Barry Haase (Kalgoorlie, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy Bill 2009. The purpose of this bill is to establish the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy, ACRE—that is, the board and the position of chief executive officer. ACRE is an initiative under the government’s Clean Energy Initiative, CEI, and will complement the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the expanded renewable energy target by supporting the research, development and demonstration of low-emission and renewable energy technologies.

The Clean Energy Initiative, announced in the 2009-10 budget, also includes the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships Program, involving funding to support the construction and demonstration of large-scale integrated carbon capture and storage projects in Australia; the Solar Flagships Program, involving funding to support the construction and demonstration of large-scale solar power stations in Australia; and the Australian Solar Institute, which will support solar research and development and encourage collaboration between Australian researchers and with international solar researchers and institutes.

The previous coalition government made a substantial investment of more than $2 billion in renewable and clean energy sources, including the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund of $500 million, of which $350 million was committed to projects; Australian Asia-Pacific projects, worth $100 million, with a further $50 million committed for 2007 and beyond; the Renewable Energy Development Initiative, which was $100 million; and the mandatory renewable energy target, or MRET, which stimulated $3.5 billion in renewable energy investment after its introduction in 2001. Domestic level support included a photovoltaic rebate program, worth $202 million; a solar hot water rebate, at $252.2 million; the Green Vouchers for Schools program, at $336.1 million; and Solar Cities, at $75 million.

The coalition’s commitment to renewables was further evidenced in our successful negotiations earlier this year on the renewable energy target. The coalition supports Australia’s transition to a lower emissions economy. But this transition must take place in a manner that does not jeopardise our energy security. Australia will need ongoing investment in alternative energy sources. We must consider, firstly, how to best make the transition to low emissions technology without risking jobs or investment and, secondly, what role Australia will play in the international supply of clean energy.

Debate in Australia has been about both of these issues but has been almost exclusively confined to the context of clean coal development. Sure, it is an important technology, not least of all because 37 per cent of the world’s power supply comes from coal. In Australia, 80 per cent of our energy comes from coal. The Rudd government must face up to the very real questions about how soon clean coal technology will be available for commercial use, what it will cost per megawatt hour and how much taxpayers will need to pay to subsidise the technology. Data released by the Rudd government’s own Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute shows that clean coal power stations are unlikely to be viable until at least 2030.

There is still no commercial scale clean coal power station anywhere in the world. Because we are the world’s largest exporter of coal, our future is undeniably bound up with the viability of the coal industry. We cannot sweep under the carpet legitimate questions about how Australia’s baseload energy requirements can be met at the same time as a reduction in emissions from coal. Australia’s rapidly expanding gas industry has the ability to provide cleaner energy, and renewables will deliver 20 per cent of Australia’s energy by 2020. However, to ensure Australia’s energy security, a comprehensive mix is required. Gas, geothermal, solar, wind and clean coal research all have a role to play.

We are not alone in facing the challenges of a transition to low emissions technology that does not compromise standards of living. But Australia is increasingly isolated in terms of the Rudd government’s blatant refusal to consider the possibility of nuclear energy. All but four of the other G20 member countries use nuclear energy. Sooner or later Australia must have an open-minded and full debate about the role of nuclear energy. It is a question that the community should have full ownership of, but it is one the Rudd government is determined to smother. Australia needs serious clean energy alternatives that can be delivered at an affordable price in the short, medium and long term. The establishment of a national body such as ACRE by this government could not come sooner for the energy and resources sectors and the science community—in fact, for all Australians wanting to support renewable energies in Australia. It is hoped that the Rudd government is capable of ensuring that ACRE achieves the objectives it is designed to accomplish, those being strategies to develop, commercialise and use renewable energy technologies.

Australia is home to one of the most diverse landscapes in the world, with each state responsible for exploring, researching and developing its own energy resources. These investments by each state in gathering information on renewable energy rightly ensure that residents and state businesses reap the benefits. However, this approach lessens the positive impact of information sharing between the states. The silos of information held within the states are traditionally guarded by the relevant agencies and the establishment of an umbrella authority, at least in theory, will ensure a cohesive arrangement of information sharing between the states. ACRE’s intention is to address this very real lack of national coordination amongst renewable energy technology programs, and it is strongly hoped that the government will ensure the integrity of ACRE is not compromised to the same degree as the government’s Energy Efficient Homes package. This scheme provided ceiling insulation worth up to $1,600, prior to its being wound back to $1,200, for Australian householders, including owner-occupiers, landlords and tenants of currently uninsulated homes or homes with very little ceiling insulation.

The Energy Efficient Homes package is currently the subject of a Senate inquiry. This inquiry is into, but not limited to, the rorting and abuse of the rebate; the waste, inefficiency and mismanagement within the program; what advice was provided to the government on safety matters, particularly in relation to fire and electrocution risks; and to what degree the government acted on this advice. By the way, submissions for this inquiry should be received by 18 December this year and the inquiry is due to report by 30 March 2010. One of the most blatant rorting scams to emerge under the Rudd government’s controversial pink batts program was when $1,600 was paid to insulate a house set for immediate demolition. After it had been insulated, the house was vacated to make way for a new bus way. Imagine the shock for the former owner when she received a letter from Peter Garrett’s department confirming it had just paid $1,600 to an installer to insulate the property. The house was demolished just a week after the insulation was claimed to have been installed in July. Reports of a couple receiving separate quotes—$300 and $1,600—for the same job is another example of the Rudd government’s mishandling of the Energy Efficient Homes package. Reputed to be a billion-dollar blow-out, this package reeks of waste and rorting.

Industry leaders warned earlier this year that inexperienced and ill-trained installers would put themselves and homeowners at risk of electrocution and fire with their shoddy work. With one installer electrocuted and numerous others receiving serious shocks, this advice, which was not acted upon, has come back to haunt the Labor government. Authorities have also issued warnings after dozens of house fires have been started by incorrectly installed ceiling insulation. In fact, fire and consumer bodies in five states have warned of fires caused by insulation placed over hot downlights or ceiling fans.

Upon the eventual admittance that there were huge problems associated with the installation, the Rudd government finally set up a program to randomly check the work of the insulation installers. The checking is done by people with little or no insulation installation experience who sit through an induction lasting 30 to 45 minutes before they are sent out with a ladder and a torch to check on the installers. So from beginning to end this whole insulation debacle has demonstrated why we are right to call a Senate inquiry into the government’s wasteful insulation program.

With mounting evidence of a lack of cohesion and harmony within the Rudd government towards their policies, it is imperative that the government listen to all stakeholders and not give free rein to themselves in an area that is as important as renewable energy. It is with pride that I acknowledge the ongoing contribution of Western Australia to this new and exciting chapter in Australia’s energy and resources sector, despite the many failed promises made to ordinary Western Australians by this government. In Western Australia, in which my electorate of Kalgoorlie encompasses the largest electoral landmass in Australia in addition to being one of the most resource-rich areas in Australia, there are currently five areas of major initiative being undertaken with regard to renewable energy projects. These areas of renewable energy are hydro, wind, biomass and solar energy—photovoltaic and solar thermal. In addition, wave energy technology is being tested with some degree of success.

We look forward in the very immediate future to huge increases in the demand for renewable power. We are greatly concerned about the issue of climate change or weather change. We are also concerned about energy security. Perhaps I should say we ought to be more concerned about energy security because, as we move to legislate to make the generation of coal fired power less palatable and more costly—and I remind you that 80 per cent of Australia’s power currently comes from coal power production—we need to be very careful indeed that ACRE does its jobs, and I will refer to one of the jobs that it might do, and do well, given its objectives. I remind you, Madam Deputy Speaker, of what ACRE’s objectives are, and I will quote them:

ACRE’s objectives will be to promote the development, commercialisation and deployment of renewable energy …

Specifically, amongst other things, it will do this by:

(c)

managing the cost effective delivery of Government funded renewable energy and enabling technology programs;

…            …            …

(e)

fostering collaboration between governments, industry and the research community on renewable energy projects;

…                     …                   …

(g)

any other activities that it is directed to do by the Government to support renewable energy and enabling technologies.

The elephant in the room undeniably in relation to greenhouse gas emissions reduction is the generation of electricity by the use of nuclear energy. The purists will argue that nuclear energy is not renewable energy because we only have a certain amount of uranium resources. But it is generally accepted at this point in time that Australia has some 40 per cent of the world’s known uranium resources, and it would seem fairly obvious to even a blind man that, given the richness of this resource within Australia, Australia—and especially this government—ought be at least considering, with all of the hullabaloo going on about reducing greenhouse gases, the use of nuclear energy. Many critics of nuclear energy—and I am talking about the informed critics of nuclear energy; I am not talking about those who remain with their head firmly in the sand—will suggest to you, quite rightly, that, with the competition of brown coal as a source of energy, nuclear energy is not financially viable, and I accept that.

But we are moving to an era where it is becoming more and more popular to embrace those energy sources that do not produce greenhouse gases. If we in this place could enlarge our minds for a moment, we need to consider another problem that this great nation of ours is facing: the issue of a shortage of water, and more specifically potable water. We have a major issue of wanting to avoid the generation of greenhouse gases. We have the major issue of guaranteeing water supply, specifically potable water supply. And we have the detractors suggesting we cannot have nuclear energy because we do not have the mass necessary to justify a plant of a size whereby there is economy of scale.

I put it to the House that in addition to those two problems, with nuclear energy we could solve a third one. Currently the largest of our cities, at certain times of the year, have to suffer the problem of smog and exhaust gas created hazardous atmospheres. If we were to locate somewhere within a coastal region of south-eastern Australia a very safe generation IV nuclear power plant, we could size that power plant to a point whereby excess energy, excess electricity created—not required by those populations within easy transmission reach—could be used to extract hydrogen from water. And with the development of the hydrogen fuel cell and the development of motor vehicles using that form of energy conversion, we could be running cities with hydrogen fuel cell driven vehicles that would generate no pollution whatsoever. The only conversion that takes place is that oxygen is taken from the atmosphere and electricity and water are produced. We could perhaps either keep the water onboard to water the garden when we get home, or we could dampen down the streets for dust suppression. But it is a very simple solution. That is just one part of a possible justification of building nuclear power plants to a critical mass size. Perhaps I should not use ‘critical mass’ in the same speech that is talking about the use of nuclear energy.

The problem with potable water supply and the recognition today that desalinated water is going to be our saviour in the future for cities’ potable water supply, that is what a generation IV nuclear power plant can do most efficiently—that is, to take seawater or saline water and produce potable water. Given that we are looking at population increases, given that we are looking at the change in the weather and the fact that we want to guarantee our water supply, including potable water supply, and given we want to clean up the atmosphere in cities, I suggest to this place that the great solution as we move into the future contemplating many forms of non-polluting energy sources, including renewable energy sources—if we are fair dinkum in this place about coming up with solutions and enabling technology to occur for the benefit of this nation and for the benefit of the people who live in this nation—then we must consider nuclear energy, nuclear power generation as a justifiable addition to the mix.

To that end, the coalition supports this bill’s recognition of and intent to address the lack of coordination within governments with regard to renewable energy technology programs which have evolved over a number of years. With the current government’s dismal track record, it is imperative that the ACRE’s aspirations are not jeopardised so as to ensure that Australia’s energy future features a mix of technologies to guarantee we can make the transition to a lower emissions economy without compromising our energy security.

See this speech in context