Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the House for the opportunity to speak to the ministerial statement on energy initiatives, a topic made popular by the Australian motoring public, who continue to feel their wallets being ripped out of their back pockets whenever they leave their houses, because of the increasing cost of petrol. The price of fuel, with a 40 per cent increase in the last two years, has caused a lot of grief. Private health insurance has increased 35 per cent in the last four years. Even the proportion of people’s incomes taken up servicing their mortgages has gone up 30-odd per cent in the last four years—remarkable, given the commitments by this government at the last election. Add to that petrol increases because of the energy crisis, and we see the Australian public and Australian families really hurting. And yet we still have leading members of the government stating that any financial pain the Australian public say they are feeling is either because they are whingers or because it is simply their own fault.

But true to form, just like in early 2001, when the Prime Minister starts to feel some electoral heat, the government sheds a whole lot of money in an attempt to buy relief for themselves with the public’s money. If only the public could do the same. In the case of 14 August 2006, we saw the government’s grand plan for Australia’s energy needs. We have seen elements of this grand plan before: we have seen parrot power favoured over wind turbines, we have seen the government’s pro-nuclear choreography push biofuels to the wings and we have seen the heralded mandatory renewable energy target surgically neutered to cause a decrease in true conservative form—a decrease in the proportion of the nation’s energy generated by renewable means over the next decade.

Only a week ago, the Vestas wind turbine nacelle manufacturing plant in Wynyard in north-west Tasmania, in the seat of Braddon, announced it was closing down at the end of the year. This means that some 65 direct jobs and many more indirect jobs, such as those at Aus-Tech Compositer in nearby Camdale, will be lost. The major reason for this is the Howard government’s anti wind energy policy that does not extend the mandatory renewable energy target scheme. Wind energy projects in Tasmania have now been stymied by this regressive anti renewable energy stance, yet there has been not a word of regret or apology from the local Liberal member for Braddon. I assume he is just another apologist for the government’s appalling record of being anti renewable and alternative energy options.

The Prime Minister has said that petrol prices in Australia are low by international standards. This would be in contrast to interest rates, of course. While Australians have been feeding the highest proportion of their incomes into their mortgages for decades, we have spent the last 4½ years paying an average of 2½ per cent more than Europe, Canada and the United States. Two and a half per cent more in interest rates than comparable countries means one heck of a lot of money out of Australian household budgets. While the Prime Minister says we do not know how good we have got it, people continue to hurt.

It is somewhat ironic that the government is wanting to spend money—in this case, on LPG conversions—but there are not enough skilled workers around to earn it. We all support LPG conversion. At the time the government got up and said, ‘Look, we’re doing the right thing; we’re announcing a $2,000 subsidy,’ the LPG conversion industry went into turmoil. Stock was not and still is not available; tradesmen are not available; overseas supplies are not available. The following questions have to be asked: was it planned? Was there consultation with the industry or was it another off-the-cuff attempt at the billboard policy which we are becoming increasingly used to?

People will have to wait up to 12 months and longer for their conversions and the financial relief that a conversion will bring along with it. How many motorists around the country will benefit from the government’s LPG announcement? It has been estimated at three per cent. That is not what I would call a national energy plan. It is also highly disappointing that the not-for-profit organisations’ fleets are not eligible for the rebate. You would think that the thousands of people whom charities assist every day would benefit just that little bit more from the public’s donations if not-for-profit organisations could also access and use cheaper fuel. If not from LPG, perhaps not-for-profit organisations’ fleets could benefit from another government initiative or trial at some point, if the alternative fuel industry develops certain products and opportunities arise whereby the government needs a small market to trial initiatives. Perhaps those who help our community could be included and thereby helped in their work.

While it is not exactly new technology—test cases exist right around the country—compressed natural gas has been recently highlighted. Some 800 buses in total use compressed natural gas to fuel public transport in all of our state capitals, bar Hobart. Adelaide has had them since 1988 and no doubt has increasingly benefited from the 95 per cent reduction in exhausted sooty materials. Supporters of natural gas say it produces fewer greenhouse emissions than petrol. Motorists could save 50 per cent of their fuel bill and it has been technically proven that it can be used in different mixes and in all classes of vehicles with reduced engine wear, and it is available now.

I look forward to seeing the alternative energy markets starting to work with each other, complementing each energy’s individual benefits and seeing just how efficient and cost-effective we can become. For instance, how would a diesel bus run if it used biodiesel as its more or less traditional fuel to provide pilot ignition with natural gas used at the same time for the rest of the combustion? The ratio of the much cleaner and cheaper diesel to crystal-clear natural gas is 30-70. So the amount of dirty old diesel being used is comparatively very low.

One CNG user was interviewed by the 7.30 Report, which, in a fair umpire’s fashion—as is the ABC’s way—reported that the interviewee took eight hours to fill his car’s CNG tank. He uses dual fuel: compressed natural gas until it runs out, at which time the engine reverts to petrol. He gets home in the evening, hooks the car up to the CNG unit and leaves it overnight to refuel. That is not the kind of thing we would see in grand prix motor racing, but it is something nevertheless. The process sounds pretty inconvenient, but, whatever the particulars of this interviewee’s situation, many vehicles around the nation are now using CNG, just as they are overseas.

In Argentina, one-fifth of the vehicles are powered by natural gas. It is a potential way forward, either in combination with other fuels or used in isolation with any given vehicle at any one time. Just as we have seen combinations of fuel tanks in and under vehicles for many years, we may increasingly see more combinations of fuels, hopefully in smaller fuel tanks, in years to come, engineering the best, cleanest, cheapest and most sustainable mix of fuels that we can use through much of the 21st century. I hope that all governments will support the energies that are driving these technologies forward for the public benefit.

These issues should have been on the agenda for the government for some time. They have been in power for 10 years and we have not seen anything from them on alternative or renewable energy in that period. The writing was on the wall: more than 10 years ago, anyone could have told you that at some stage in the very near future we would have an energy crisis. The government did nothing to avoid the problem or to ease the pain now facing the Australian public due to higher petrol prices.

See this speech in context