Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I note the member for Grey in his previous contribution kept on deflecting to Labor and calling for bipartisanship, but the biggest threat to energy security in this country is this coalition government's chaos and internal battles. National policy on energy security should deliver two things: it should deliver reliable energy and it should meet our renewable targets. The Prime Minister keeps trying to convince Labor that his government has the settings right, but it's not us that they need to convince. We know where we stand. In 2016, Labor supported an emissions intensity scheme. That scheme was vetoed in the coalition's party room by the backbench. In 2017, we supported the Clean Energy Target. Again, it was vetoed in the coalition's party room by the backbench. And now we get to see the real Prime Minister—a Prime Minister who is unable to lead a party, a Prime Minister who is held hostage by climate change deniers and right-wing ideologues, a Prime Minister who would sell out the future of Australia's energy security to appease a small, vocal minority in his party room.

At the 2018 Future Thinking Conference, hosted by the Energy Users Association of Australia, Dr Kerry Schott opened her presentation with some ideas and with an assurance that no new coal power would be built, NEG or no NEG. She said that there is no longer an investment case to build new coal-fired power stations in Australia, because 'the cost of coal is always going to be more than the cost of wind and sun'. Let me repeat that: 'the cost of coal is always going to be more than the cost of wind and sun'. She continued:

You are unlikely to see a new coal-fired generation plant built unless there is a change in technology and a decline in the price of coal.

The cost of running a clean-coal plant is much more expensive than running a combination of wind, solar and gas, or, better yet, wind, solar and pumped hydro.

She said that her view was 'not contentious at a factual level'. She added that there would be absolutely no way that anybody would be financing a new coal-fired generation plant.

What has been the response to this learned doctor's commentary on the government's proposed NEG? The member for Warringah said he was very disappointed and it suggests 'the system is not technology-neutral and that it is in fact anti-coal'. The member for New England called it 'utterly ridiculous' and the member for Hughes called it 'clueless' and 'misleading'. That is how this coalition government's backbench deals with advice from their own panel of experts.

In my electorate I have a company called Sunvertech, which is a small family-run business owned by Kevin Davies and his son, both of whom are engineers. For several years now they've invested their time, their knowledge, their skills and their resources into developing new renewable technology—into developing inverters and batteries for solar power. They've come a long way in what they've achieved, pouring their hearts and souls into their work. Kevin Davies came to see me the other day, concerned about this government's NEG, and particularly concerned, as we are, that the woefully low emissions targets will ensure that there will be no investment in renewables, despite the fact that renewables are cheaper. The low emissions target that this government has put forward, because this Prime Minister has capitulated to the right-wing of his backbench, will not encourage investment in any large-scale renewable projects for a decade. These are all facts. They are undeniable facts, and the Prime Minister needs to stand up and listen. (Time expired)

See this speech in context