Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation GenCost 2023-24 report be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 October 2024, to explore assumptions and costings made in the report, including but not limited to:

a. asset lifecycles;

b. capacity factors;

c. energy type costings;

d. financing costs;

e. fuel costs;

f. augmentation requirements of transmission systems;

g. data standards techniques; and

h. other related matters.

This motion and this potential inquiry present a very genuine and specific test for the government. The GenCost report prepared by our revered organisation the CSIRO is being used extensively as part of the government's rationale in relation to its overall energy plan and, of course, has implications for the work that the opposition is doing in presenting its alternative plan.

There are a number of pieces of commentary, and I have taken the opportunity to read a number of those, particularly the assumptions that are made in the GenCost report and the impact that those assumptions and those costings have on the broader debate. I think it's quite reasonable that, given the weight that this document is being provided in the current national debate in respect of where we go in the balance in our energy system, the Senate Economics References Committee has the opportunity to consider and test a number of those assumptions and costings. We know that the GenCost report is not science, as has been touted, but a statistical data-gathering exercise and financial modelling. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no criticism in that. But, as a part of that process, there are assumptions that are made. Some of those assumptions have been questioned by experts in the energy field. This is an opportunity for this place to ask those experts to come forward and put their rationale for the reasons that they might question the assumptions that are in the GenCost report and then test those with the CSIRO.

The one thing that we do want—and I don't think that any of us could dispute it—is to provide to the Australian community the most reliable and low-cost energy mix and system that we can possibly achieve. This is about a system. It is about the energy mix that is delivered to the Australian people. So I think it's more than reasonable that some of the assumptions that are made by the GenCost report are appropriately tested. If the questions that are asked by that process mean that we end up with a better report next year, good on them.

For example, with respect to nuclear—and I'm not just going to talk about nuclear in this discussion because GenCost covers a range of energy types—the GenCost report includes financing costs for small modular reactors but does not include them for renewables. Yet GenCost report purports to calculate the cost of different energy technologies from the perspective of an investor. GenCost also only uses one data point to price SMRs, and in doing so has chosen a project by a start-up that's fallen over due to cost. It doesn't cost other elements in relation to nuclear either.

GenCost assumes coal and gas plants built in 2023 will always face Ukraine War induced fuel price spikes. We know that's not going to be the case. We know there are debates and argument over the volume of gas available in the market. The coalition has been arguing that there should be more gas in the market—and I think the government has finally coming to that realisation—because supply and demand are impacting on price and cost. There needs to be the appropriate supply of gas in the market to ensure that we have an effective, reliable and cost-effective electricity system. The government talks about it's Made in Australia campaign, but none of that will happen unless we have affordable, globally competitive energy prices. It just won't happen.

I recall looking at global energy prices back in 2004, and we had the third or fourth cheapest energy prices in the world. We now have some of the highest. When we look at why our energy companies aren't competitive, there is a prime reason. All of us should be doing what we can to ensure that our energy system is as reliable and cost-effective as possible because it's not productive to have large industry having to shut down because there's not enough energy in the system. It's just not viable to do that. An investment won't come here if that's the problem. We just cannot be putting ourselves in the situation where our energy system isn't reliable for industry or they won't invest.

One of the other things that GenCost doesn't do—and this goes to the point I make around total system costs—is that the CSIRO has confirmed they do not factor in augmentation of the distribution system to accommodate widespread rooftop solar and behind-the-metre storage. Australia has the highest concentration of rooftop solar in the world, but there is a cost for putting that energy back into the system. While we're using GenCost and the assumptions made in that to cost our system and as the core of our argument, it may be that we are better to move to a systems based costing mechanism for our discussion around energy. That's not where we're at right now. Where we are out right now is that the CSIRO's GenCost report forms the centrepiece of our energy system.

There have been a number of conversations, and I think for a period of time nuclear wasn't considered as part of GenCost because it wasn't mature or tested or—particularly SMRs—available technology. But if we look at where we sit with, for example, hydrogen—and we've had the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy out there saying that coal-fired power stations could be replaced with hydrogen-fuelled power stations—that technology is nowhere near where it needs to be for intense industrial energy utilisation. There's no-one in Australia producing hydrogen for less than $10 a kilogram right now. It needs to be $2 to be competitive. Either we have to develop the technology to get the price down to $2 a kilogram or we're being told that the price of generating energy has to increase to the extent where $10, or perhaps $7 or $8, becomes competitive. That's taking things in exactly the opposite direction to where we want them to go.

We want the most reliable and cost-effective energy system that we can possibly have, and I think it's quite reasonable that we, as a parliament, test the assumptions and the costings that have been included by CSIRO in their GenCost report. A number of them are openly disputed, including even using the levelised cost of electricity as a mechanism within the report. As I said before, there are some economists out there who say that we should be costing what we're doing on a system cost basis rather than on individual elements of the system. Quite frankly, an overall system cost would be much better, because it would take into account the actual variations, fluctuations and demands of the overall system to make it operate in a way that we think should be appropriate.

I think whether the government is prepared to support this reference or not is a test for them. Are they up for a genuine debate in respect of the energy future of this country, or are they stuck in their own paradigm where they just trot out the memes, yell at us across the chamber and make extraordinary claims about what might happen with the utilisation of nuclear energy? Are they prepared to participate with the rest of the chamber in a rational debate in looking at this report, what it contains and the information it provides to the Australian people?

I was really disappointed when the CSIRO refused to engage with shadow minister Ted O'Brien in relation to some of the assumptions in the report. I feel it would have been a mature thing for them to receive his request, consider it, engage in a conversation and perhaps even provide a rationale as to why they'd chosen the assumptions that they made. Instead, they just said no. I think that's disappointing. This report is being presented to us as science. Genuine science and scientists are very happy to engage in that sort of exchange, because that's how the science improves: a question gets asked, an assumption is challenged, the challenge is explored, and the science progresses. But that's not the way that we've been treated as part of this debate. We're told: 'This is the document. This is it.' I think it would behove everyone if a much more mature discussion could be held, and I'm proposing that this is the vehicle to do it.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support this motion. This motion is another blatant attempt by the Liberal and National parties to politicise science and reignite the climate wars. We do not believe a committee of politicians is better placed than experts from Australia's independent national science agency to form a view on scientific conclusions. There have been several opportunities at Senate estimates for senators to examine the GenCost report and ask questions of the CSIRO. We believe that is the most appropriate forum in which to consider this important piece of work.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am glad the minister made that last comment, because as somebody with a background in science and a qualification in science, and as a former experimental test pilot in the military—in fact, having commanded Australia's flight test centre and worked in a systems engineering environment where we were very much based on facts, data and engineering, but with a good dose of modelling in there as well—I'm actually very familiar with the sort of approach that the CSIRO has taken. As the minister indicated, we do have things like Senate estimates, and I did take the opportunity to go to Senate estimates to speak to the CSIRO about the GenCost report. It may come as a surprise to the minister that, when I asked the head of the CSIRO to speak about the GenCost report, having made it clear to the committee that I intended to appear at those estimates hearings to ask about the GenCost report—therefore, the expectation is that the agencies that are being quizzed will bring the appropriate officials in order to be able to answer detailed questions at estimates—I was told that the appropriate officials were not there, and the only responses that I got to some reasonably detailed questions were very generic. So, contrary to what the minister has indicated, estimates actually proved completely useless in terms of interrogating the CSIRO over the GenCost report. I can't speak to the motivation of CSIRO in not bringing those officials, but what it meant was that members of the Senate, on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia, were not able to scrutinise them in any detail.

If we took the minister's contention that he just outlined then and applied it more broadly, there would be no point in having committees of the parliament at all. In matters to do with health, for example, we might ask the AMA to draft our policy and scrutinise it. In matters to do with defence, we would rely on the defence department and perhaps defence industry, and there would be no point in having any scrutiny on behalf of the Australian taxpayer. Yet the minister knows full well, because he has been a member of committees in this place, that the whole function of committees and the Senate committee process—getting a range of witnesses who are stakeholders affected by policy or who are subject matter experts who understand the technical details, whether in health, in economics or in defence; you name it—is so that we can unpack and understand what is behind a policy or a piece of evidence.

The last point I'll make on this, since the minister has so kindly given me this introductory runway to approach this issue, relates to the 2019 House of Representatives inquiry into the possibility of a nuclear power industry. This is going back to the 2018 GenCost report. I will look at the Hansard records from that, from Wednesday 16 October 2019. I respect the CSIRO, as somebody who has a science degree; I respect the whole discipline of science, which is observation, measurement and proof. But when the CSIRO were quizzed in this parliamentary inquiry about the GenCost report—and I'll paraphrase here, but those of you who would like to read it can pull up the Hansard from Wednesday 16 October 2019 for the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy—essentially the narrative went like this: CSIRO said, 'We don't have any expertise in electricity generation by nuclear energy,' so the committee asked, 'Well, where did you get the figures that you used in your report, then?' They said, 'Well, we contracted an external consultant to provide those figures for us.' If you look through the Hansard you'll see the committee met on a sequence of days. Why did they do that? Because, as each piece of evidence unfolded, they dug a bit deeper.

They had that consultant come in and they said, 'Describe for us where you got the information from.' What the consultant said was, 'Well, we don't have any expertise in nuclear power generation, so we went to the website of the World Nuclear Association to find information.' The following day there was another hearing, this time with a representative from the World Nuclear Association, and the committee asked them, 'Did you have this figure on your website?' They said, 'No, we didn't have it on our website, and, more to the point, we think it is grossly inflated and unrepresentative of what the true costs would be.' To the CSIRO's great credit, they took all that on board, and I think they have been far more robust in how they've approached it since. But, to directly address the minister's point, the benefit of a committee process with a range of witnesses that were able to challenge the assumptions that have been made was that it highlighted that the 2018 GenCost report was not based on any robust analysis of the facts of the cost of electricity generation, let alone any analysis of the likely price to the consumer.

I will leave that there, but I'm hoping that that completely debunks the minister's assertion that there is no value in a parliamentary inquiry. Estimates has not worked—and he proposed it would—and a parliamentary committee did highlight that, in this particular domain, the CSIRO did not have expertise in the paths they went down and that they delivered figures that were proved, on the public record, to not be robust. Why do I support this? Partly it's because I believe in that committee process, but it's also partly that, as someone who has worked in an engineering environment using modelling and as someone who has a qualification in science, I recognise that the GenCost report is largely a modelling activity, as opposed to science. If you search the PDF of the latest GenCost report, the word 'assumption' appears some 54 times, and, like in most modelling, they've had to make assumptions. There are a range of assumptions in GenCost that the CSIRO themselves identify as not necessarily representative of the complete suite of factors to be considered.

I have some empathy for them; it's a complex problem, but there are a few things that the Australian public need to be aware of. When Mr Bowen and others cite this as the be-all and end-all—the gospel according to the CSIRO that shall not be challenged—it needs to be said that it is a modelling exercise with assumptions based on an incomplete set of data. There are other expert bodies in Australia and around the world who have also done modelling and come up with quite different answers to the same questions. That's why we should give the Australian people the opportunity to have different experts in the field address their modelling, their assumptions and, more importantly, their lived experience so that the Australian people can decide whether this is something that we should be moving towards.

The first point is that this modelling is not designed to understand the most effective way to get cheap and reliable electricity to the Australian consumer, whether that be mum and dad at home, a small business or an industrial sector that will probably go offshore if the power prices continue to increase. In paragraph 1.1.1 of the latest GenCost report, which describes the roles the CSIRO and AEMO had in the report, it says 'to provide an update of current electricity generation and storage cost'. It's not about highlighting the cheapest way to get electricity. That paragraph also talks about the levelised cost of electricity, which is all about the factors affecting the cost to generation, as opposed to the full system's costs.

The third point I would make is that they highlight, in paragraph 1.2 on page 16 of the GenCost report:

As discussed in Graham (2018) it is not possible to undertake spreadsheet type modelling to create a transparent but accurate estimate of the cost of integrating renewables.

This is one of the significant factors that affect the analysis of whether a renewables based approach can be comparable in terms of delivering reliability and low cost to the consumer versus baseload type approaches, whether that be high-flow rivers providing hydro or things like nuclear power. So they're saying here that they can't provide a transparent and accurate estimate costs of integrating renewables. The report states:

If it were, this would have been the preferred method of implementation in GenCost.

Again, they quote Graham:

Graham (2018) concluded an electricity system modelling approach must be applied, where the details of the calculations are written in code that call on proprietary optimisation algorithms which unfortunately results in a loss of transparency.

I'm not saying that the CSIRO is in any way being malign in how they're approaching this, but their chosen vendor, their chosen model, their chosen algorithms and their chosen assumptions are but one set that feeds into a model that gives an outcome of cost degeneration.

Other equally expert bodies—and I'm talking here about bodies like the International Energy Agency, the OECD, or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and their subsidiary, the NEA, the Nuclear Energy Agency—have worked together over a number of years to model not the cost to generate but the cost to the consumer. In terms of that simple measure, the levelised cost of electricity, which even GenCost recognises is not a suitable cost for this analysis and comparison, the OECD report that came out in April 2022 looks at a systems-wide approach and demonstrates very clearly that what they call 'long-run nuclear power', even on a levelised cost of electricity basis, is the cheapest form of electricity. If you run a plant for a long time, it becomes, over the life of that asset, the cheapest way to generate power. They also highlight in that analysis that even new-build nuclear is on a par with grid-scale renewables but is cheaper than others. For example, it's actually cheaper than rooftop or offshore wind et cetera.

If people who are interested look at pages 35 to 37 of that OECD report, they then break down the elements into the generating costs, the systems costs and the broader environmental costs. They highlight that, as we seek to move to curb emissions, we will probably get to 2030 with rising, but not unaffordable, power prices. But, if we seek to get to net zero by 2050 just using variable renewables with firming by things like batteries, as more coal and gas comes out of the system in order to achieve net zero, prices will go up exponentially, and their conclusion is that it is unaffordable. This is not the coalition saying that. This is the OECD and the International Energy Agency. That is why people like the IPCC are saying we need to have nuclear power as part of the mix, and that's why so many nations around the world are looking to double or triple the amount of nuclear power generation they have.

So another point I'd make is that, despite the government's claim that nuclear is the most expensive form of energy, the lived experience of people in countries like Canada says otherwise. If you look at some of the information coming out of Canada, you can see that nuclear is even cheaper than hydro and is certainly cheaper than gas, wind, solar and bioenergy, in terms of how the Energy Board in Ontario manages things. That's partly because of the broader costs that variable renewables have in terms of the additional infrastructure.

My last point will be around the Net Zero Australia project done by three universities and a consultancy, which highlighted that the cost of all the additional transmission and firming as well as new generation is going to cost us in the order of $1.2 to $1.5 trillion by 2030, and $7 to $9 trillion by 2060. The nuclear option is actually far cheaper than the variable path the Albanese government has us on.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yesterday in question time I asked the minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Senator Wong a simple question: exactly how many wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and kilometres of transmission lines were built last month? You'd think that, as the cornerstone of the Labor Party's policy in government, the answer would be obvious and clear and given to me straightaway. To her credit—and I have a lot of regard for Senator Wong's capability and think she's one of the most capable senators in parliament—she said, 'I don't know.' It's the key policy for the Labor government, and they're flying blind.

Here's what I told her in the second question. 'Minister, the government's own figures to meet your net zero target show that over the next eight years you need to install and connect more than 40 wind turbines per month, 22,000 solar panels a day, 48 gigawatt hours of batteries and 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines. I pointed out to her that the government is building nothing like that.

The government's wind and solar pipedream is going to be a nightmare. We are being driven off a cliff by the energy minister, Chris Bowen—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Roberts. Remember to use the correct title.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Bowen. This is a gargantuan task. This has been labelled by some people as the biggest transition since the start of the Industrial Revolution. It's fundamental because energy has primacy in our society. Labor cannot tell us the cost of this transition of dumping affordable, lowest cost, reliable, stable and secure energy independent of nature's vagaries and transitioning to an unreliable, high cost, unstable energy that is weather dependent and not secure. This is madness. But to do it without any costing is doubly mad.

Think about it. We are giving parasitic billionaires and major corporations from around the world—many of them from China—subsidies for installing solar and wind. Those subsidies drive up the cost of electricity, and then we ship our manufacturing to China. China wins in two ways. We have got a National Electricity Market forcing out coal with unfavourable regulations—just driving coal out by making it impossible to feed the market. But it's not a market; it's a so-called market that bureaucrats control. It's a national electricity racket that was introduced by John Howard's coalition government.

While they're driving out coal and subsidising solar and wind, they now admit they need to keep Eraring Power Station open. They were going to shut it. They're now offering subsidies to the owners and operators of Eraring to keep it open, so we're subsidising them to shut it and we're subsidising them to open it and then we're giving $275 relief in power prices to consumers across Australia. Why? Because the energy policy has failed.

By the way, I need to mention that on the night of the incoming Minns government, the new energy minister said that they would have to look at the closure of Eraring. She was laying a signal there—a hint—that they'd keep it open. That's exactly what they must do because they're terrified. The Australian Energy Market Operator has identified severe blackouts around December this year.

The No. 1 factor that has driven our standard of living for the last 170 years since the start of the industrial revolution has been relentless reduction in energy prices, the unit cost of energy. It's been a relentless reduction in the real cost of energy. That was until John Howard's government introduced the renewable energy target and other measures, and since then it has relentlessly increased. Australia has gone from having the cheapest coal and the cheapest electricity prices, thanks to our wonderful coal assets—high-quality, clean coal—to now having amongst the most expensive electricity.

So let's have a look at the terms of reference for the inquiry that Senator Colbeck has proposed. I thank Senator Colbeck for his motion. It says:

That the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation GenCost 2023-24 report be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report … to explore assumptions and costings made in the report, including but not limited to—

the CSIRO has been criticised for every one of these things I'm about to read out—

a. asset lifecycles;

b. capacity factors;

c. energy type costings;

d. financing costs;

e. fuel costs;

f. augmentation requirements of transmission systems;

g. data standards techniques; and

h. other related matters.

CSIRO has been belted by experts on every one of these. We badly need this inquiry. These are the fundamentals of the biggest transition since the industrial revolution.

CSIRO used to be a highly respected organisation. It was internationally respected. It has now come to mean 'corrupted science is really obvious'. It lost its way distorting and omitting science to fabricate support for the UN's climate fraud. The CSIRO has never presented the basis of science which is empirical scientific data—measurements and observations—within logical scientific points that prove cause and effect. The CSIRO has been integral in working with the UN climate change body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in pushing distortions of science.

I have had three meetings with the CSIRO at 2½ hours each and, under cross-examination, it has admitted that it has never said that there has been any danger due to human carbon dioxide. It has admitted that, even though climate change was based initially on global warming claims, temperatures are not unprecedented. It has claimed the rate of temperature change is unprecedented, but the rate of temperature change is almost negligible since 1995. It's almost flat. That's according to NASA's scientific satellite measuring temperatures. The CSIRO gave us not one solid paper to back up its claims. What it did give us was two papers we tore to shreds. Then they gave us another two, and we tore them to shreds. There are 24,000 datasets that I have access to that have been scraped from sites all over the world, including CSIRO's and BOM's case studies, and there is not one that shows any change in any climate factor—not one. It's just inherent natural variation with cycles superimposed. Not only that but the CSIRO has never provided bases for policy and neither has any department or the alphabet soup of energy agencies. They have all failed to answer my question: what's the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate, on any aspect of climate or on any factor of climate? What is the quantified specific effect per unit of carbon dioxide from human activity? Ocean heat content, air temperatures, ocean temperatures, storm frequency, severity and duration—not one of them can give me any answers on those at all. That is the basis for policy. Without that, you cannot understand or evaluate the options for reducing human carbon dioxide, you cannot track the progress of the measures and you cannot cost the alternatives. This is flying blind over a cliff. Electricity prices in every country with significant solar and wind have increased dramatically. Labor is simply continuing the policy that John Howard started, Tony Abbott continued, Malcolm Turnbull accelerated, Scott Morrison continued and Peter Dutton now propagates by confirming net zero.

Let's turn specifically to the CSIRO report, GenCost. CSIRO used to be a respected scientific organisation, advancing our country's technology. I refer to Senator Fawcett's speech a minute ago. Now the CSIRO is a blatantly political organisation. It's more interested in pushing the agenda of the government than in providing impartial, evidence-based research. Ideology is infecting most of CSIRO's work like a virus. The GenCost report is shocking evidence of just how biased this once-respected institution has become. The methodology used in GenCost is so flawed that there are multiple hours of podcast series explaining all of its deficiencies, and I give a compliment Aidan Morrison for some of his work.

Let's start with the cost of wind and solar. Many people, including some politicians, think GenCost says what it costs for wind and solar to deliver a kilowatt of power today. It doesn't! It fundamentally doesn't tell us the cost. GenCost imagines some fairytale dreamtime half-a-dozen years in the future and projects what they think wind and solar will cost, with no accurate, solid assumptions underpinning that. CSIRO even admits that this prediction they come up with is not the actual cost, but this is what policy relies on. CSIRO completely excludes the cost of every single power project up until 2030. They're free! They're free, according to this mob.

Just look at the tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission projects assumed to be free: EnergyConnect, $2.3 billion; Marinus Link, $3 billion. All are assumed to be free. Free, free, free! Santa Claus is giving them to us! There's Central-West Orana, $3.2 billion, and HumeLink, $5 billion. It doesn't sound like much when you rattle off a billion, does it! There are dozens more major projects.

Let's look at the pumped hydro that's assumed to be free. There's Snowy 2.0, $12 billion plus and counting. That's not included. There's the Battery of the Nation in Tasmania, our biggest island. That's $3 billion. It's not included. There's the Borumba pump hydro, $14 billion. It's not included. There's the Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro, $12 billion. It's not included. The list goes on and on and on. Tens of billions of dollars is excluded from the cost of wind and solar, but we'll all pay for it—some people with their jobs when they're shipped off overseas, some people for whom the cost of living will drive these out of reach.

Almost all of these projects, especially the pump hydro, are only being planned because of wind and solar, yet CSIRO excludes them from the cost of wind and solar completely. It's like saying a Ferrari is the cheapest car you can buy, as long as you take out the cost of the sunroof, the air conditioning, the wheels, the gearbox and the engine.

Then there are their calculations on the cost of coal. They added an extra five per cent cost to the finance figures with no basis whatsoever. CSIRO just says, 'Well, no-one likes coal anymore,' and, whack, a completely unfounded hurdle is added on top. Then there's the capacity factor. That's the percentage of time the station is running. It has a huge impact on the calculated cost of power, if you assume a billion-dollar power station is running for only half the time it actually is on and can be on. They're destroying the viability of coal with lies.

CSIRO also says:

In 2030, we project forward including all existing state renewable energy targets resulting in a 64% renewable share and 56% variable renewable share …

They just assume that we're going to press ahead with variable renewable energy, regardless of what happens and without any costings. They just assume it's going to go ahead. It doesn't sound like impartial modelling to me, because it's not impartial modelling.

But the people of Australia will pay for this. They will pay for it with their jobs. They will pay for it with their livelihoods. They will pay for it with their family budgets. What sensitivities have been applied for political risk? Policy will almost certainly change and you may have a government elected that ditches false targets. What percentage of chance do they give that? The United Kingdom is abandoning net zero. The Prime Minister has said so. Japan is switching back to coal. It is already using a lot of coal. Germany is scrapping wind turbines to extend coalmines. It is tearing down wind turbines that were installed so that they can mine the coal underneath them. China is producing 4½ billion tonnes of coal. We produce 560 tonnes, and we export most of that overseas, and China is buying coal from us. Indonesia is now the world's largest exporter of coal. India has well over a billion tonnes of coal.

This report, the GenCost report from CSIRO, isn't worth the paper it's written on, yet it's being used to justify one of the largest destructions of our economy in Australia's history. Even if you naively believe we need to run the grid on solar and wind, this GenCost report deserves scrutiny and the Australian people deserve transparency. CSIRO has repeatedly shown it is dishonest on climate and energy. We need an inquiry. In refusing or opposing, the government shows it fears its assumptions will be shown to be flawed. If I'm wrong, CSIRO would be vindicated. So CSIRO, if it had any courage, would stand up and say, 'Bring on the inquiry.' Thank you, Senator Colbeck. We support this motion.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to support this motion moved by Senator Colbeck. I was tempted to stand up and just say that I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Fawcett, because his contribution really summarised where I was going to go as well. I won't delay the chamber any longer than necessary, but I do want to make a couple of remarks backing up, in particular, the line of argument Senator Fawcett put forward.

I'll use a case in point from my own home state of Western Australia, where recently a wind farm project—I'm not sure if you'd describe it as a significant wind farm project—was green-lit even though the cost of that project went from $300 million to $500 million in less than two years. With all due respect to the CSIRO, how are the kinds of inflationary impacts we are currently seeing and the kinds of cost-of-borrowing impacts that we have seen over the period of this Labor government in terms of interest rate increases being factored into their calculations? Capital costs, particularly on these speculative renewable projects, are very significant. When the capital cost of a project goes from $300 million to $500 million in less than two years whilst being green-lit for development, the impact of that on the per-unit generation cost must be extraordinary. How are these things being accounted for? How are the poles and wires being accounted for? How is the storage capacity that is needed in firming up renewables or the additional capacity in things like rapid-on rapid-off gas turbines being factored into this calculation? These are econometric questions. They're questions of how the models are put together.

It is not good enough to say, 'Here is a source of truth, and we are just going to blindly listen to it.' Our role in this place, as Senator Fawcett so eloquently outlined, is to test the assumptions. There's that old expression: junk in, junk out. We have the right in this place to test the assumptions to make sure that the modelling and the estimates of cost that are being put forward are fully inclusive of all the variables that should be considered, including the very important things like how much the poles and wires, the transmission infrastructure, are going to cost and where they are going to go.

That brings me to my second point, and that is the blocking of committee inquiries purely on the grounds of ideology. No-one can argue that this reference from Senator Colbeck is not something that this place should be able to inquire into and should have, in fact, a responsibility to inquire into. But there is now a pattern forming. The ideological imperatives of those on the other side, in alliance with the Greens, are leading them to block inquiries that are perfectly legitimate. We've seen it 10 times in the poles and wires inquiry. Senator Colbeck and Senator Cadell have tried, on at least 10 occasions in this place, to try and get support for that inquiry across the chamber. It's a perfectly reasonable inquiry. It's not just reasonable. I would say that it's something that this chamber, if it's doing its job properly through the committee system, is actually honour bound to investigate. Anyone who thinks for one minute that communities being impacted by these significant rollouts of things like wind farms and the associated transmission lines do not deserve to have their voices heard, fundamentally, doesn't believe in democracy. That is what this place and its committee system is for.

We saw last night—in my opinion, shamefully—the banning of live exports of sheep from Western Australia. Again, Labor and the Greens combined on ideological grounds to block the perfectly reasonable request from those communities across my home state of Western Australia to have an inquiry into a policy that is going to decimate their livelihoods and decimate an entire industry. We saw it with Senator Colbeck and Senator Cadell's poles and wires inquiry and now—well, I could be proven wrong. Perhaps Labor and the Greens will have a 'road to Damascus' moment. They'll sleep on it tonight. I believe we are not able to have further divisions this evening, but maybe tomorrow, they'll wake up and say, 'Yes, actually, it's the job of the Senate to inquire into the difficult issues where there are multiple points of view competing as to what the correct outcome should be.' But I fear this will be yet another inquiry that Labor and the Greens will block for purely ideological reasons. I think that is a great shame. I, for one, and, I know, my colleagues will keep calling out the Labor-Greens alliance, which is too frightened to have the committee system look into some of its ideological pet projects. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.