Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I would ask, as coalition senators stand up, that in their contributions they answer some questions that I'm a little bit confused about. It appears that on 8 February the minister announced up to $4 million of funding for a feasibility study to Shine, and then on 10 February, two days later, asked them to make a submission for a grant. It seems out of order, and I'm hoping someone might be able to explain that. I do note that a grant has been awarded to the company, and that is available on the Commonwealth grants website, so I'm guessing that if this disallowance goes ahead that will have to be reversed—or perhaps it's contingent on the regulation not being disallowed.

I will actually be supporting this disallowance, and I won't be doing so because of the politics of the Greens or the politics of the Labor Party or in spite of the politics of the Liberal Party. I come from an engineering background, so I tend to look at these things from an engineering perspective. What I'll say is that there are three really important things that we need to have when we look at power for Australians. The first is that the power needs to be clean. I know that people on the other side may question that in some way, but I'll remind them of the history of the coalition in the proposition for an emissions intensity scheme. Then they went to a clean energy target, supported of course by Dr Finkel, and moved from there to a national energy guarantee. So, on the other side of the chamber there has always been some notion somewhere that we do need to have clean energy. So, people shouldn't stand up and suggest that there isn't a problem, because for a long period of time at least some people on the other side have recognised that there is a problem in that space.

Clean energy is important. Affordable energy is also important. We have to make sure that the energy that is supplied around the country is affordable. The last thing any of us wants is for an elderly person to not be able to turn on their heater during winter or turn on their air conditioner during summer. That's something we should all seek to avoid. And the last requirement, moving on from cleanliness and affordability, is to make sure that it's reliable. As a South Australian I'm only too mindful of the need to have reliable energy available. Just recently I've asked questions of Minister Taylor, through the minister representing him, about how many times AEMO is intervening in the South Australian energy market. The facts of the matter are that about three times a day, on average, AEMO intervenes in the market to ensure solid supply. That tells you there is a problem with renewables in respect of reliability. We're not there yet.

I just wanted to be very forensic and factual about my contribution tonight. But here's why I will be supporting the disallowance. We have a situation where we don't have that reliability, but there are mechanisms for dealing with that right now. In South Australia, we direct gas turbines to make sure the demand is met. But there's no question that, as time moves forward, we will get that reliability with renewable energy in combination with batteries and other types of energy. We will get there; there's no question of that. We're not there yet, but we will get there. It's for that reason that it is a backwards step to try and invest in coal. It has its place and it does provide stability, but it's the wrong direction. We shouldn't be moving forward with energy that we know is not clean and that is unlikely to be affordable in comparison and in circumstances where renewable energy will become reliable. So I will be supporting the disallowance motion.