Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the following matter be referred to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2007:

Australia’s future sustainable and secure energy supply, with particular reference to:

(a)

short-, medium- and long-term greenhouse gas abatement targets and energy emissions intensity goals;

(b)

relevant existing and emerging technologies that are likely to make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions following life-cycle analysis and benchmarked against biodiversity, safety and regional security considerations;

(c)

the mix of energy supply and energy use efficiency options that could feasibly meet Australia’s energy intensity requirements;

(d)

identification of preferred energy options taking into consideration factors including, but not limited to, cost, reliability, safety, security, regional development and sustainability;

(e)

identification of policy adjustments required to stimulate energy markets to develop the preferred options at least cost; and

(f)

any other related matters.

I move this motion in the hope that the Senate will support this. The reason I believe it essential that we look at this is that we are having the most piecemeal, ad hoc energy debate in Australia and it is not serving the best interests of the country. Last year I moved a motion in the Senate that we have a Senate inquiry into Australia’s future oil supply because, once again, the government had not developed a strategy relating to future energy supplies in terms of transport fuels. Now I am doing exactly the same with regard to the broader mix of energy because the government have somehow decided that they are going to run off down the nuclear path without looking at the broad energy mix in terms of what is available, achievable and relevant for Australia.

The first thing that we need to be looking at is having an energy plan for the country and finding the whole energy mix that might meet that plan. That would be for base load energy, peaking and the whole lot. We need to have a plan for what we need for energy and electricity generation, and we need to look at our whole industry mix. There is a range of policy matters that come into this. What we are seeing is the Prime Minister simply heading off, as I said, down the nuclear energy path.

One has to ask why we are suddenly having this debate on nuclear energy. I think I can put it in a fairly straightforward way by saying that President Bush wants a nuclear fuel supply centre based in Australia to complement others around the world and he spoke to the Prime Minister about it when the Prime Minister was in Washington. The Prime Minister has come back with an agenda of expanded uranium mining, which has always been on the coalition’s agenda; the enrichment of uranium; the supply of fuel rods and enriched uranium overseas; and taking back high-level waste. This inquiry has been dressed up as an inquiry about energy security but it is nothing of the sort. It is much more about enrichment, high-level waste dumping and a subtext of Defence strategy in cooperation, as deputy sheriff, with the US than it is about energy.

So let us talk about energy. Why do we need the energy inquiry: because, if you are serious about greenhouse gas reduction, you have fewer than 15 years to do something about it. You are not going to get that with a long-term debate about nuclear energy and nuclear reactors. We need this debate and we need support for a broad-scale energy inquiry right now because Australia has the potential to lead the world in renewable energy technologies.

I can give you a couple of examples. One is geothermal energy. Pacific Hydro is currently looking at geothermal energy from the Great Artesian Basin. That is not hot rocks technology; it is traditional geothermal energy. It is using hot water from beneath the Great Artesian Basin to generate energy. They say that, on their estimates, a geothermal operation based on that energy could supply 25 per cent of base load power for the eastern states for 100 years. That potential technology is already out there right now. We also have solar thermal. The CRC for coal sustainability, in its report, came out and said that, from an area of 35 square kilometres of Australia, it could produce enough base load power for the whole country. So we already have these technologies.

Also, we have a significant problem in Australia with our economy because it is based on resources that are just being dug up and shipped overseas. Our whole economy is dependent on ongoing profits from digging up and selling overseas. That is a very vulnerable position to put the country into. The government is bragging about being economic managers, but it has wiped out the manufacturing sector. The tertiary sector is tiny. We are now back to the equivalent of riding on the sheep’s back. We are now a quarry economy.

What we would do if we had a sensible look at energy across the country would be to look at the whole mix. We would be investing in new technologies which would address greenhouse gas reduction. These new energy-efficient renewable energy technologies would also lead to sophisticated job creation in Australia. That would lead, as I said, to greater research and development, commercialisation of those developments and jobs as a result of that. That is the way we should be going in Australia.

The Prime Minister says he is worried about Australia’s energy security. He is right to be worried about our energy security, but not in the context of the Europeans. We are blessed with energy in this country. The Europeans are worried about it because Russia can cut off the gas at any time. That is why they are terrified about energy security. Australia has lots of energy options. But our security is compromised by climate change. We cannot afford to use some of our energy options. For example, we cannot afford to continue to burn coal because of the ramifications for climate change unless a technology is developed that deals with coal emissions.

This is where solar thermal comes in. It is possible with solar thermal to use coal not as a substance that you would burn in a coal-fired power station but as a chemical substance combined with solar. You can turn it into a renewable energy option for Australia. So we have plenty of options. But the government does not seem very interested in pursuing them. I simply do not understand why that is the case. Furthermore, the government is not interested in pursuing the mandatory renewable energy target or extending the time frame and the percentage in relation to that. We know that we have to achieve at least a 60 per cent greenhouse gas reduction by 2050. How are we going to get there if we do not roll out these renewable energies?

In terms of transport fuels, the Prime Minister says that the price of petrol is going up and therefore we need nuclear energy. That shows how little the Prime Minister understands about this whole debate. The issue is that petrol is a transport fuel—a fossil fuel that generates greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear energy has nothing to do with petrol, petrol prices or transport fuels. Unless you have nuclear-powered cars—and I have not seen that anywhere—then I cannot see why you would link petrol prices with nuclear energy. It makes no sense at all.

What does make sense is looking at the transport needs of this country and saying, ‘We need to replace fossil fuels and we also need to reduce the amount of transport fuels that we use.’ That requires a mix of investment in public transport and in alternative fuels. That is not just ethanol. There is a range of alternative transport fuels, and natural gas comes into that as well as LPG as a transitional fuel. So we need to look at a whole range of things. As I said, we should not look at an ad hoc policy which has one committee running off and looking at nuclear and one committee focusing on ethanol. We need a whole industry and energy policy that is totally integrated. That is what this country requires and we have not got it.

We also need to start looking at having short-term, medium-term and long-term targets for greenhouse gas emissions and working out the energy mix that will get us to those targets. The government continues to refuse to put targets in place. Our greenhouse gas emissions are spiralling out of control. The constant claim that we are going to come in on our Kyoto target of 108 per cent (a) fails to recognise that that target was such a generous target in the first place and (b) fails to recognise that the only reason that we will come in on that target—that is, if we do come in on that target—is because of the one-off benefit of the avoided emissions as a result of stopping land clearance. It is not because we have actually done anything about our industrial or transport emissions.

We need energy efficiency: renewable energy generated from wind, solar and geothermal sources; renewable biofuels; natural gas—the whole range of technologies. I do not see where we are getting a push for that kind of comprehensive analysis of the greenhouse gas reduction target, breaking down that target into energy generation, fuel and transport emissions, and then looking at the whole mix that could meet targets in those particular sectors within a time frame and in an ecologically sustainable way.

The government’s ad hoc approach means that they will give a green tick to a biofuels factory in Darwin, but that will import palm oil from Malaysia. One of the issues with that is that palm oil plantations—and I am not saying that this is the case in relation to this particular factory—can essentially lead to deforestation in tropical areas. So you have that issue to consider. Look at what soya is doing to the Amazon: it is driving huge amounts of deforestation in the Amazon. Plus there is the issue of food security into the future. Farmers have a right to sell their crop to maximise whatever profit they can get. If it gets to the point where fuel companies are prepared to pay farmers a higher price than people are prepared to pay for food then that is what they will sell their crop for, and that will lead to displacement.

I am really dedicated to the view that what Australia needs is some strategic thinking in energy policy. That is where I would like to see this go, and that is why I am arguing strongly for government and opposition support for this motion. We need to have a good look at the whole range of energy options and not just go down ad hoc little side streets, whether it is on ethanol or nuclear. Let us look at the big picture, let us set the targets, let us work out the appropriate mix and then we will not find that we are robbing Peter to pay Paul in terms of the particular strategies that we might pursue.