James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy Bill 2009. This bill proposes to establish the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy, known as ACRE, board. Renewable energy, along with clean coal technology, is an essential part of Australia’s low emissions energy mix and it is important to Australia’s energy security. It plays a strong role in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions and the Australian government’s support for renewable energy assists industry development, reduces barriers to the national electricity market and provides community access to renewable energy.

The government is serious about renewable energy. This has been clearly demonstrated by the government’s action to increase the renewable energy target, known as RET, to encourage additional generation of electricity from renewable energy sources to a 20 per cent share of renewables in Australia’s electricity supply by 2020. That is up from the previous government’s target of just two per cent. The ACRE board will be a primary source of advice for the government on renewable energy and enabling technology matters.

The board will also play a vital role in assisting ACRE to achieve its objective, which is to promote the development, commercialisation and deployment of renewable energy and enabling technologies and to improve their competitiveness in Australia. The board will help ACRE achieve these objectives by fulfilling its functions, which are set out in this bill. These functions are to provide advice to the minister in relation to renewable energy and enabling technologies, including advice in relation to the following eight key points: point 1, the strategy is to fund and promote the development, commercialisation and use of renewable energy technologies; point 2 is the funding of renewable energy technology projects and measures, including the assessment of these projects and measures, being considered by the board for funding; point 3 is the management of renewable energy technology programs; point 4 is improving the existing program delivery; point 5 is the provision of venture capital funding; point 6 is the priority areas for government support; point 7 is establishing links with state and territory government agencies and the private sector, with a view to developing strategies for stimulating investment in renewable energy technologies; and, finally, point 8 is any other functions that the minister, by writing, directs the board to perform. These are the eight key points in this bill.

By establishing the ACRE board as a statutory advisory board, the government will ensure that the ACRE board provides independent advice on renewable energy and enabling technologies to the government, renewable energy technologies like biomass cogeneration. And I am pleased to say that in my seat of Dawson Mackay Sugar has had a program on the table now for more than 10 years, and it is only this government that, through its legislation on RETs, has enabled it to go forward into a green light situation—a go situation—with a $110 million project which will not cost the taxpayers of this nation one cent. It will supply one-third of the electricity needs of Mackay, and the plans are for construction of a 36-megawatt renewable biomass cogeneration plant in Mackay. This is all thanks to the certainty given by this government of a 20 per cent renewable energy target. Along with this, the Queensland government has also invested $9 million as a grant to enable research into an ethanol plant to stand alongside the cogeneration biomass plant.

These exciting developments have only been made possible by the political determination of this government to get on with the job and to really be serious about investing in renewable, sustainable, green energy development. This project will generate 270 construction jobs directly and the plant alone, as I said, will power 33 per cent of Mackay city’s power requirements. Environmentally, emissions will be reduced by a staggering 200,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, you did hear that correctly, I said 200,000 tonnes per year. It is all due to the fact that this government got on with the job of legislating on the renewable energy target. Remember, these plans have been on the table for over 10 years because the previous government did not have the political determination to get on and get real with the job of reducing carbon emissions. They did not have the political will. This government has and we are now enabling exciting projects like this.

This project is carbon neutral. That is so exciting. Every year the green gold of sugarcane grows and from that we can produce one third of the needs for electricity for the people of Mackay. The exciting thing about this project, because all the engineering and science has been done and it has just been waiting for the political determination to give it the green light to go ahead, is that it can be duplicated right up the coast of North Queensland. In the long term the industry projects that in Far North Queensland cogeneration will supply up to 70 per cent of households by 2016. It is truly revolutionary that something which has been growing for hundreds of years, sugarcane, will suddenly be utilised to provide the electricity needs of 70 per cent of households by 2016. All it needed was the political determination to get on with the job of reducing carbon emissions.

Up in the north of my seat, in the Burdekin, Herbert and Townsville areas, by 2016 they are talking about supplying greater capacity than required for household consumption. That truly is an exciting prospect. The industry is even looking at supplying about 80 per cent of the estimated households around the Whitsunday and hinterland area of Mackay. It is truly amazing, with the political determination to get the job done.

Establishing the ACRE board in statute also gives it a very significant degree of protection. Its structures, attributes and functions can only be amended or abolished by an act of parliament. The ACRE board will also have a high degree of accountability as it will have to report annually to the Minister for Resources and Energy. Establishing the CEO in this legislation will give ACRE a clear leadership team and further establish ACRE as a separate brand.

As I said at the start, this Rudd Labor government truly believes that renewable energy and clean coal technologies are essential parts of Australia’s low emissions energy mix. This is important to Australia’s energy security.

Unlike the coalition, we will never support a nuclear future for Australia. I will never stand for nuclear power plants in Mackay, the Whitsundays, Bowen, Burdekin or Townsville. I will not stand and see a nuclear plant put on the Great Barrier Reef and neither will the people of Dawson. The candidate standing against me, a candidate of the National Party, who is on Mackay Regional Council, believes in the words of Senator Barnaby Joyce that every council around the nation should have a vote on whether they want a nuclear power plant in their backyard. I call upon that councillor who is going to be standing against me at the next election to come out and say they will not allow a nuclear power plant at Mackay, the Whitsundays, the Great Barrier Reef, Bowen, Ayr or South Townsville. It will not happen on my watch and God forbid that anyone else would allow it to happen. We are not going to go down the nuclear road.

If you go down the nuclear road you will destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs that are related to the mining industry in this nation. If you go down the nuclear road you will set an example, as one of the world’s greatest coal exporters, that you have put the white flag up on the mining industry and you will consign hundreds of thousands of people in mining related jobs to the dole queue. I think it is a terrible thing that the member on the other side is saying that that is the way to go. It is not the way to go. We do not put the white flag up. We do not surrender on the coal industry. I am here as the miners’ friend—always have been, always will be. This Rudd Labor government will stand by the mining industry. We will protect the industry, we will protect the jobs and we will expand our exports and our productivity, and we will add to the bottom line of this nation, which those opposite failed to do.

By going down the nuclear road, you will destroy the Australian coal industry. Look at the example of the United Kingdom, with only four working pits left. Look at the example of France, where 80 per cent of its energy requirements are supplied by nuclear power and there is no mining industry. That is the road you on the other side of this House will take us down. We will not go down the nuclear road. We will not surrender the coalmining industry. We will stand by the miners and we will stand by those communities which faithfully add to the bottom line of this nation.

It is this government which has provided for aged-care pensions against the backdrop of the worst recession in 75 years. You on the other side of the House failed to deliver $65 a fortnight to single aged people in our community when you had the riches of the minerals boom. You failed; we have succeeded. We are a party of the future; you are a party who are divided. You are in disunity and you will never lead. You do not have the interests of this nation’s future at heart. You are not acting in the national interest; this government is.

I commend this bill to the House because it will invest in future renewable, sustainable, green, clean coal technologies. This is the way to go, not the nuclear road. You will destroy the coalmining industry; we will save it by investments and by bills such as this. I totally, wholeheartedly, passionately commend this bill to the House.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Dawson for his spirited pre-election contribution. I call the member for Flinders.

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me begin by apologising for giving the member for Dawson a platform to run on: a campaign against the new uranium mine which Peter Garrett recently approved. I believe it is a great example of cognitive dissonance, and I will explain that term to him afterwards, but I apologise for giving him a platform to take flight of fancy.

I want to make three statements in relation to the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy Bill 2009. This bill does something which we think is reasonable, fair and appropriate. It builds on that which we put in place in government, but it comes in the context of a government which has waged an effective assault on renewable energy. The government has waged that assault in three ways: firstly, by seeking to delay, defer and deny the renewable energy target by making it hostage to legislation at the time which would have prevented it from being passed and would have prevented the early implementation of the renewable energy target. We stood for and promoted the 20 per cent renewable energy target for Australia by 2020. We stood by the notion of expanding the great opportunities for the visionary energy sources of the future—whether it is biogas, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz, in your own electorate through the use of landfill at the Tarago plant; whether it is wind or solar or geothermal or hydro or wave or tidal. These are all energy sources of the future. They will not provide all of Australia’s energy, but they will be a critical part of the transition to a clean energy future along with clean coal—whether it is through sequestration or algal work—gas or other forms of clean energy as we proceed forward.

But we do know this: we clearly offered to pass legislation associated with the renewable energy target. We offered to bring it forward and deal with it, but the government sought to politicise it and make it hostage to other legislation. So we fought for a deal which would have separated that legislation, we fought for a deal which would ensure that our heavy extracting industries would not pay a disproportionate cost and we fought for a deal which would ensure that we cleaned up and used the waste coalmine gas which would otherwise have been vented as methane or flared as CO2—and we were successful in all of those three great tasks. We were thereby able to achieve a renewable energy target of 20 per cent, or 60,000 gigawatt hours of Australia’s potential 300,000 gigawatt hours of energy, by 2020. It is a good thing and a positive thing, but it stands squarely in the face of a government who on the one hand talked about renewables but on the other did everything they could to see us knock down or block their legislation. But we would not accept that; we held them to account. We argued the moral case and the practical case. We won in the eyes of the public; we won over the public imagination. They accepted our proposals and our vision and therefore the government backed down, buckled and agreed to what we said. That was a good result.

The second area in which this legislation before us is undermined is in relation to the government’s activity on decentralised solar programs. We have seen an attack on solar energy on three different fronts. Firstly, with the solar homes program, the government all of a sudden, overnight, caused chaos in the industry a year ago when on budget night 2008 they means tested the program in direct defiance of an express, clear and absolute election promise. This was a breach of a promise. It was a breach of that which was solemnly taken to the Australian people. Instead of dealing with the program in a different way, what we saw was an express, clear, absolute breach of promise. We then saw the entire solar homes program abolished in June this year—unilaterally—with no notice whatsoever. That same day the program was terminated. Again there was chaos. We had solar operators calling our offices. We had build-ups of solar equipment which was left to fester as overdone inventories. These were real problems created by the government and experienced by solar operators—people whose jobs were put on the line, who had relied upon the good faith of the government, whose hopes were dashed and who suffered financially. It was everything but the successful, sensible management of a program.

We have also seen under the solar programs that the remote solar program for assisting Indigenous communities was itself also abolished with no notice. An email was issued at 8.33 one morning in late June. That email was effective as of 8.30 am that same day. Solar programs were ceased for remote Indigenous communities as of that moment. For some businesses this was catastrophic. It went to the heart of their business model, their mission and their purpose. I have dealt with Bushlight from Alice Springs. It has been seriously affected. This was a not-for-profit project and a not-for-profit organisation with an aim to provide clean, reliable solar energy to remote Indigenous and other communities—and the program was stopped dead at that moment. It was an act of incompetence and an act of effective malice against people in Indigenous and other remote communities.

The third of the solar programs which was affected was the Solar Schools Program. Again, it was stopped dead in its tracks overnight just a couple of months ago. We have seen the solar homes program abolished, the remote solar program abolished and the Solar Schools Program abolished. Why? Because they were all deemed to be too successful. We have been in the process of spending billions and billions, through the emissions trading scheme, whilst axing practical solar programs which actually make a difference on the ground in terms of emissions reduction and energy consumption. That is the dissonance within the government’s approach.

That brings me to one of the programs directly under the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy, and that is the Solar Flagships Program. The Solar Flagships Program was a hoax, a fraud, a fix and a set-up. It is in chaos. Let me put it this way: there was an express promise made by the Prime Minister that he would create a 1,000-megawatt power station for $1.6 billion. Yet we know that that project is likely to cost not $1.6 billion but $4.8 billion. It has now been scaled back to less than 40 per cent of its size. It is likely to be still lesser in size. That is a clear broken promise, a clear failure of administration and a clear inability to manage public funds for proper benefit.

We have seen a failure of solar programs, firstly through the renewable energy target and the way in which the government prevented its own program; secondly, through the abolition of the solar homes, remote solar and solar schools programs; and, thirdly, through the catastrophic mismanagement of the Solar Flagships Program. There is a pattern here of promising the earth and delivering a vastly different outcome. Each of these programs stands for that principle. We know that the government was warned about the design elements of the renewable energy target. The government was warned of the problems. We were not going to stand in its way, but the government was warned and that is now in chaos. Renewable energy is in chaos. The solar homes, solar schools and remote solar programs are in chaos and now so is solar flagships.

Let me make this point: what was a well-managed program prior to the transition of governments has now become chaotic. That is why there is in fact a need for a Centre for Renewable Energy, which may bring some semblance of order to the way in which the government manages its renewable energy programs. It is desperately needed. Each of these three programs, the renewable energy target, solar programs in general and Solar Flagships Program in particular, is in chaos. This bill is needed to add a semblance of order, a semblance of structure, a semblance of progress to what is otherwise a good idea of clean energy for Australia—solar energy for Australia; wave, geothermal, tidal and landfill biogas for Australia. That is the vision we believe in. That is what we were delivering. I hope that this bill will enable some progress and will allow the government to resolve that which it has undone and that which it has allowed to be brought into chaos.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We heard a lot from the previous speaker about cognitive dissonance—that is, two competing beliefs. While the now opposition were in government, although they said that they had a belief in supporting solar energy, that belief was never actioned or delivered on the ground. We have seen this government deliver more solar panels on schools, on community centres and on houses than were ever delivered by the previous government.

But I rise to speak on the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy Bill 2009. This is a very important bill because it is designed to assist the development of renewable energy industry in Australia. It provides a strong indication that we are in the process of adapting to and harnessing the harsh Australian conditions. For decades we have heard many times in this House and in Australian literature what a sunburnt country we are. We are one of the hottest and driest continents on earth. So we really need to look at how we can harness our natural environment to help us adapt to these harsh Australian conditions.

Recently this House passed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—which cannot be said for the other chamber—outlining the framework for Australia’s low-carbon future. What we need to realise is that, if we make the right choices and investment now, the extreme Australian conditions could become one of our greatest assets as we move forward into a new era of carbon consciousness and accountability. As the government sets in place the framework for Australia’s low-carbon future, it is promising to see that life is beginning to be injected into the renewable energy industry in this country. Over the last two years this government has been doing significant amounts of work in delivering in these areas. Obviously one of our biggest movements has been to increase the renewable energy target, which I know—and the member for Franklin has often told me—has unleashed billions of dollars of investment into the renewable energy area.

The Australian Centre for Renewable Energy board set up under this bill will play a significant role in helping Australia harness its renewable energy potential for commercial consumption. The bill outlines the establishment of the board and the appointment of the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy. It outlines the functions, constitution and membership of the board, as well as other formalities such as voting and annual reporting. The main function of the board will be to provide advice to the minister on renewable energy technologies, including strategies to fund and promote the development, commercialisation and use of renewable energy technologies in Australia.

I would like to use this opportunity to illustrate the importance of the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy by talking about geothermal energy as one source of renewable energy that has immense potential here in Australia. As we know, the surface temperature of our continent can get very hot. But deep under our feet there are also very high temperatures. Geothermal power offers the potential for electricity to be produced from the circulation of water in closed circuits through deep wells drilled into the earth’s crust.

The great value of geothermal technology is that it offers vast amounts of baseload power 24 hours a day every day of the year. Once we get the technology right it will undoubtedly form a significant part of Australia’s baseload energy mix in the future. For example, the Australian Geothermal Energy Association predicts that geothermal technology could provide up to 2,200 megawatts of baseload capacity by 2020, representing about five per cent of Australia’s current generating capacity. As a South Australian member I find it very pleasing to see that South Australia is taking the lead in the development of this very important energy source, with the Cooper Basin being the current centre of activity in this sector in Australia. It is promising to see the development of Geodynamics Ltd, which recently drilled a well of more than 4,000 metres into the hot fractured rock at the site in the Cooper Basin. They have just completed construction of a one-megawatt power station which will be commissioned in 2010 to provide power to the nearby town of Innamincka. This town is in the far north-eastern corner of South Australia and currently gets its electricity from diesel generators. This is a really exciting possibility that I am very pleased to see taking place.

If all goes to plan, this proof-of-concept project will be scaled up to a 50-megawatt plant which will be capable of providing electricity to 50,000 households. The company is in the process of conducting feasibility studies into transmitting the energy from the Cooper Basin to major load centres in Adelaide, Brisbane and Sydney. The importance of this project in north-eastern South Australia is that its success as the first commercial geothermal power station in Australia will encourage much needed private investment in the geothermal industry. It will also bring the potential of geothermal power into the public domain. These are two major challenges facing the industry, as outlined by the Geothermal Industry Development Framework released in August 2008.

In light of these and other challenges, much work needs to be done before we can effectively harness the geothermal energy potential of this country. These challenges are not unique to geothermal energy; they also stand in the way of the development of other sources of renewable energy. It is to overcome these challenges through strategic planning and advice on government support for emerging industries that we need the board of the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy. It is a sign of our times that a remote town like Innamincka will next year shift from one of the most polluting and inefficient means of energy generation to one of the cleanest known to exist. It will use some of the most advanced technology in this field in the world. Through the experience of this town, we are about to find out that geothermal energy is not a distant pipedream but a tangible source of energy lying beneath our feet.

With, hopefully, the passage of the CPRS, and when dealing with the issue of climate change, it is important that Australia moves towards a low carbon future. Doing so will require creative thinking, entrepreneurship and targeted government support. The establishment of the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy will facilitate this process and ensure that Australia capitalises both on its natural wealth as a continent of extremes and on the global leadership we have already shown in renewable energy technology. I commend the bill to the House.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy Bill 2009 and would like to put on the record that on 29 September 2005 I put out a press release in which I made the call for a renewable, sustainable energy authority to be set up to do what this legislation is in fact going to do. My call at that stage was based on a study tour that I had recently made in the United States, looking at biofuels and other sustainable energies. I could see what was happening there with the sustainable energy centre that had been set up and the work on sustainable and renewable energy sources that was being done at a policy level and a practical level.

I was interested in the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Kingston, because I am very interested in geothermal energy. I undertook a more recent study tour in Europe to look at climate change and a range of renewable energy sources, visiting the Carbon Capture and Storage Association in London, as well as the processing of daily waste in Copenhagen, where garbage trucks go out, as they do in Australia, at about six o’clock in the morning and pick up the garbage, come back to a massive incinerator with massive ‘kettles’, use that waste to provide the energy to boil the kettles and out of that produce steam to provide energy for about half a million people and, during the wintertime, provide energy for hot water for central heating. So an enormous number of things are being done globally, some of which I will talk about today. Obviously, the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy will embrace such things as recycling as well.

The comment that I would make at the start, though, is that it is all very well to set these things up, and to look at the functions of the centre and the role of the minister and the board, but you really have to have a government that wants to do something about it. I can remember when I came here in 2001 and I was interested, as I still am, in biofuels. There was a debate going on at that time about setting mandatory renewable energy targets on a number of levels. The one that I was particularly interested in was in relation to biofuels—ethanol, biodiesels and others—and the then Howard government put in place the target for, from memory, 360,000 million litres of biofuels to be achieved by 2010. There are less biofuels produced now, certainly as at six months ago, than there were when the target was set—and it was at a very low level. The point I am making is that it is all very well to make these political utterances that we are moving down a certain pathway, ‘We intend to do this; this is the policy,’ but you really need the will of government to drive these things.

Even though the main debate in this place in the last 12 months has been about a market mechanism, an emissions trading scheme to be used to impact on heavy emitters, a lot of the solutions lie in other areas that do not necessarily need a market mechanism to drive the agenda. The Europeans are moving towards some sort of emissions trading arrangement as part of their response to greenhouse gas emissions, but it is not being seen as the only game in town. I would say to the government that, even though the policy and public utterances seem quite positive on the surface, there are some cracks appearing in the armour because of mixed messages. Some people would be well aware of the mixed messages that were sent in terms of solar energy, for instance. The rules seem to be constantly changing as to who can and cannot access some of the incentive packages, whether it should be income assessed et cetera—those sorts of issues. How serious are we about driving sustainable energy sources, solar and wind, and promoting geothermal, for instance? Look at our poor old South Australian geothermal producer, stuck out in the middle of nowhere: as a society we have given him $5 million through the taxpayer to assist him and he is bumbling around out there having difficulties with the drilling and other processes. If we are serious about geothermal there should be a massive focus on trying to drive those processes.

On my study tour I visited two geothermal plants. One is a massive geothermal plant at a little place called Laradello in Italy, at the northern end of Tuscany. They have been producing geothermal power for nearly 100 years at that site. There are two massive power stations there, all computer driven—not a person in the building—and obviously having a significant impact on the local power generation area and in terms of Italy’s total needs. In other parts of the world they are doing similar things. In Australia, we have left this fellow out in the middle of South Australia and we hope he comes in with the goods. We should be out there helping him. Some people debate whether geothermal is sustainable and renewable, but it is a natural source of energy that we could be using.

The other geothermal plant that I went to, in Germany, is the coldest geothermal plant in the world. They drilled down about 3.8 kilometres to hot rocks and found that the rocks were not as hot as they thought they would be. But, rather than give up, the Germans—and they have done this at a number of relatively small plants—are interested in the science, how it is going to evolve and just what they can do with low-heat hot rocks and hot hot rocks and the variations in temperatures between the rocks and the water that is there as well. This particular plant, at Neustadt-Glewe, is producing electricity from steam from water that has not boiled. It sounds as though I have been in a pub all night, making a suggestion like that. But they are producing electricity through a normal generating process driven by steam from hot rocks that have generated that steam at 98 degrees Celsius. At the plant I talked about in Italy, the heat of the steam coming out of the ground is over 200 degrees Celsius. The Minister for Resources and Energy may be interested in this. How do they achieve the creation of steam from water that has not boiled? They have developed various brine solutions that they add to that water to create the same impact as boiling water, hence able to drive the turbines that create the electricity. They had a whole range of technical details as well but, rather than give up, they accepted a challenge. So there we have the coldest geothermal plant in the world producing electricity from water that has not boiled. It is quite incredible.

There are others areas I think the centre should be looking at—as I said earlier, I congratulate the government for initiating this process—and one is solar energy. Over the years we have nearly hunted every solar scientist off this part of the world, yet we keep being told it is one of the hottest parts of the globe. Where is the research that we should have been doing? Why have we sent our top people overseas? And why have a lot of our wind people, both technical and scientific, gone to other nations? Failures in government policy, that is why. Nothing else. Failures in government policy: words, rhetoric, but no real action. I see in the creation of this centre a positive move forward where these people can be assisted. If we are serious about global warming and coming to grips with climate change, we cannot leave it all up to some sort of market mechanism. There are a whole range of reasons why that in itself will fail. We have got to embrace other solutions. We have got to embrace, as this bill does, a whole range of renewable energy sources if we are serious about driving the change.

The Minister for Resources and Energy, who is at the table, would be aware—I sincerely hope he would be aware—of activities that are happening as we speak in Lake Cargelligo. It is not in my electorate but nonetheless it is something that we should be paying attention to. Electricity there will be generated from solar sources—from mirrors scattered in a strategic pattern around the frame of a Comet windmill. I have not actually been there and seen it, but I am told the top of the windmill has a graphite block that is superheated, with water pipes going through it et cetera, and graphite, which is pure carbon, has the capacity to hold heat for extended periods of time. That plan, I am told, will provide electricity for 3,000 people. Some would say, ‘That’s not going to save the globe,’ and probably not, but it could save a lot of money by removing the need to upgrade the transmission lines out to a small place like Lake Cargelligo. It could be used in a number of other areas too, not only in terms of the generation of electricity—in that case as a backup when transmission fails, as it does from time to time—but in terms of the capacity to store heat in these graphite blocks. Some people might say that is a bit too much like science fiction at the moment, but let us come to grips with it and make it happen, rather than leaving it all to the bankers and the traders in a market mechanism.

As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, in Copenhagen 20 per cent of electricity comes from wind. Obviously, those countries are plugged into a European grid where there are all sorts of entry points for nuclear energy, coal et cetera in relation to power generation. I see the minister is shaking his head down there, thinking, ‘Here goes this bloke on wind again.’ I do not like to verbal you, Minister Ferguson, but your body language was not terribly positive. I am not suggesting that wind is the total solution, but the way in which government policy has been going in recent years, your government included, would suggest that the only solution is coal. If you are serious about this centre, you should start to get serious about the advice that may come from people who are actually working on some of these renewable energy sources. We cannot just write them off saying, ‘They’ll only contribute two per cent, four per cent or six per cent; they will not solve the problem.’ Most great walls were built starting with one brick. They were not built in one hit.

If the government are serious about this, they should look at what their own bill addresses. It is pointless setting up these things if the ministers who are responsible for accepting the messages do not take any notice of the advice. That is what happened under the Howard regime. They kept getting advice on various things that could be done and should be done but did very little. Before you came in, Minister Ferguson, I mentioned that the Howard government in 2001 set up the mandatory renewable energy target for biofuels, to be reached by 2010, but by the time they left government we had fewer biofuels than when they set the target. I think there is a message in that: if we are serious about these things, we have really got to start to drive them at the policy level, not send some of the mixed messages that have been coming out of this place in the last 12 months.

The biofuels example is an interesting one. While I was on that tour in Europe, I met with some Scottish scientists who are working on the breakdown of the cell wall of barley and wheat stubble. In terms of their agricultural activities there, because of the short season, after the barley or wheat harvest they bale up the straw, essentially to get it off the ground so that they can get it prepared for the next crop. Some of that goes into litter for pigs and whatever else; its food value is quite limited. These Scottish scientists—and scientists in other parts of the world; I met with people in Copenhagen who are doing similar things in terms of biosolutions, and Canada and the US are working very hard on this as well—are trying to break down the strength of the cell wall in wheat stubble, in this case, as well as barley stubble, so that it can be used to make a viable third-generation biofuel, through a lignocellulosic process, for the future. In that sense, in a low-carbon world they are making a positive contribution in terms of biofuels and value-adding to agriculture. But this country is doing nothing on that. We are told we have got to value-add, we are told we have to move into more renewable sources of energy, but very little is happening.

I am not a climate change sceptic. I believe the nation should be doing something to come to grips with climate change, and playing a leading role in this area. I have issues with the Prime Minister’s current proposal, but I support his going to Copenhagen and playing some sort of leading role. While I was in Copenhagen on my tour, I met with some economists who worked for the IPCC a bit further away, in Paris, at the International Energy Agency. They were very sceptical about what was going to come out of the Copenhagen climate change conference. This was three or four months ago, but 10,000 beds were cancelled while I was there. So I do not think a lot will come out of the Copenhagen conference. That is also partly because we are trying to crack the nut with a market mechanism, and there is a lot of scepticism about using a market mechanism to do that.

There is another issue that comes into it, though. I was very pleased with the announcement last week that the government was going to exempt agriculture from the emissions trading scheme, because, Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, as you would remember, I said in the parliament that I would not support a carbon pollution reduction scheme that included food. That is not just for domestic reasons. Obviously, the domestic issues are about the cost impost on our farming community and the measurability of some of the emissions et cetera. But the major reason I raised that argument was that, if you extend a global carbon emissions arrangement to the food sector, the potential impact on land use is enormous. In fact, the government’s CPRS incentivises the planting of trees for carbon purposes. Presumably that would be on land that was previously used for food purposes.

As a farmer, I think that one of the best things that could happen is that we create another competitor for land use. The first thing I would be doing is moving into third-generation biofuels, which tick the positive carbon boxes—renewable energy boxes—rather than the negative boxes that food ticks if you start to embrace food in a carbon economy. The starch in wheat is carbon—carbon footprints, nitrous oxide. In this country, we punch enormous amounts of nitrogen into the soil to achieve not just yield but, especially, a premium price because of the protein in the grain. Lignocellulosic biofuels do not tick any of those negative boxes. The issue of food in a carbon economy is much more than a case of localised farmers reacting to a particular cost impost. If you were to impose the CPRS on the world, the shift of land use into renewable fuels—or into carbon by way of vegetation et cetera—and the movement away from the food economy would create enormous political instability from those people who are not being fed. That is something we should all consider. (Time expired)

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

The Treasurer and the Minister for Resources and Energy launched the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy just one month ago, on 28 October 2009. This was indeed a very big day for Australia and for our shared future. The Centre for Renewable Energy is part of the Rudd government’s $4.5 billion Clean Energy Initiative. Its purpose is to facilitate investment in clean energy alternatives to the point of commercialisation. It consolidates several progressive programs that this government has already invested in separately and creates a one-stop shop for those with a view to investing in the nation’s future energy supply. Programs consolidated within the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy are the $300 million Renewable Energy Demonstration Program; the $15 million Second Generation Biofuels Research and Development Program; the $50 million Geothermal Drilling Program, which is a very big initiative in my home state of South Australia; the $20 million Advanced Electricity Storage Technologies Program; the $14 million Wind Energy Forecasting Capability Program; the $18 million Renewable Energy Equity Fund; and the $150 million for new initiatives including funding from the formerly proposed Clean Energy Program.

The purpose of theBill currently before us is to create the Australian Renewable Energy Centre board, establish its functions and processes, and create the position of its chief executive officer. This is pretty simple and pretty straightforward stuff but the public should be aware of the significance of this bill. It may be pretty simple and straightforward but it is a bill of significant importance. The substantial step forward that this parliament is making on behalf of the nation is in creating such a centre, because the options are extremely stark and of the deepest, most widespread and all-pervading consequence. Reduced to its simplest terms the fact is that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are affecting our climate. Some in the opposition say, ‘No, they’re not,’ but beyond that the debate quickly becomes bizarre and unproductive; a point that I will touch on directly. We all know of the posturing that has been going on in this place over the last year.

In short, there are those who are prepared to act on the global scientific consensus regarding our atmosphere and how it affects us—and there are those who are not. Those who are not prepared to accept the overwhelming scientific consensus that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are affecting our climate are a mixed bag of industries, industrialists and their lobbyists, publicity seekers, political adventurers, fearful conservatives, conspiracy theorists and so on. There are many conspiracy theorists out there. Then there are those who are just plain silly. For example, one senator the other day said that he likes carbon; he said, ‘We eat it, so we should want more in our atmosphere, not less.’ He also said, ‘Plants need carbon dioxide so we should give them more for their health. The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the better.’ Clearly, he is a senator who likes a little science—but only a little bit of science. Another senator just a day ago informed us that all the scientists have got it wrong: ‘The world isn’t warming, it’s cooling.’ Another senator who presumably wants more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not less.

Some are saying that an international agreement on greenhouse gases will subvert our constitution, overthrow our governments, dash our nation state status, and make us all, including Australian parliaments, subservient to and run by faceless European bureaucrats. These are some of the outrageous things that we have been hearing. The highest level of the alternative government of this country has declared that the nerds of the world have taken over and that scientists are now radical left wing revolutionaries on the verge of overthrowing global capitalism. How alarmist! Less dangerous individuals say that we might expect to experience increased climate variability, but that people radically increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere surely cannot have anything to do with it. One scientist employed to confuse the community’s climate change education got on TV and said something along the lines of: ‘It would be nice to grow wine grapes in northern England, so if there is global warming it will be a good thing. Who doesn’t like wine grapes?’ Who indeed.

Finding a consistent argument, a stable position amongst those who are resisting actions, including those relevant to the bill we are debating here today, is a pretty difficult and terribly tiring task. The opponents of action, the types of action that this bill is designed to facilitate, have come out with the biggest load of disparate, puerile rubbish that I have ever encountered. But I am glad that the Australian public saw through all the flak and voted at the last election for the policy of taking science seriously, taking the observable facts seriously, and of course taking action in response to those facts seriously, changing our world and what we do to this world into the future, extremely seriously. The Australian people voted for a policy of combating climate change. Some members of the Australian parliament should get over their loss and acknowledge the fact and act in accordance with the public’s wishes.

This I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition has done, to his credit. As he said this morning, how can any 21st century party not have a position on climate change? This was the Leader of the Opposition. What we are working towards is of course the minimisation of harm to the environment in which we live and on which we rely. Beyond the global science, beyond gaining a position on some sort of equilibrium within our environment, we are actually looking at an astronomical shift in technology, a shift that will mark a new period in human existence.

Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, the uptake of new technologies and new sources of power will replace to an extent over time some sources of power that have been around since pre-Victorian times, using new methods instead of those that marked the very beginning of the Industrial Revolution hundreds of years ago. This is the era that we are approaching. We have had radical changes in communication technologies, almost inconceivable changes, within the period of our lifetime. We have had radical changes in medicine and improvements in our understanding of the makeup and sustenance of life within one lifetime. But people seem intent on us relying on the humble, old systems to power our mega-cities, our hospitals, laboratories and operating theatres, our global digital communications networks and our homes.

Human inventiveness is so much more than this. The assistance delivered by this government and this minister and coordinated by the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy open up energy options of enormous potential for this country. A vast variety might be explored and some developed up to commercial scale. We have scientists developing algae for the extraction of oil for biofuel at the South Australian Research and Development Institute located at West Beach, right in the middle of the electorate of Hindmarsh. A little over a week ago they officially opened their bioreactor, a plant to grow the algae they have painstakingly selected from thousands of alternatives for its high oil content. The bioreactor will help them develop their technology to the point of the construction of a demonstration plant in Adelaide’s western region in my electorate. This is one area in which people are working, inventing and creating—using, in this case, little more than seawater and sunlight over unproductive land for the sustainable production of oil for fuel.

The benefits of projects such as this to my electorate, to South Australia and to Australia as a nation and beyond are potentially enormous. Natural resources such as our ocean and sunlight; our interior, which contains huge hot rock resources; our latitude; and our exposure to wind and currents are the things with which we are blessed, things that offer us so much potential in this area. I want to commend the people exploring these options and doing the research and the pilot projects—the scientists, the engineers, the start-ups, the investors—who collectively paint a picture of a dynamic and exciting future for all of us now and into the next period of human development. I commend the bill, its purpose and objects, to the House.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to make a contribution to this very important piece of legislation, the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy Bill 2009, which heralds so much of what is very, very important to Australia’s future, particularly in terms of renewable energy. As you are well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, I come from the renewable energy capital not just of Australia but of this whole region. Indeed, it should be on the cutting edge of the renewable energy business and systems throughout the world. I want to congratulate the minister at the table at the moment, the Hon. Martin Ferguson, for his work particularly in resources and energy and in the support of the renewable energy sector, which is so important both to Tasmania and to the rest of Australia.

The bill itself is to establish the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy board and the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy. Just in brief, the bill provides for the establishment and functions of the board, its constitution and membership and requirements for meetings, voting and annual reporting. The bill also establishes the position of CEO of ACRE, which is to be held by a senior executive service officer of the department.

As part of the Renewable Energy Demonstration Program, the minister at the table only recently announced one of the first projects to be successful. This indeed affects my electorate of Braddon and in particular King Island. The successful applicant for the Renewable Energy Demonstration Program project was Hydro Tasmania. It proposed a series of innovative projects on King and Flinders islands in the Bass Strait. But in the main, this is affecting King Island, and will result in the use of renewable energy for over 50 per cent of the island’s energy needs and will reduce CO2 emissions by more than 70 per cent. As a system, this scale would be world leading so, again, hydroelectricity is at the cutting edge in Tasmania in terms of renewable energy for Australia. This integrated project on King Island should be part of cutting-edge technology to assist not just in Australia but also worldwide.

Just for a bit of background information, the Bass Strait islands include King Island, which is in Braddon, and Flinders Island, which is in Bass. The electricity supply on these islands is the responsibility of Hydro Tasmania and is generated principally using diesel and wind generation sources. The average annual generation is around 20 gigawatt hours, comprising 72.5 per cent diesel, 27 per cent wind and 0.5 per cent solar. There are approximately 1,300 electricity customers on King Island and 720 on Flinders Island. On King Island the majority of the load, 65 per cent, is business related, with two large customers accounting for half the business load. On Flinders Island the majority of the load, some 58 per cent, is for residential purposes.

Both King Island and Flinders Island remain unconnected to the national power network. Power has traditionally been supplied by burning diesel fuel, a costly and emissions intensive practice exposed to volatile fuel prices and to energy security concerns. The basic argument is that the cost of power production exceeds what can be reasonably charged for supply and the additional cost burden of something like $6 million per annum is borne by the Tasmanian taxpayer. A solution is required to significantly reduce the amount of fossil fuel required for the power supply. This is at the heart of the Renewable Energy Demonstration Program project which the Minister for Resources and Energy, who is at the table, announced just recently. I do thank the minister for that very much, and I know the people of King Island are really looking forward to seeing what happens here.

More broadly, there is also a perception in the wider Australian community that renewable energy technologies are generally unsuitable to supply base load generation or to meet high priority demands and loads. There is little question that the integration of intermittent renewable energy sources to the power system represents a significant challenge in the large-scale development of renewable generation. The BSI project aims to demonstrate that technologies exist today to manage this intermittency, and that a pathway exists to implement these technologies in a cost-effective manner in the medium term.

To date—and this was at the heart of the success of Hydro Tasmania’s application for the REDP funding—Hydro Tasmania has achieved some promising results with the increased utilisation of renewable energy in the Bass Strait. In particular on King Island, Hydro Tasmania has successfully reduced fuel use by 35 per cent largely via the use of wind turbines. Currently the system can be operated with wind power supplying up to 70 per cent of instantaneous customer demand.

The Bass Strait Islands Renewable Energy Integration Project successful in the funding application is a portfolio of innovative projects utilising new and existing technologies to increase the use of renewable energy in a power system, reducing emissions and improving the quality of supply. The project will demonstrate the potential for renewable energy to contribute significantly to the development of a more sustainable and lower carbon intensive Australian power system over the next 10-20 years—the very heart of the CPRS system that we wish to see this parliament pass this week. The project includes the development of wind and solar photovoltaic in combination with new energy storage devices and enabling technologies designed to allow greater contribution of power from renewable sources. The rollout of a smart grid will also enhance the ability to control load to match the available renewable energy supplies.

The total cost of the program is estimated at $61.2 million over four years. Hydro Tasmania requested something like $19 million from the federal government and was successful in receiving $15 million. I know they are highly excited by their success in that area.

In conclusion, because I know the minister would like to see this bill on its way, as it should be, and we have other legislation to get on with, may I congratulate the government on its renewable energy initiatives. May I congratulate it on its CPRS legislation, which hopefully will be passed today. I thank the minister for the availability of the scheme and the funding. I look forward to working with him, Hydro Tasmania and the King Island community on developing what is a really world-class pioneering, exciting renewable energy integration project.

Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I express my appreciation to all members who have participated in what is a very constructive debate. In the mind of the government we would like to see it not only pass in the House of Representatives today but also hopefully pass in the Senate this week. It is in that context that I express our appreciation to the opposition for its support for the bill and for our endeavours to actually have it treated in a non-controversial way in the Senate over the next day and a half.

I would like to briefly touch on the contributions of members who have participated in the debate on the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy Bill 2009. Firstly, I go to the contribution by the member for Kalgoorlie. I simply say that from the government’s point of view we believe that there are abundant sources of energy and hence Australia does not need to pursue nuclear energy. But I also acknowledge as the minister for energy that other countries are not as fortunate as us from an energy security point of view, and hence nuclear energy is very much part of their energy mix. More importantly, we are central to the development of nuclear energy in many countries beyond Australia because we are a reliable supplier of uranium, and potentially there is going to be a substantial expansion in our capacity in the foreseeable future.

I now go to your contribution, Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, where you correctly identify the range of renewable options that the government is pursuing as part of an integrated clean energy strategy. The intention of ACRE is to support the renewable energy industry, and in doing so bring down the cost of technology in years to come so as to ensure its wider deployment. That is potentially very much assisted by a renewable energy target which guarantees that, by 2020, 20 per cent of Australia’s energy will come from renewable sources.

I also note the participation of the member for Kennedy, who has a very strong interest in these matters. I was fortunate enough to participate with the Treasurer in an energy symposium held in Parliament House recently about the potential development of renewable energy and other energy options in Far North Queensland. That is a work in progress for the member for Kennedy and for the government. The member for Dawson made a thoughtful and constructive contribution to the debate with particular reference to biomass, which is of significance in his electorate and surrounding areas.

This brings me to the ill thought out contribution by the member for Flinders and his attack on the government’s renewable energy policies. I simply say to the member for Flinders, a simple comparison of what we have put in place over the last two years compared to the opposition’s contribution over the previous 12 years is an interesting exercise. The debate currently before the Senate concerning the introduction of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, putting a price on carbon, provides a very stark contrast between the decisive action of this government—with potential support for the renewable energy sector—and action by the previous government in which the member for Flinders served as a member of the executive. He raised issues such as the question of being honest about the Solar Flagships program and our broader clean energy strategy. I simply say about the member for Flinders, generally, that he has form in making statements designed to get a headline. However, he needs to begin to recognise that in government it is not possible to promise everything to everyone. It is about time he understood that integrity and honesty in government is part of good policy development and establishing one’s standing in broader policy debates.

The comments of the member for Flinders regarding the Solar Flagships program are ill-informed and offensive to my departmental officers who have been working on the development of the program. The Solar Flagships program will deliver significant solar deployment on a large scale in Australia, over two rounds not one round, and so hopefully enable more mature and developing technologies to be deployed in Australia. That is what the clean energy strategy is about—not picking winners but supporting our regulatory environment, through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the renewable energy target legislation, and supporting R&D to bring on clean energy options such as solar, geothermal, wave, tidal and biomass.

This takes me to the contribution by the member for Kingston. I simply say that, as a South Australian, she is clearly conscious of the role that geothermal energy might play in the energy mix. I was therefore delighted on 6 November, as the responsible minister, to announce two geothermal grants for South Australian projects under the Renewable Energy Demonstration Program. This was also acknowledged by the members for Hindmarsh and Braddon—especially by the member for Braddon, who referred to a similar grant for the purpose of researching and developing a range of renewable energy options on King Island. These are grid-related and also involve a focus on potential storage capacity, which is the key to the baseload renewable energy debate.

I go to the contribution by the member for New England. I know that he makes a range of valuable contributions to the House, but I do take issue with his suggestion that the government has given mixed messages on renewable energy. I simply say to the member for New England that we have an integrated strategy that not only includes a regulatory framework involving a price on carbon through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme but also includes a renewable energy target, which guarantees that 20 per cent of our energy will come from renewable sources by 2020.

In support of renewable energy development in Australia, I remind the House that the renewable energy target represents a subsidy to the renewable sector of $20-25 billion by the Australian community. That is a substantial subsidy for facilitating the development of renewable energy in Australia. I would also remind the House that, over and above those regulatory arrangements, the government in the budget of this year put in place a comprehensive clean energy strategy.

The strategy is not about picking winners. It is about working with industry and research organisations, including CSIRO and our leading universities, to make progress on research and development with a view to proving-up potential baseload reliable renewable energy options in Australia. It clearly facilitates a proper focus on carbon capture and storage, because fossil fuels are important to Australia. More importantly, it allocates over $2 billion for research and development of renewable energy in Australia in the years to come.

The Solar Flagships program is potentially the biggest solar flagship deployment in the world. Expenditure will be in the order of $1.5 billion and there will be two rounds for the purpose of selecting the best potential technology in Australia. The member for New England raised the issue of second generation biofuels. I have already announced on behalf of the government the allocation of $15 million to a range of second generation biofuel options. This includes algae, which is very much the hope of the side, and also focuses on the potential use of wood for the purposes of developing second generation biofuels in Australia.

As for the geothermal issue, hopefully it is very much a reliable baseload power source for Australia, with a $50 million program for the purpose of assisting industry with what is an expensive drilling program to prove up geothermal activities in Australia. As for the issue of renewable energy generally and the broader range of renewable options, there is a further allocation of $560 million for the purposes of renewable energy investment in Australia. Some of those program announcements have been referred to by members in their thoughtful contributions to the debate today, such as those as to geothermal in South Australia, tidal in Victoria and, I might say, the integrated renewable energy proposal on King Island, in the seat of Braddon. Clearly, we have put in place a well-thought-out clean energy strategy involving changes to the regulatory environment of Australia, of great benefit to the renewables sector, side by side with key strategic investments to facilitate research and development. Only through that research and development will we break through on the technology front and prove once and for all whether we can actually shore up on a commercial scale renewable energy in Australia. In conclusion, I commend the bill to the House and simply say I am appreciative of the support from the coalition in the facilitation of consideration of this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.