David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) calls on all senators to consider the effectiveness of the Government's 'Rewiring the Nation' policy;

(b) acknowledges and supports the intent of the policy, which aims to maximise the amount of variable renewable energy in pursuit of meeting or surpassing Australia's 2030 Paris Agreement targets;

(c) notes with concern that the proposed $100 billion investment in transmission infrastructure does not directly contribute to the generation of additional electricity or the storage of energy;

(d) expresses its dismay that this policy may represent an attempt to rectify past investment errors rather than a forward-looking strategy for sustainable energy development;

(e) observes that there is significant lack of social licence for this policy within the communities it will impact, as well as deep reservations among the Australian population; and

(f) noting the current approach of the policy, asks the Government to rework the current strategy in a manner that is more aligned with the immediate and long-term energy needs of Australia, as well as the expectations and welfare of its communities.

This motion is about the government's Rewiring the Nation policy, and I must say that, now that I sit as an independent, it's a joy to be able to debate the merits of policy, not the politics of it. So I'll say right upfront that the intent behind this policy I do support—that is, to bring down emissions and increase renewable energy in the system such that we can meet and, hopefully, beat our quest, which currently is a 43 per cent reduction, which is the government's current Paris target.

When we debated the legislation of that 43 per cent target last year, I stood in this place and I said I didn't think 43 per cent was ambitious enough—and I still don't, but I'll have more to say on that at a future time. As responsible legislators, our duty is to scrutinise and evaluate the effectiveness of such policies, ensuring that they provide value for money and benefit for all Australians. I don't think Rewiring the Nation will achieve that. Rewiring the Nation is going to require about a $100 billion investment in transmission infrastructure underwritten by $20 billion of taxpayers' money. Again, while the intent is commendable, I question whether this investment offers the best value for money and whether it truly embraces a future-focused strategy for sustainable energy development.

Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge the ambitious goal of 43 per cent. But, while commendable, this target, in comparison with those of other nations, is not as ambitious as it could be. With the current pace of emissions still rising, causing temperatures to head towards 1.5 degrees, we need to be doing more. As a nation we have the opportunity to do better, to be more ambitious and demand more-efficient energy transmission options. The current version of the Rewiring the Nation policy faces several significant challenges: first, extremely high cost; second, slow rollout; third, lack of social licence; fourth, increased fire risk; and five, the potential risk of grid insecurity. The policy's focus on stringing wires and poles across our country to create an enormous infrastructure is economically inefficient and will lead to higher prices for consumers at a time when all Australians are already grappling with the escalating costs of living.

Those listening at home may not know that a portion of their electricity bill is made up of a supply charge. You'll see it on the back of your energy bill. This charge funds the transmission and distribution infrastructure that transports electricity from generators into the market. With the government planning to invest $10 billion in underwriting tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines, this is part of what is known as a regulated asset base. This asset base is the asset base of mostly foreign owned companies that build the transmission lines, and it will increase by more than $100 billion. The Australian Energy Regulator sets a rate of return on these assets, which is currently 5.75 per cent, and that gets recovered from all energy users. That's everyone in this chamber and everybody listening at home. Given the enormous amount of transmission suggested in AEMO's integrated systems plan and its incumbent economic inefficiencies, these policies need to be revisited to put accountability back on those who are building the renewable systems, such that they have to count in that project the costs of transmission. If those projects don't stand up if they have to pay for the transmission, then why should the Australian taxpayers, the Australian energy users, have to pay for it?

For the Albanese government to meet its 2030 target it will need to deliver a minimum of 86 gigawatts of variable renewable energy, or VRE, as it's known, as well as at least 46 gigawatts of firming storage. That could be batteries, pumped hydro, gravitational—there are lots of different technologies out there to do that. Yet the transmission required, according to the ISP, to reach a 43 per cent reduction will not even be built by 2030, and that's at best. Projects like the Victoria to New South Wales Interconnector West, or VNI West, as it is known, as well as Snowy 2.0 and the transmission needed to service that will not be fully online until after 2029. This slow rollout and enormous cost blowouts mean that these projects will have little to no measurable effect and certainly will not be contributing to a 43 per cent target.

So I appeal to the chamber to see how important it is that we ask the government to reconsider the Rewiring the Nation policy. As senators our role, on behalf of the public, is to review and evaluate the effectiveness of policy. It is our responsibility to oversee a rewrite of the energy transmission plan, to deliver sustainable, reliable, cost-effective energy that meets the needs of Australia now and in the future.

I will give a little bit of a history lesson for those at home. When Sir John Monash set up the State Electricity Commission of Victoria he had to look to how he was going to generate electricity. He knew that there was coal down in the Latrobe Valley, so he built the generation plants down there. Because of the technology advances, he knew he could transmit it from the Latrobe Valley back up to Melbourne. It was a noble and good thing to do at the time. Now, as we all know, the fuel needed to fire up our energy sources is everywhere. Wind and solar are everywhere, so building transmission is not needed. If we were to consider alternative uses of that $100 billion, and there are many, we can come up with better ways than spending $100 billion on transmission that does not generate one electron and that does not store one kilowatt hour of energy.

By way of an exercise, I sat down and asked, 'What would it cost to put solar on every household in Australia?' There are 9.275 million households in Australia. For a five-kilowatt system, at about $7,000, that is $65 billion. That's a lot less than $93 billion. If you were to put a Tesla battery in every house, at about 10 grand a pop retail, that would get you to $93 billion, a lot less than $100 billion. It doesn't take long to figure out that $100 billion spent rewiring the nation is a complete waste of money. That's not to say that some transmission isn't needed—some is, particularly if we move to offshore wind and other technologies. However, not only are transmission lines expensive—and they don't actually contribute to reducing emissions—but also they don't have the support of the Australian people. Our taxpayers are well aware of the alternatives to poles and wires. Let's face it: there is no social licence for rewiring the nation via outdated technologies and infrastructure. Our constituents know that there are more efficient and effective solutions to energy transmission. They exercise their right, demanding that governments provide those.

Large-scale transmission distribution projects have faced and are facing significant challenges in gaining social acceptance. Local residents, businesses and farmers, usually in the regions, oppose these projects. We've seen lots of protests against them. According to the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner:

… it is feasible that a period spanning 20 years or more can occur between the original prospecting at the project site, obtaining permit approvals and the project eventually being constructed.

Given this reality, there is practically no reasonable hope that any large-scale transmission projects will be approved and built in time to make a meaningful contribution to reducing emissions by 2030. In my own state of Victoria, new transmission projects are facing increased opposition from communities in regional Victoria and other areas. For example, the $3.3 billion planned VNI West—I guarantee you it will not be delivered at that price—has encountered local protests. A KPMG report suggests that this transmission project will likely blow out in cost by as much as 40 per cent. Unfortunately, VNI West is not alone in experiencing cost overruns. Other major transmission projects, including EnergyConnect, HumeLink and Marinus Link, have seen significant increases in cost estimates since 2018. These projects have experienced cost increases of 50 per cent, 190 per cent and 250 per cent, respectively. Collectively, the costs of these four projects has increased by 140 per cent on average in just four years. As responsible legislators, we must ask government to rework the current strategy in a manner that is more aligned with the immediate and long-term energy needs of Australia and Australians.

In Australia, nearly half of our largest companies have committed to net zero emissions targets. This is a clear indication of the growing momentum towards a low-carbon economy, but this will require significant shifts in the investment and policy frameworks to accommodate this transition. With coal-fired generation falling away, that number is more than likely to grow. You only have to look at AEMO's second-most aggressive scenario in its 2022 Integrated System Plan, which has all of our coal fleet retiring by 2030. These retirements signal real risk for our national electricity market in the form of both system security and supply security. Fortunately, both are solvable with the use of the right technologies in the NEM, the national electricity market, but cannot be solved by simply increasing the amount of VRE alone. It is the variability of supply from VRE and the direct-current, not alternating-current, nature of these generation technologies that bring about the system insecurities in the system.

We need an energy plan that can support the huge influx of distributed energy resources, like rooftop solar. We need a plan that can manage the increased volume and variability of supply from VRE, because the nature of these technologies does not work in the current national electricity grid. We need a plan that offers stability, security and safety. We also need to consider the very real bushfire risk that transmission poses. I worked on the Black Saturday bushfires royal commission, and I can tell you that the evidence there was that transmission lines pose very real bushfire risks. The only way to mitigate these risks is to use underground or other high-cost technical solutions. These costs would have to be met by other taxpayers or electricity consumers via a higher AER regulated return on the supply charge, as I mentioned before. Long-range transmission lines are also highly susceptible to extreme weather, as the blackout in South Australia a couple years ago showed.

We can do better for the Australian people. We must do better for our country. We must do better for our world. We need to rewrite the Rewiring the Nation plan. It's not all doom and gloom. There are a raft of opportunities and possibilities to provide sustainable, safe, secure energy, but you just have to do it smarter. In conclusion, I propose that the government revisit the current Rewiring the Nation plan. I'm happy to work with them on ways to insert a practical and cost-effective approach to transmission and distribution, to find solutions that are aligned with the immediate and long-term energy needs of Australia that look at more efficient generation, next-generation storage opportunities and better abatement opportunities. Let's look at our energy transmission holistically as a whole-of-energy-supply issue. We can then achieve a more sustainable and economically feasible energy future for Australia—a secure, sustainable, fair and financially viable energy supply. (Time expired)

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for the opportunity to talk about the Albanese government's Rewiring the Nation program. As senators would be aware, Rewiring the Nation is our plan to provide $20 billion in low-cost finance to upgrade, expand and modernise our electricity grid. We know that transmission is critical to energy transformation. It will enable more renewables and storage to be connected to the grid, driving down energy prices.

I can update the Senate that Rewiring the Nation agreements have been signed with New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia. In New South Wales, our agreement will back eight critical transmission projects, including HumeLink, VNI West and important New South Wales renewable energy zones. The New South Wales data indicates that this agreement will support more than 3,900 jobs in New South Wales regions. In Victoria, we are financing VNI West, as well as Victorian renewable energy zones, and securing the Victorian government's support for Marinus Link. Transgrid and AEMO estimate that VNI West will create over 2,000 direct jobs and thousands more indirect jobs. Most will be in regional New South Wales and Victoria.

In Western Australia, we have signed a $3 billion deal to bolster WA's energy security by expanding and modernising electricity grids in Perth, the South West and the north-west Pilbara region. The WA government forecast the investment in WA is expected to support around 1,800 construction jobs, helping to empower regional communities. In Tasmania we have signed an agreement to deliver Marinus Link, which has a critical role to play in our transformation to net zero, a key opportunity for 1,400 jobs and economic development in the state. These are critical projects identified by the market operator that are needed to keep energy security and create jobs right across the country. It is not the entirety of what is required, though. Rewiring the Nation is only the beginning, and we have a comprehensive suite of policies to build out the energy grid that our nation needs for the future. Our Capacity Investment Scheme will deliver six gigawatts of new firmed capacity and storage into the system, while Rewiring the Nation is supporting investment in transmission to better connect those renewables to the grid.

The senator raised issues around social licence. This is critically important. It is why we are prioritising communities at the heart of these policies. We want communities to have a clear stake and a clear say in transmission. This is why the Albanese government announced the community engagement review on 4 July this year. This review is being led by Andrew Dyer, the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner. He will report to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in December 2023. Already the review has met with 470 stakeholders from across Australia to feed into this important work, and this is on top of the submissions received via an online portal. The review will provide advice on the best way to maximise engagement and benefit in planning, developing and operating infrastructure, including for communities, landholders and First Nations people.

We are also partnering with the states and territories and transmission network service providers. Together we're improving planning, community engagement and community outcomes for new electricity developments. As ageing traditional assets reach their retirement, upgrades and new builds of energy infrastructure, including transmission, are essential for energy security and for delivering cleaner, cheaper energy. We are working to give better guidance to landholders and communities about their rights and entitlements, introduce reforms for earlier and better engagement with communities by proponents and ensure complaints are appropriately handled. We are supporting regional communities to get the best outcomes from new energy infrastructure. The Australian government recently expanded funding for the Office of the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner so that that office may work with communities where there are concerns about the development of renewable energy projects. We're also making changes to the national electricity rules to clarify consultation requirements for transmission to ensure that developments begin at the very start of the route selection process. This will improve community engagement and give back a little more confidence and trust in the consultation process.

I will conclude by offering this: Rewiring the Nation is critical to the energy transformation. It will enable more renewables and storage to be connected to the grid. It is an important feature in delivering on an economic agenda to unlock the supply constraints that have been a significant hurdle in the economy, and it is an important remedy to the energy chaos generated by those opposite in the near decade when they failed to add a single energy policy.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to commend Senator Van for bringing this motion to the Senate today. I think most of us in this place know we have had seven goes at 'transmission Tuesday' where we've tried to get an inquiry on the transmission lines, where they're going and particularly the impact on communities and fatherland that will be overtaken by these powerlines going through their land, so devaluing properties. We also know that there will be significant Indigenous cultural heritage sites that will be impacted and that those opposite have absolutely no regard for those people. They were supposedly proponents for an Indigenous voice to parliament, but they're not proponents for an Indigenous voice on our cultural heritage sites when it comes to transmission lines.

The Greens have also opposed our 'transmission Tuesday' inquiry. How much can a koala bear? Well, we know a koala bear can't handle a transmission line through its habitat. They cannot handle transmission lines going straight through koala habitats. I feel like this is a theme today, but we know about the only chlamydia-free koala habitat—don't worry about that. There will be transmission lines straight through the middle of it. 'Don't worry about an STD, we will get rid of you with a transmission line. You're chlamydia free, but you won't be alive for much longer anyway, thanks to the transmission lines that this government is determined to ram through, across and over every single community it can find—but, of course, only those in rural and regional Australia, because it wouldn't dare elsewhere.'

The nimbys all want the renewable energy, but they say, 'Don't, please, put a battery in my back yard.' We've seen that in the teal seats. In Waverley and in North Sydney they say, 'No, we can't have a battery covered in Indigenous art in a park out of the way, out of sight.' They all went teal because they're climate people. They're all so concerned about climate change, but they say, 'Please don't upset the amenity of my suburb with anything so abhorrent as one battery,' let alone what the poor people in rural and regional Australia are going to have to go through with eyesores of transmission lines going right through their communities and farms and contributing to bushfire issues. Senator Van talked about it, and I know he's very well aware through his inquiry work of the danger that transmission lines pose when it comes to bushfires. We're headed into a really hot summer. Everyone is saying it. It's going to be really hot. No-one will be able to afford, with the power bills, to put their aircon on. We know that we're going to face more issues when it comes to transmission lines, blackouts and bushfires. But, again, the bushfires don't really impact those who live in Potts Point, Claremont or, perhaps, Glenelg. They don't upset them. Bushfires don't affect them. Sometimes it gets a bit smoggy. The air is not great as the bushfire comes over. The air quality can decline, but it's not your home or earning capacity that's in the firing line; it's the farmers'. It's those in rural regional Australia who are directly impacted by these threats.

Senator Van, I would like to thank you for bringing this motion to us. We now enter 'transmission Thursday'. Maybe this will become a regular thing. It should become a regular thing, because I can guarantee—for all those who are excited—that 'transmission Tuesday' will be coming back. The T-shirts are on order: transmission Tuesday. We might have to update it. We might get a little TT. We'll get a nice logo made—'TT'—so we can run them out for transmission Thursday as well. We would get a double usage. Look at us recycling. We're so conscious on this side of making sure we get maximum value with a 'TT' on our T-shirts or our buttons for transmission Tuesday and transmission Thursday.

I note, Senator Van, that in your comments—through you, Acting Deputy President—you talked about how, as an Independent, you could talk about issues without necessarily having to put a political lens over them. I hope, as an Independent, Senator Van, you may have more luck working with your fellow crossbencher Senator Pocock and with your fellow crossbenchers who sit on my far left, in more ways than one. Perhaps you can work with them. Maybe you can even convince the Labor Party, because they're probably going to want your vote on a few things. Maybe you can have a little word with them and say, 'We'd really like an inquiry into these transmission lines.'

I'm really concerned about what's happening with these transmission lines powering through communities and upsetting rural and regional communities all across this nation—all except for WA. I'm sorry, Senator Smith; in WA you have your own thing going on over there. But all the states on the eastern seaboard are going be impacted by these transmission lines. You are right when you say the $100 billion—which I think is probably an undersell of the figure—is for transmission lines over the top of the land, when we know that, if they were underground, it would be much safer from a bushfire perspective, would look prettier and might not upset as much arable farmland. But the $100 billion, which is a lowball figure, is only delivering transmission lines. It's not delivering, as you say, any storage. It's not generating anything. So think about all the costs that are going to be required to actually generate the power that's got to go on these new transmission lines. No-one's thinking about that. No-one's talking about any of those sorts of things.

Senator Van, I do wish you luck as an Independent who doesn't need to put a political lens over things and whose vote every now and then will be required or requested from a certain side of the chamber. Perhaps you, with all of your powers of persuasion and negotiation skills and your keen understanding of what the energy needs of this country are and how the energy sector works—I note Senator Van has a history of working in the sector, unlike, probably, what many sitting on the other side would have ever experienced, let alone being on a farm or working in a business.

In fact, I was interested to learn the other day that Senator Chisholm apparently worked for Santos. I'm sure it was a union delegate role, but he did work for a company that has a bottom line and a board and doesn't just recycle union reps. So there is one person that sits opposite that's actually worked for a business that's concerned about generating a profit, and it was in the energy space, so perhaps Senator Chisholm could speak to his mates, too. But, Senator Van, I wish you all the luck in trying to get some inquiries, movements and acknowledgement that Australian communities, particularly those in rural and regional areas, deserve to be listened to, to be heard and to hear their concerns raised. Social licence doesn't exist for this program, and it is about time that this government put its big-boy pants on, went out, spoke to these communities and heard what they had to say.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For the most part, I support Senator Van's motion. From the outset, I want to talk about part (b) of Senator Van's motion, which says that he acknowledges and supports the intent of the Rewiring the Nation policy. We're a bit reluctant to be so enthusiastic about the intent, because we do think that the Rewiring the Nation program puts the cart before the horse. In part (d) of Senator Van's motion, he expresses dismay that this policy may represent an attempt to rectify past investment errors rather than having a forward-thinking strategy. Time and time again, we see that this government does policy first, without looking at how it will be implemented, what the flow-on impacts will be and what the impact on potential investment will be. It's all about the announcements and less about the actual impact.

My colleague Senator Hughes spoke about the bushfire risk of transmission lines. We can't all run around with fire hydrants in the bush. We're too far away. It is a significant risk. The other risk that is often not considered is the insurability of our landscape. I am already hearing from farmers who've had their little, black, waterproof envelope stuck to their farm gate, saying: 'You lucky person! You've won the transmission line lottery. Your property is under a route for a transmission line. We will be in touch to talk.' Those farmers are then also getting phone calls from their insurance companies. Yes—you've won the double lottery, because, if a transmission line goes through your property, your property will not be able to be insured against bushfires. All the farmers that will be under transmission lines won't be able to have bushfire insurance for their farms, pastures, crops—if indeed they can crop—woolsheds and family homes. That is a massive risk.

In a nation like Australia—with my emergency management hat on—insurability is a major issue that I know this government is looking into. This government has set up the Hazards Insurance Partnership program specifically to look into how to mitigate risk and reduce pressures on insurance premiums. At the same time, the Rewiring the Nation program doesn't even consider the flow-on impact those projects will have on insurability. It's similar for people who are next to solar farms. They've also got similar risks. It is a significant risk. The other issue with transmission lines is this. I live in an irrigation area, which is smack-bang underneath the VNI West project, which is to connect a renewable energy zone near Coleambally—an irrigation area—to Kerang in north-west Victoria. This particular project goes directly across an intensive irrigation farming area.

For those who don't really know about irrigation farming, when we're talking broadacre cropping, when we're talking the staples that feed the world, that people turn to for food aid programs and the likes, when we're talking wheat, oats, barley, rice, canola—those beautiful yellow flowers that all the tourists come out to take their photos with—a lot of that work is done using aerial agricultural assistance. You fly on your fertiliser using aerial ag pilots—brave aerial ag pilots I might add. But they're not so brave that they want to dodge transmission lines, I can tell you. And, even if they were, they're not allowed to. There is a 120-metre exclusion zone each way around transmission lines for aerial activity, be it drones going out to check the cattle water on board rangeland or ag pilots flying on urea or other inputs for maximum cropping potential. That's 120 metres each way. That's a 240-metre exclusion zone across the length of the transmission lines. That is going to put a big gap in how we operate and manage our agricultural production in this area.

There isn't an easy alternative. People say, 'Just get the tractor out and put the fertiliser on with the tractor.' Well, I don't know how easy it is to drive a tractor through a flooded rice bay. I'm pretty sure it would get bogged. It doesn't matter how good the tractor is. And we can't just stop growing rise because our rice in this country feeds 50 million people around the world in a good year. We export our rice around the world. If we didn't export our rice around the world, someone else would have to produce it, and I can guarantee you the quality of the production systems, the labour force protections, the chemical protections wouldn't be there. There is a reason why Australia has such a good reputation as an agricultural production country, and it is because we've got very high-class quality controls—chemical usage controls, fertiliser usage controls and labour controls. We don't use child labour. We have water quality controls to make sure that the water we're putting on our crops is of a decent quality and also to make sure the water we're taking off our crops doesn't get back, as a contaminated water supply, into our river system. If you run hundreds of kilometres of transmission lines through our high-quality agricultural production zones, you will have an impact on our productivity and on how we produce.

But it isn't just agriculture that will be impacted. These transmission lines, this rewiring the nation, will impact state forests, and our koalas love our state forests. But apparently it's okay! We'll just bulldoze a swathe of land—because you've got to have cleared land—through state forests at the expense of the koala habitat! It will also impact our national parks. There are some transmission lines going through national parks and above historic homesteads and villages. These are all under threat.

I particularly commend Senator Van's acknowledgement of the lack of social licence. The amazing thing is the small social licence that ever existed with these projects is diminishing by the day. If we had our transmission Tuesday inquiry, perhaps, by having that forensic look, we could actually work on turning that around. But, because Labor and the Greens steadfastly refuse to give us our inquiry, I have no choice but to support Senator Van.

Ralph Babet (Victoria, United Australia Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Van for his motion and the opportunity to make a contribution on it. We must shine a light on the government's Rewiring the Nation program. That's obvious. It's a program that feels like it was inspired by that ABC show—comedy, documentary, whatever it is—by the name of Utopia.

Perin Davey (NSW, National Party, Shadow Minister for Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Documentary!

Ralph Babet (Victoria, United Australia Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Documentary, I've been told. If you haven't seen that show, it's about a bunch of bureaucrats who are in charge of big building schemes. That's what it is. I don't watch the ABC, and I don't imagine many on this side of the chamber would, and rightly so. It's garbage. I've just been told about the show, guys.

The government has thrown billions of dollars at this Rewiring the Nation program, a program that stinks to high heaven of desperation and seeks to cover up the massive policy failure that is our nation's transition to so-called renewable energy. What is renewable, in the name of God, about renewable energy? What is renewable about solar panels that last 15 to 20 years and then go in landfill, or wind turbines that last about the same and then also end up in landfill? The only thing that is renewable about renewable energy is the cost. That is the only thing that is renewable about it. It is not a good technology.

The Albanese government is, at this very moment, attempting to crisscross the nation with a spider web of powerlines as it attempts to retrofit our energy grid. This project is obviously going to impact farmland and it's going to make power bills unaffordable. You know who's going to suffer? It's the poorest in our country who are going to suffer. The inner city teal voters ain't going to suffer. People in this place here ain't going to suffer. It's just the poorest in our nation.

I call it a vanity project, because—and this is the astonishing part—the whole exercise is wholly unnecessary. We don't need to do it. If the government would just for a moment step back from the cult-like obsession—that's what it is, a cult-like obsession—with renewables and just for a second consider nuclear power, it would be immediately evident that Rewiring the Nation is just not needed. Why? I'll tell you why. Because nuclear power plants can be built in the exact same footprint where we have the coal-fired power stations right now. They'll plug right into the existing transmission line infrastructure and they can start powering the nation straightaway—no need for anything else. Build it, plug it in and we'll be good to go. There will be no spaghetti network of wires needed, no farmland needing to be usurped, no billions spent for the needless duplication of transmission lines. We already have them. They're already there. There will be no need for struggling families to be in mortal fear every time they get that bill from the power company.

Speaking of the bill from the power company, you might know what I'm going to say next: where is my $275, Mr Prime Minister? I still haven't got it. I'm waiting for it. When am I going to get it? The answer is never, because power bills ain't going down. They're only going one way, and that's up, up into the heavens. That's where they're going.

System costs are much lower for nuclear than for wind and for solar. There is no need to build a great deal of infrastructure to use this energy source, for which we have an abundant amount of fuel in South Australia. In contrast, as we've already heard from some other contributions, wind and solar require around $100 billion of additional funding to meet the 2050 net zero targets. We all know how the government works. We all know how bureaucracies work. It's not going to be $100 billion—it's going to be much more than that. Let's be honest. Let's not kid ourselves. It will be much more than that—$100 billion is a pipedream; that's what it is. Future generations will look back at this present government and marvel at the pig-headedness that insisted on torching taxpayer money duplicating transmission lines—not to save the planet, no; there's nothing about this that's saving the planet. What's saving the planet in digging up more minerals? What's saving the planet in putting in more transmission lines? What's saving the planet in solar panels and wind turbines that end up in landfill? That's not saving the planet; that's killing the planet. More pollution is what it is. It's no good.

The whole point of this is ideology. It is not practical at all. The bottom line is that Australian families and businesses are being forced to spend money that we don't have for these transmission lines. We don't have to solve a climate crisis. Why? A climate crisis does not exist. There is nothing here to save. If you had made an argument and you said to me, 'We need to cut back on pollution,' I'd listen to you. If you talked about microplastics in the ocean, if you had talked about run-off from factories and things like that going into estuaries and creeks, if you had said, 'We need to make companies responsible for the real pollution that they produce when they make goods and services,' I'd be on board for that. But if you tell me that CO2, a colourless, odourless gas that we need as the very foundation, the building block, for life, is somehow a pollutant, you're just mad. That's what you are—you're mad. This whole thing about 'the science is settled'—I tell you what: science is never settled. That's just absolute garbage. In conclusion, I'd like to say we need to look at nuclear energy. It is the best way forward—better yet, more coal and more gas.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Babet. You've touched on many good issues there. I too support this motion in relation to Rewiring the Nation, because at the end of the day what will start off as a $100 billion investment will end up as much more than that. That figure has been quoted quite a few times. It was first quoted a few years ago, so it would already be considerably more than what is quoted here. I'm glad we've got Senator McAllister here. I asked her in estimates how they are tracking the cost of transmission lines up until 2030 and how many kilometres of transmission lines are needed by 2030. Of course, we can never get a straight answer to any of this sort of question. We know that renewables not only destroy the environment, whether it's our biodiversity et cetera; they are also going to destroy our economy. We have touched on this many times this afternoon and previously in the chamber.

I will take up Senator Babet's comment that the science isn't settled. I actually think the science has been settled for quite a while, and it's actually called the ideal gas law. CO2 is a gas, and one of the things that really annoys me about this argument is that it's about the greenhouse effect into climate change. The problem of climate change is that that's an immeasurable KPI. You can't actually measure climate change. It states the obvious, because at the end of the day you're often asked, 'Do you believe in climate change?' Guess what? Climate change isn't a religion. It's not something you believe in. It's something you understand. I think we all agree that the Earth spins on its axis every 24 hours, rotates around the sun every 365 days and has a slight tilt because of the gravitational pull from the moon, which gives us our seasons. Kepler and Tycho Brahe in the late 1600s and early 1700s came up with the fact that the Earth travels in an ellipsis. All of these factors will contribute to a change in the climate. That's not the issue. The point is whether or not you want to believe that CO2 actually traps heat. That was the initial argument—that somehow suddenly CO2 traps heat. That's an oxymoronic statement, because heat is kinetic energy. It is the energy of motion. If it were true that CO2 were to trap heat, as these people say, then the actual temperature would drop, because temperature is a measure of mean molecular momentum. The slower the molecules move, the colder it gets. Yet again, the logic is completely flawed. But not only that; they love to say that nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to radiation as it bounces off the Earth. Well, guess what. CO2 is pretty much transparent to radiation and bounces off the Earth as well except in a couple of frequencies.

All molecules have what's known as a spectral fingerprint, and you tell how many spectral fingerprints a molecule will have. You take the number of atoms in a molecule and, if it's a linear molecule, you'll multiply by three and subtract six. If it's a non-linear molecule, you'll multiply by three and subtract five. CO2 has three atoms. Multiply it by three. It's a nonlinear molecule because you've got your carbon and two oxygens, which make it triangular in shape, so you get four spectral fingerprints. They are what's known as a vibrational frequency. It's very similar to something like surfing a wave: if you want to actually catch a wave, you've got to paddle onto the wave and be travelling in the right direction and at about the same speed to get on the wave.

It works the same way for carbon dioxide, but here's the rub: one of the vibrational frequencies at which CO2 absorbs photons that come from the Sun is actually at the 2.8 micron phase. Of course, 2.8 microns is incoming radiation. For some particular reason, these people who have come with this greenhouse gas effect theory seem to want to ignore the fact—and the head of the CSIRO has admitted this to me in estimates—that CO2 absorbs radiation at 2.8 microns. Now, it is true that it also absorbs photons on the way out at 14.8 microns. The four vibrational frequencies, just so you know, are 2.8 microns, 4.2 microns and then two vibrational frequencies at 14.8. That matters because we know from Planck's equation, E=hv, that effectively the incoming radiation that CO2 absorbs is actually five times stronger than the outgoing photons it absorbs. Of course, they never take that into account in their calculations, just like how, when it comes to the net zero modelling, they don't take into account the impact of phytoplankton, which is kind of crazy given that that absorbs 70 per cent of the world's CO2 anyway. But that is something that is completely overlooked.

Of course, the other thing that is completely overlooked is Albert Einstein's paper that he did in 1917, 'On the quantum theory of radiation'. On page 14 he says the Maxwellian effect can be ignored. James Clerk Maxwell was a brilliant Scottish physicist who determined in the mid-19th century that electricity, light and magnetism were basically different manifestations of the same phenomenon. This matters. Einstein went on to say in his paper in 1917, on page 14, that radiation is so insignificant with regard to the other properties that it effectively drops out. Those other properties, of course, are convection and conduction.

That's a very important point to make, and we know this because we see this every day: this thing called the wind. That's convection. That follows the second law of thermodynamics, which says the entropy of a system must always increase. That means that it is constantly taking heat and lifting it up into the atmosphere. If you actually go look at the height of the troposphere, you will see—at the equator it is 16 kilometres high, and at the poles it's about six kilometres high. What does that mean? It means that heat is carried up and taken out to space at the equator. Interestingly enough, if you look at the maximum and minimum temperatures of locations around the globe—I will use Singapore for an example. The maximum temperature in Singapore is about 32. I'm talking the record maximum temperature. That is actually much lower than, for example, somewhere in the middle of Australia, where it's very dry and the maximum temperature can hit up to 50 degrees. Why is that? It is because the molecules and greenhouse effect—or what these people refer to—doesn't actually exist. It cools. When I say 'cools', I mean it works both ways. It reduces the volatility between maximum and minimum temperatures. I want to call out these models, because, if we look at the energy budget given to me by the CSIRO, they claim that the downwelling radiation from CO2 is 342 watts per square metre. Yet the amount of energy that comes from the sun is 161 watts per square metre. It is absolutely absurd to think that CO2 has twice the energy of the radiation from the sun.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted and, following the hours motion agreed to earlier, we will now return to the debate on the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Bill 2023.