Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to congratulate the member for Barker on his contribution and also, likewise, the member for Petrie on his prior contribution. There is much in those contributions that those opposite could learn from. I stand here to speak on the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, and the Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 and, once again, I reflect on the fact that we stand here in this House, discussing a piece of legislation that fails to deregulate our economy. All it does is introduce more red tape, more green tape and more complexity. We know that there is another piece of legislation floating around this place that talks about accounting for scope 3 emissions for businesses over a certain size. That will flow through to our entire economy. Every time we turn around in this place, all that we see from the government is more regulation and, in this case, even worse, duplication. It is duplication in the form of a bill that creates a new agency to do what is largely already done by existing agencies.

As has been mentioned by other colleagues, we all agree on where the end point is—net zero by 2050. The discrepancy is about how we get there. And, as the member for Barker quite eloquently pointed out in his contribution, energy forms part of everything that we do. People sometimes forget that. There is energy embedded in our cup of coffee that we have in the morning. It is not just from the barista making the cup of coffee. There is energy embedded in the entire supply chain, from when that coffee bean is harvested to when that coffee bean is ground and forms part of your cup of coffee. Every part of that supply chain has energy embedded in it. We have seen those opposite, despite their promises at the last election, preside over an enormous increase in the cost of energy over the past two years—some 12-odd per cent, and more for gas. For many manufacturing businesses in my electorate, gas is a key input. Again, it forms part of the energy mix in this country, and the consequence of gas prices going up is that everything becomes more expensive.

It's interesting to reflect, when looking at this bill, on the duplication that it creates. Essentially, as others have said, it is an IR bill disguised as a bill to assist the regions in a transition from coal and gas to clean energy. Well, can I say that wind and solar are far from clean. They're not even renewable; they're intermittent, which is why you need baseload power. That is why the coalition is talking about nuclear as a replacement for our baseload power system to complement solar, wind, batteries and hydro—a mix of energy types to deliver the energy we need across our economy. But, as I look at this bill, all I see is bureaucratic waste and duplication and, once again, a top-down Canberra-centric approach, which we on this side know fails each and every time.

If we want some evidence of this, we need look no further than the answer that the minister for energy gave during question time, where he waxed lyrical about the situation in Germany. I was reading an interesting article today by a German journalist, Georg Etscheit. He goes on to speak about the five environmental reasons why Germany's wind energy insanity is a major threat. When I read this, I'm going, 'Oh!' Given what this government wants to do with its net zero energy transition, as the member for Barker has quite rightly pointed out, it's the regions that are going to pay the price. When it comes to the topic of offshore wind farms off Newcastle, which happens to be held by a government member, or, heaven forbid, off Warringah, which is held by a crossbench member, or elsewhere in this country that is anywhere near sitting Labor members or members of the crossbench, who want all of this intermittent energy generation in our system, no, we can't have that. We don't want to spoil our backyard and don't want to spoil our ocean views, but it's okay if we stick it out west of the Great Dividing Range where our farmers are, where they actually produce our food and fibre and wealth for this country—over $100 billion a year of wealth they create through the produce that they produce.

So let's have a look at Mr Etscheit's five environmental reasons why Germany's wind energy insanity is a major threat. I think it's a very prescient review of what is going to happen here. 'The landscape will be blighted by the addition of 10,000 wind turbines with a height of 250 metres. The natural bio types surrounding these turbines will be irreversibly ruined.' We have already seen to the west of Rockhampton pristine koala habitat bulldozed to put wind turbines in. I can tell you that, if that was happening in the Daisy Hill state forest in the Treasurer's electorate, there would be a hue and cry. But no; it's out the back of Rocky up on a range somewhere that nobody knows about, so let's not worry about it. Let's just do it anyway. Fortunately, the proposed wind farm project at Chalumbin, west of Cairns and next to wet tropical rainforest, has been scrapped—thankfully.

What we don't hear about—the second point he made—is that 'endangered birds like the red kite will lose their habitats. It's estimated that, in an absolute collision rate of around 21 per year and with 40,000 or more wind turbines planned in Germany, the million mark could be exceeded.' We know that, in Tasmania, there are restrictions on the operation of wind turbines to protect birdlife there. Their operating hours have been reduced or curtailed because of the number of bird strikes. We know this is an issue in the United States as well. But these are not taken into account.

He also raises the issue of bats and insects being severely decimated. They are also potentially a hazard for marine fauna. 'Wind turbines have a negative impact from pressure and sound waves on some animal species with extremely sensitive hearing, and the industrialisation of oceans could replace native marine mammals. If more and more offshore wind farms are built, this will have an enormous impact on the North and Baltic seas.' Those same impacts will happen here if we build offshore wind farms. I know it's an issue of concern off the east coast of the United States. The member for Forrest is here; I know it's an issue of concern for many in her community.

Last but not least, there is infrasound harming people. People near wind turbines often complain of severe health complaints such as insomnia, dizziness, headaches, depression, tinnitus, hearing and vision problems et cetera. This is what we want to subject our country to. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker: are we serious? This is complete and utter nonsense.

As we look at this bill that is designed to speed up this process, it's interesting to note that the CSIRO conducted a survey recently and releases its results around 10 April. As the ABC reported:

A majority of Australians want the transition towards renewable energy to happen at a "moderate" pace and most are unwilling to accept higher bills to pay for it, according to a major survey by the country's top scientific organisation.

I know those opposite are fond of quoting the CSIRO when it suits. I haven't heard the minister for the environment and climate change quote that report. People don't want to pay higher bills because of this energy transition, but that's exactly what they're going to get with this duplication, and greater and greater bureaucracy as a result.

In addition to that, we're going to see prime farmland destroyed right across our country—buried under acres of solar panels and acres of windmills. The reason it needs to be acres is because the energy density that's generated by windmills and solar panels is nowhere near what is generated by a baseload power station, whether it be coal, gas or nuclear. They just cannot compete. If I look at the NEM fuel mix at the moment, I would suggest that 70 to 80 per cent of the power currently being generated in this country across the National Energy Market is coming from coal or gas. It's certainly not coming from solar panels and, unless it's windy out there, it's not coming from wind. There was one day last week, in the middle of a high-pressure system, where there was virtually no wind across the country and the windmills were producing less than one per cent of our national power grid requirements. How on earth are we going to sustain the manufacturing industry that the government now wants to subsidise through its Future Made in Australia policy when we have a fleet of windmills that can only generate one per cent of the required energy capacity?

I look at the NEM regularly, every day, because I find that it's interesting to see what the fuel mix is throughout the day, depending on the weather conditions. The best I've seen over the last couple of weeks was 20 per cent. That means 80 per cent of our required capacity was not being met. That means that our major employers, our small businesses, which employ over 50 per cent of Australians and which represent 98 per cent of business across this country, will have to shut down.

As I touched on earlier, in addition to this stupidity, is the introduction of scope 3 emissions accounting. That might sound nice for the larger businesses that applies to, but that will cascade through our entire economy. The large business will have to get the small businesses supplying their supply chain to report their emissions. That small business may have five, six, seven, eight or 10 different customers. How do you split out the emissions for each of those individual customers? This is complete and utter nonsense. Added to that, last week we saw the government rush through the new emissions standards for vehicles. This will make the utes which all the tradies and many of the small businesses owners in my electorate drive, or perhaps their small trucks in which they deliver their goods, become more expensive. Every moment you turn a corner with this government, you see more red tape or regulation. It's more cost and more examples of why this government is bad for Australians; they just don't fundamentally understand the consequences of their policies. I oppose this bill.

See this speech in context