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

Pursuant to standing order 74(5), I ask the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, for an explanation as to why an answer has not been provided to question on notice No. 1882, which I asked on 6 June, 72 days ago.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very happy to answer Senator Milne’s question. In relation to the lateness of the answer, Senator Milne called my office before question time, and I thank her for giving us that notice. I asked my staff and my department for an explanation and, at short notice, I wrote a note and took it across to Senator Milne. Senator Milne was not here during question time, but I did leave it on her desk. I am not sure whether or not she found it on her desk. Her desk looked a bit like my desk; it is sometimes a bit hard to find stuff on it.

The question related to an article that appeared in the Canberra Times on 4 June or thereabouts where I had stated, in response to assertions that the Commonwealth was not investing heavily enough in solar energy technologies, that in fact on my latest check of the Commonwealth’s investment in solar technology projects there were no fewer than 217 projects we were investing in. The time it will take to compile all of that is a little bit longer than I would have liked. If it were all within the Australian Greenhouse Office and the Department of the Environment and Heritage, I could have met the timeliness requirements under the standing orders. I do work very hard to meet those, and I thank the officers of my department for their hard work in responding to Senate questions in a timely manner.

In relation to this question: there are grants that come from a range of other organisations in the Commonwealth. There is the Australian Research Council, which funds an enormous amount of renewable energy research. There is also the CSIRO, which, contrary to assertions from the left of politics, also funds an enormous amount of activity in the area of renewable energy, particularly solar energy. We are trying to collate a comprehensive list in response to Senator Milne’s question. I am very keen to get that to the Table Office and into the public arena, because it tells a magnificent story about the Commonwealth’s activities in the area, particularly in promoting solar technologies.

I know that you take a close interest in these things, Mr Deputy President Hogg, and you would have noticed in the media that I held a joint press conference with Dr Harlan Watson, from the US State Department, where we announced a magnificent joint venture between two great companies—the Boeing Corporation of Seattle and Solar Systems, an Australian solar technology company. Solar systems will be using their world-leading technology to concentrate solar energy by turning solar dishes into a satellite shaped configuration to concentrate solar beams coming down from the sun onto a receival node. The technology that Boeing bring to the project is a photovoltaic cell which is used for satellites. We would all understand that, if you are building photovoltaic cells for satellites, you need to ensure that, firstly, they are very robust; they need to be strong. Secondly, they need to be ultra lightweight, and, thirdly, they need to be very efficient. This is one of the projects that we will list as a project that has received support from the Australian government.

We believe that this collaboration between Boeing and Solar Systems will see a transformation in the way that solar energy is created in Australia. I believe, having seen the Solar Systems proposals, that this offers an enormous opportunity for very large-scale energy production from the sun. This is one of literally hundreds of projects we have under the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, and Ian Macfarlane, the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, and I will be announcing the successful applications in a few weeks time.

There are some fantastic projects coming forward, some very large-scale renewable projects. The renewable energy development initiative, a $100 million program under this government, is seeing some fantastic investment in renewables in a number of solar projects. The $5 million Origin Energy sliver cell project, again, is developing world-leading technology down in Adelaide, as Senator Ferris will be interested to know. It is a breakthrough project funded by the Australian government. There is $3.254 million to Solar Heat and Power for a proof-of-concept solar-concentrating array project at Liddell Power Station. There is nearly $200,000 for a Perth based company, Solco, developing hot water systems particularly with application to remote and Third World countries. For example, this company builds, with the support of the Australian government, entire minifactories that will produce polyethylene solar hot water systems that can actually be made in Third World countries and develop an industry for Third World countries.

Robert Ray (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President, on a point of order: I am finding this interesting but in fact not relevant to the requirements of the standing orders. Later on this afternoon, under ministerial statements, Senator Ian Campbell could make a statement on this. At the moment he is required to explain why the answer has not been provided. He did that at the start of his contribution. Now he has gone off to proselytise on a number of matters, all of which are interesting and, no doubt, very good initiatives. You cannot have a de facto ministerial statement at this time, even if someone gives you the opportunity to do so. You will be setting a precedent that we will all live to regret. I am not trying to be abusive to Senator Ian Campbell. I really think that, at this stage at least, he has to explain why the questions are not answered. If Senator Milne then moves that the answer be noted, it will give him far more scope and opportunity to inform the chamber about some of these projects.

John Hogg (Queensland, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw the minister’s attention to being relevant to the issue that was raised by Senator Milne.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ray. He does make a good point. I will conclude. It is, I think, broadly speaking relevant because I am giving you an example of the enormous array—no pun intended—of projects that are funded by the Commonwealth to promote solar energy and of the fact that they are spread across a number of portfolios and agencies. That is one of the reasons for the delays. I am very enthusiastic about this stuff and very excited about what the government is doing in that space. I look forward to answering Senator Milne’s question in great depth and detail as soon as possible.

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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the explanation.

Whilst I am interested, as most people in the chamber are, in what the government is doing in recent initiatives, the point at issue here is that Senator Ian Campbell made a statement to the Canberra Times that the Australian government had committed $144 million over the past four years, to 2 June this year, through the Australian Research Council to 216 research projects associated with solar energy. The problem is that absolutely nobody I have spoken to in the solar industry can identify these 216 research projects that had supposedly been funded to that extent over the past four years. In fact, with all this discussion about investment in renewable and low-emission technologies, the vast and overwhelming majority of the funding goes to the coal industry for carbon capture and storage and coal to liquids, and in terms of transport fuels and energy the funding is going overwhelmingly to the oil companies.

I specifically asked Senator Campbell to tell me where these 216 research projects are, what their names are and how they account for the $144 million. It has been 72 days and I still do not have an answer to that question, and I look forward to Senator Campbell providing that kind of detail. What we have got is a whole lot of statements about how much the government love solar energy and how much they are doing, but we cannot find the detail. I was alarmed when I received Senator Ian Campbell’s handwritten note that said that this information is on the website. I hope that I am not just going to get a note in the next few days saying, ‘I refer you to the website.’ I do not want to be referred to a website. I have asked a specific question on the specific projects and on how much money they have received over the last four years. I look forward to Senator Campbell providing the list of projects and the amount of money for each one.

I am making this kind of stand because earlier this week, as the senator mentioned, he stood up and made a big announcement about his solar project at AP6. What he did not say was that the Commonwealth allocated $100 million in January this year to low-emissions technologies and it turned out that, of that $100 million, only $25 million was to be for renewables. That is a quarter of it.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not true. It was no less than $25 million.

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

All right, it was no less than $25 million out of the $100 million. But why specify $25 million? I will be delighted if it is the whole $100 million, but, either way, not a cent of that money has been allocated to date. So, whilst Senator Campbell stood up and made his big announcement that this has been delivered as a result of the AP6 partnership, not a cent of the $100 million has actually been allocated yet. I would argue that the deal that went down was already organised between these private sector companies and that the opportunity was taken to announce it at the meeting in Sydney—and that is entirely appropriate. But to claim that it had something to do with the Commonwealth’s investment of $100 million, with that specified $25 million, is drawing a long bow.

Senator Campbell must be aware that there is a high level of scepticism in the community about the nature of the announcements. You try and find the detail of where the Commonwealth actually spent the money on these things that were supposedly done because of Commonwealth involvement and you are hard-pressed to find them. If Senator Ian Campbell responds to my remarks now, I would like him to tell me how much of the $100 million had been allocated to this deal between the Australian company Solar Systems and the US company Spectrolab in relation to this project, because I do not think a cent has, and that gives some sense of what I am talking about. That is why I want the specific list. I do not want a website reference. I have been to the website and it is not clear.

Most people in the solar industry were shocked when they saw this reference to Senator Ian Campbell saying that $144 million had gone to 216 research projects associated with solar energy over the four years to 2 June. People want the specifics of how that occurred. I also asked how many of the research projects relating to fossil fuels and nuclear power had been funded over the past four years, including the title of each, and the amount that went to each.

We need to establish once and for all the government’s priorities in relation to fossil fuel research, nuclear research and solar research. I would also bring to Senator Ian Campbell’s notice that the announcements that have been made on geothermal and solar in the last week—and I certainly welcome the deal that has been done with this new technology—point out that these technologies alone can provide Australia’s base load energy into the future and make a complete joke of the government’s commitment to nuclear. In noting the senator’s response, I note that in question time he gave me a piece of paper saying he would provide an answer soon. I thank him for reiterating that while on his feet, and I look forward to the detailed list of these 216 projects relating to solar energy, which amount to $144 million in the four years prior to 2 June this year.

Ian Campbell (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Heritage) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I genuinely welcome the opportunity that Senator Milne is creating in the parliament to focus attention on our renewable energy programs. They are world leading and quite phenomenonal, and they are something we should be proud of. The fact that Senator Milne is helping to create a controversy around them helps me. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how I can get the message out about what we are doing. Where we have a difference is that I happen to think that we need to use all of the clean energy sources available to us in Australia. I am not ideologically opposed to cleaning up coal or geosequestration in carbon or to finding more efficient ways to use coal or fossil fuels. I happen to believe deeply that that is going to be a large part of the solution. But I also believe equally strongly in having strong support for solar energy in this country, as well as a range of other technologies, such as hybrid technologies, where you link—for example, with the Newcastle CSIRO solar centre—the use of solar thermal concentrators to boost the energy coefficient of natural gas, getting the gas’s energy coefficient up by 30 per cent, which is a breakthrough way of storing solar energy. I believe you have to have all of those technologies. I believe that, when it comes to addressing the climate challenge, if you care deeply about the environment, as I do, then you leave your ideologies parked at the door and back the technologies that can make a difference.

I think Senator Milne and I agree on a lot of those technologies. Where we disagree is that I do not have any ideological problems with pursuing clean coal technologies, or even nuclear technologies, because they will all make a difference to helping us pass on a much cleaner environment to the coming generations.

Question agreed to.