HANSARD EXTRACT
|
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2006:
Second Reading |
| 20 June 2006 |
Mr HAYES
(Werriwa) (5.47 p.m.)—I
welcome the
Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill
2006. Renewable energy is an increasingly important
source of energy for securing
Australia’s
energy needs. Energy in all its forms is the lifeblood of a modern
economy. It is an essential ingredient in the production of just
about every good and service that you can imagine. Electricity
itself has fast become a consumption good.
I also welcome the second reading amendment
moved by the member for Grayndler. It is important that, in any
debate about the security of
Australia’s
energy future, consideration is given to the impact of energy
consumption on the environment. It is important that both sides of
the energy equation—production of and demand for energy as well as
its environmental impact—are always considered. I will return to
some of these comments a little later.
The bill we have before us today seeks to
introduce a time limit following the renewable energy generation,
during which renewable energy certificates for that generation must
be created. The bill also enhances the market transparency by
allowing for the publication of additional data relating to
renewable energy generation, the baseline allocated to power
stations that were in operation prior to the announcement of
measures and the additional information on the liable parties’
renewable energy certificate shortfalls. Quite frankly, they are
very important. But this bill also provides the opportunity for the
participation of bioenergy and solar energy technologies to access
renewable energy certificates—again I would say a very important
development.
The size of the contribution of renewable
energy production to
Australia’s total electricity supply is relatively low. That stands
to reason, given the abundant supply of coal that we have available
to us in Australia. In fact, in 2004 the bulk of
Australia’s
electricity was generated by burning coal. Black coal production at
that stage was responsible for about two-thirds of Australia’s
electricity demand, and brown coal was responsible for supplying
about a quarter of the country’s electricity demand. Less than one
per cent of Australia’s electricity, according to the Electricity
Supply Association of Australia, was generated from oil or other
sources.
It is disappointing that this bill seeks to
change only the administrative arrangements associated with
renewable energy. It is also disappointing that the government has
acted to gag this debate, because the renewable energy sector
investment that is needed, the benefits that can be achieved and the
difficult issues that need to be considered with climate change and
energy security are not being treated with the level of seriousness
they deserve. I do not know whether it is a product of the
government’s single-mindedness when debating
Australia’s energy future or just some dislike for the renewable
energy sector, but it seems to have some sort of objection to
providing any sort of support for this industry.
One thing is looking reasonably certain when it
comes to the government and debate about
Australia’s energy future: the government is pretty willing to put
all its options in one basket. When the government first announced
the mandatory renewable energy target in 2002, it was set up as a
percentage. In fact, in his second reading speech, Minister Campbell
said:
Electricity retailers and other large electricity buyers will be
legally required to source an additional 2% of their electricity
from renewable or specified waste product energy generation.
From its earliest form, the MRET worked or at least it seemed to
work. The renewable energy sector got off to a flying start.
Investments were made. Not all those who had participated in that
industry did so successfully, but funds were being committed and
investments were being made. For the first time, the MRET at that
stage was target based. It was very clear that the targets had to be
met in terms of generating tradeable certificates, because they were
underpinned and supported by a penalty regime. I have to admit that
it was an innovative policy and, as I understand it, a policy that
was adopted by many other countries. The MRET provided for the entry
of a policy instrument that provided an environmental solution in a
national energy market. That is not an insignificant step, and I am
sure most people would agree. But obviously things change,
particularly the design of the MRET scheme. As I said initially, the
MRET scheme was originally conceived as a market share target, but
it is now more like a gigawatt hour target. As some people have
said, once this happened it became almost a dead target.
A fixed target such as a gigawatt hour target
cannot of itself act to increase the market share of renewable
energy sources accounted for, as all a fixed gigawatt hour target
will allow us to achieve is renewable energy to at least keep pace
with growing energy demands—not exceed them, not to make inroads
into them but to just keep pace. The MRET has enabled further
development in an innovative industry and one that makes a
significant contribution to the Australian economy. I can attest to
that on a personal basis, having worked with a company which was
very dependent on generating energy tradeable certificates in order
to commit funds from their investors to renewable power generation.
Despite the advances in renewable energy
development, this government risks stagnation of the entire
industry.
Australia risks falling behind its global competitors when it comes
to addressing the energy challenges of the future.
Australia
also risks stagnating industry, its capabilities, its technology,
its skills and its intellectual property. Despite getting off to
what I consider to be a good start, when it comes to the renewable
industry sector the government’s failure in energy policy poses a
serious risk not only to the future of the Australian renewable
industry but also to Australia’s energy and electricity future.
It is important that
Australia can stand on its own two feet when it comes to the
production of electricity not only to support our lifestyle but to
support our economy. It is disappointing to see that, with so many
other technologies on offer and so many other options for the
ongoing supply of electricity in Australia, the Prime Minister and
his government are wedded to only one. It is disappointing that the
Prime Minister is wedded to a position whereby he is not prepared to
ratify the Kyoto protocol. He continues to cling to the argument
that meeting those requirements will be damaging to our economy yet,
when he addressed the Asia-Pacific climate pact, he indicated that
Australia can achieve the same outcomes as Kyoto without damaging
the economy. When you consider both approaches, it does not lend
itself to making a great degree of sense. The government cannot work
out whether it is
Arthur or
Martha when it comes to climate change, as long as we have nuclear
power in Australia. A Labor government would provide the leadership
to protect the environment and Australia’s future.
This government is ignoring other technologies
available to us that should be part of a general suite of solutions
to our energy future. Technologies such as geosequestration—the
process of carbon dioxide capture from power generation processes
and storing it underground—is not being taken seriously by this
government.
Australia has huge resources of coal and a huge power-generating
capacity invested in the coal industry.
As I noted at the outset, power generated from
coal accounts for nearly two-thirds of
Australia’s power demands. Geosequestration is already occurring in
other parts of the world and has been for quite some time. It is my
understanding that it might not be economical right here and now in
Australia, but it has to be considered economical or, at least,
essential in the not too distant future. We need to constantly
address and achieve energy security in this country. Importantly, we
have to have a vibrant energy policy which looks at not only demands
and supply but also, as I indicated earlier, its impact on the
environment.
Australia has an abundance of coal resources—as I understand it from
publications I have read, about 800-years supply—yet coal and clean
coal technologies are not being considered by this government as
part of a suite of technologies that are available to secure
Australia’s
energy future. Coal will remain the dominant source of power
generation in this country for some time to come. That is why it is
so important that cleaning up coal is not dismissed as simply pie in
the sky. Geosequestration, gasification and other technologies
present opportunities to expand the supply opportunities available
to us, while taking positive steps to address climate change.
In the very short time that I have left, I
would like to acknowledge the contribution today of the member for
Batman, who sought to introduce into the debate
Australia’s energy security, particularly as to how we should extend
the argument to transport fuels. I could not agree with him more.
All members in this place know the pain that our constituents are
currently feeling at the petrol pump. Every week the price of petrol
seems to go higher. In fact, only yesterday a poll was released that
indicated that the price of petrol has had a dramatic impact on the
spending habits of Australians.
Interjection
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr
McMullan)—Order!
In accordance with the resolution agreed to earlier, I call the
minister.
Return
to Speeches Menu.
