mark Butler’s media conference this morning:
What the announcements that are set for this morning do make very clear is that Malcolm Turnbull’s capitulation to Tony Abbott’s radical rightwing agenda for Australia is now utterly complete.
The Greens are also meeting this morning and have drawn a conclusion along the same lines.
One Nation will hold a media conference a little later, with Malcolm Roberts and Pauline Hanson, but Hanson has already claimed credit for the policy.
Who else is excited for question time?!
Updated
Speaking of neutron stars colliding, the issue of Tony Abbott is not going away any time soon.
Paul Karp tells us the deputy Liberal leader, Julie Bishop, was also asked on Radio National about why Tony Abbott has left open the option of being drafted back to the leadership.
Bishop replied:
Not one person has raised that possibility with me, not one of my colleagues has raised that as an option or something they are considering ... Not one person has raised with me any suggestion that there would be a change of leader, there is support forMalcolm Turnbull.
Updated
The chief scientist, Alan Finkel, was coincidentally at a function at Old Parliament House this morning, to discuss the neutron stars collision. I think it is safe to say he was a little surprised at the media attention he received today.
Updated
If this energy policy is called the national energy guarantee, or the Neg, it might be timely to remind you of this, from the prime minister, just yesterday. Doesn’t that feel like a lifetime ago.
That’s the task of government. To get beyond the slogans, and the three-letter acronyms that honourable members opposite don’t understand, and to get a policy that works and have the one that works best. That is our commitment. Engineering and economics, not three-letter acronyms and terms that honourable members opposite and laugh about but do not understand.
Updated
But Labor is not happy with what it is hearing. The opposition energy spokesman, Mark Butler, who was forced to walk back from his Sunday comments (essentially that dumping the CET was a deal breaker for Labor) yesterday, says today the government has turned its back on the recommendations of the chief scientist.
“We will wait and see what the detail is. All we have had leaked out to newspapers this morning is a clear suggestion that the government will restrict the growth of renewable energy to as little as 28% and maybe as much as something in the mid-30% range over three decades. There is no way Australia is going to be able to discharge its commitments to the medium term to 2030 around emissions reduction but also to get to a position of net zero emissions by the middle of the century. It will destroy investment in renewable energy and destroy the thousands of jobs that industry currently employs.
... Labor’s position is clear. Australia should have at least 50% of its electricity delivered by renewable energy by 2030. We have said there are a range of mechanisms that can deliver that outcome. Initially we were in support of an emissions intensity scheme, as was the government until September last year. It was a position supported by all of the electricity agencies but vetoed by Tony Abbott in December last year. We have said a 50% renewable energy position can be delivered by a clean energy target, a consensus position up until last night when Malcolm Turnbull turned his back on his own chief scientist in favour of Tony Abbott’s veto.
Updated
The government has managed to please some with its energy policy.
Good to see the Gov plans to scrap RET & CET like One Nation has been suggesting. About time they joined us in the 21st century. -PH #auspol
— Pauline Hanson (@PaulineHansonOz) October 16, 2017
Don’t forget the Essential poll came out today.
Katharine Murphy has written a comprehensive report on the latest findings, but just on the former prime minister:
With Tony Abbott spending the past several months front running the government’s energy debate, and leading the opposition to the Finkel recommendation, 42% think the former prime minister should resign from parliament (down 1% from April), while 30% think he should stay in parliament in some capacity (down 2%).
Liberal/National voters were more likely to think Tony Abbott should stay in parliament (38%) than Labor voters (27%) and Greens voters (17%).
Labor is still in front in the new poll, leading the Coalition on the two-party preferred measure 52% to 48%, but that is an improvement on the government’s fortunes from a week ago, where Labor led 54% to 46%.
James Shipton has been announced as the new chief of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) by Kelly O’Dwyer.
From O’Dwyer’s statement:
He is currently the executive director of the program on international financial systems at Harvard law school. From 2013 to 2016 he was the executive director, intermediaries supervision and licensing division at the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission. Prior to that he had extensive experience in various roles in investment banking in Asia and Europe and commenced his professional career as a solicitor in Australia.
I look forward to Mr Shipton making a significant contribution to the important work of ASIC in promoting confidence in Australia’s financial system and protecting consumer interests as the incoming Chair.
I would also like to express my appreciation to Mr Greg Medcraft for his commitment over the past years to ASIC both as the chair and as a member.
Mr Medcraft has overseen significant changes in ASIC’s role during his tenure, including reforms to improve the quality of financial advice and financial literacy, and the establishment of a national business names register.
Mr Peter Kell, the current deputy chair, will be the acting chair from the time Mr Medcraft’s term ends on 12 November 2017 to when Mr Shipton commences in February.
Updated
Barnaby Joyce is due to hand down an update on the Northern Australia white paper (remember that? It was to turn the north into an “economic powerhouse”?) and Labor’s Jason Clare has had some thoughts:
Two-and-a-half years ago they announced the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Two-and-a-half years on bugger all has happened. No money has been allocated to infrastructure projects and no jobs have been created. It’s just a great example of a government which talks a big game and doesn’t deliver. Today when Barnaby Joyce comes into the Parliament to give an update to the Australian people on their northern Australia plans he needs to explain what the hold-up is.
Joyce took over the portfolio when Matt Canavan stepped down from the ministry during the citizenship kerfuffle.
Updated
The Greens leader, Richard Di Natale, was not mincing words in his response.
This represents the complete capitulation of Malcolm Turnbull’s leadership. This is a man who said he wasn’t going to lead a party [that wasn’t] as committed to climate change as he was and he is now leading the most pro-coal, anti-renewable government in the nation’s history. This is a complete failure of leadership. Malcolm Turnbull has shown himself to be a hollow and cowardly prime minister. When he had an opportunity to stand up and lead, and take a stand against those dinosaurs inside his own backbench, instead he has gone to water and he is now going against where the rest of the world is going on this. This is a disgraceful capitulation from a weak and hollow prime minister.
Di Natale said “Malcolm Turnbull is prime minister in name only” and was being held hostage by the right wing of his party.
Malcolm Turnbull has done what Donald Trump has done, he just hasn’t done it as extravagantly. He has effectively pulled out of the Paris agreement. We can’t achieve those Paris reduction targets based on this plan.
Updated
Steve Ciobo has also been put out to sell, sell, sell. Speaking to Sky News this morning, he was explaining why renewables on their own were not the answer.
You can’t build an energy policy, you can’t build a country, you can’t build manufacturing, you can’t build reliable energy supply off intermittent power. When the sun’s not shining, what do you do? The key about this approach that the Coalition is putting forward, is if you actually get a commercial approach, which says let’s use solar and batteries for example, if the use of solar and batteries which means it then becomes reliable is put in the market, and that is of course cheaper and more cost effective than burning coal, or burning gas, well then that approach will be adopted by energy retailers.
Of course, everyone is still waiting on the judgment from the high court, sitting as the court of disputed returns.
There is still no word on when that decision will be handed down.
Updated
Julie Bishop has released a statement welcoming Australia’s election to the United Nations human rights council (UNHRC).
Australia will take its seat on 1 January 2018 and is ready to work closely with other countries and civil society to protect and advance human rights around the world. It is in our national interest to shape the work of the council and uphold the international rules-based order. Respecting fundamental human rights and freedoms, and building them into the fabric of a society, makes Australia and the world safer and more secure.
We will bring to the council the same principled, pragmatic and consultative approach that distinguished our term on the UN security council in 2013-14. Australia will provide a unique Indo-Pacific perspective and ensure that the voices of our Pacific neighbours and other small states are heard.
During our term on the human rights council, we will focus on five key areas: gender equality, freedom of expression, good governance and robust democratic institutions, human rights for Indigenous peoples and strong national human rights institutions. Through an emphasis on these issues, we can advance human rights in practical, sensible ways that will have far-reaching systematic effects over time.
Australia will also continue to advocate the abolition of the death penalty worldwide, freedom of religion and belief, the rights of persons with a disability and the rights of LGBTI communities.
Updated
After Tony Abbott’s latest gems of wisdom were dropped on 2GB yesterday – including his belief that if he was to ever come back as leader, he would have to be “drafted”, which he said was almost impossible to imagine – the leadership questions continue.
Does Tony Abbott want his job back. Craig Kelly: "Malcolm Turnbull is our PM ... it's silly to try and rule anything out" #auspol
— Paul Karp (@Paul_Karp) October 16, 2017
So. Clear as mud. But Abbott also showed his trademark cunning in yesterday’s interview, where he opined that the Coalition’s energy policy should not be “rushed” through the party room. The government wants the framework agreed upon, and the details, we imagine, will come later. Abbott knows details tends to be where the devil dwells.
Updated
Labor has started the day on the run
Updated
Updated
Craig Kelly, who heads the government’s backbench energy committee, has been hitting the airwaves since first light and he has many opinions on what his side of the fence is planning on doing. At least broadly, planning on doing.
He told ABC Breakfast what the government is planning to do is even better than the clean energy target and wants Labor to see the light.
Firstly, a lot of the plan is put together by the energy Security Council [Coag Energy Council], which includes the Australian Energy Market Operator. So we believe that we have a mechanism here that is superior to the clean energy target. And I am sure all of those groups, once they see the detail released by the prime minister today, will come on board and say this is good. That’s why I say it gets back the final missing part of the jigsaw is the Labor party’s agreement. We need bipartisanship going forward. We hope they abandon their 50% renewable energy target, come on board the Coalition and finally in this nation we can have a bipartisan policy on energy going forward which gives us the certainty we need.
Updated
Everybody, welcome the Neg
Good morning everyone, as Amy has mentioned, today is energy day. We will get details of the policy later on, once it has made its way through the party room, but in the meantime, here are the outlines of what backbenchers were told by the prime minister and the energy minister last night.
The new mechanism is called the national energy guarantee – or the NEG. As I flagged in the news coverage this morning, the new mechanism will contain two obligations which will be imposed on electricity retailers: a reliability obligation (meaning they will have to be able to supply mandated quantities of dispatchable energy) and an emissions reduction obligation.
The Neg, according to their briefing late last night, contains a penalty regime. If retailers don’t meet the two mandated requirements (reliability and emissions reduction) within a certain period of time, they will be deregistered.
The emissions reduction target, according to the backbenchers briefing, will be a 26% reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 – which is the same as Australia’s commitment to the Paris international climate agreement, and similar to the target Alan Finkel suggested.
That trajectory will apply to the electricity sector.
While backbenchers are already quibbling with that, suggesting too much too soon, if that trajectory is correct, that’s a low-ball target. Without confusing everyone with too much detail, think of it this way: the less the electricity sector contributes to Australia’s emissions reduction effort, the more other sectors of the economy will have to contribute if we are to meet our Paris obligations.
The Climate Change Authority has said the emissions intensity of Australia’s electricity sector needs to come down 69% between 2015 and 2030. That’s obviously a lot more than the 26% reduction under consideration.
Updated
The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, has responded to Australia’s election to the United Nations human rights council, the first time Australia has been elected to the body.
Bishop told Radio National the fact Australia had won 176 votes was a “very strong endorsement of the international community of Australia as a contributing member to the UN generally but specifically we are a principled and a pragmatic voice when it comes to human rights”.
Bishop says Australia’s focus will be the empowerment of women, Indigenous rights, strong domestic human rights institutions, the abolition of the death penalty and human rights crises around the world including in North Korea and Syria.
Asked about the human rights records of of other council members, Bishop said the council was a chance to scrutinise them and that Australia supported a US-led push to reform the council so those with “appalling records are subject to greater scrutiny”.
Responding to the fact Australia’s record will be examined by the human rights committee, Bishop said it was “standard procedure” rather than Australia being “hauled” before the committee.
She defended Australia’s record on treatment of asylum seekers, arguing Australia was closing detention centres and had “smashed the people-smuggling trade”.
Updated
Good morning and happy energy day
We hope you had a good night’s rest, because the Turnbull government has been out early laying the groundwork for its energy policy to end all energy policies. At least it hopes so.
After claiming ownership of the issue, Malcolm Turnbull promised a solution. So far we have the basic framework for that decision – the clean energy target is reportedly out, but we’ll still have Paris. More coming, imminently, on that.
In other news, Australia won its seat on the United Nations human rights council but, rather awkwardly, a coalition of non-government organisations are also presenting a report on some of Australia’s human rights failings, including the nation’s treatment of Indigenous people and asylum seekers, in Geneva.
But it’s all energy, all the time, with Turnbull government ministers about to give the Energy Bunny a lesson in endurance as they prepare to battle not only Labor, but also their own party room. And that’s before they even start with voters.
Mike Bowers is back with us today, so make sure you get in touch with him at @mpbowers or take a look behind the scenes here. You can reach me in the comments, or more directly, on Twitter at @amyremeikis
Will we reach the heights of yesterday? Only time will tell. Grab that coffee and we shall begin.
Updated
