Martin Ferguson (Batman, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Resources and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

in reply—I express my appreciation to all members who have participated in what is a very constructive debate. In the mind of the government we would like to see it not only pass in the House of Representatives today but also hopefully pass in the Senate this week. It is in that context that I express our appreciation to the opposition for its support for the bill and for our endeavours to actually have it treated in a non-controversial way in the Senate over the next day and a half.

I would like to briefly touch on the contributions of members who have participated in the debate on the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy Bill 2009. Firstly, I go to the contribution by the member for Kalgoorlie. I simply say that from the government’s point of view we believe that there are abundant sources of energy and hence Australia does not need to pursue nuclear energy. But I also acknowledge as the minister for energy that other countries are not as fortunate as us from an energy security point of view, and hence nuclear energy is very much part of their energy mix. More importantly, we are central to the development of nuclear energy in many countries beyond Australia because we are a reliable supplier of uranium, and potentially there is going to be a substantial expansion in our capacity in the foreseeable future.

I now go to your contribution, Mr Deputy Speaker Thomson, where you correctly identify the range of renewable options that the government is pursuing as part of an integrated clean energy strategy. The intention of ACRE is to support the renewable energy industry, and in doing so bring down the cost of technology in years to come so as to ensure its wider deployment. That is potentially very much assisted by a renewable energy target which guarantees that, by 2020, 20 per cent of Australia’s energy will come from renewable sources.

I also note the participation of the member for Kennedy, who has a very strong interest in these matters. I was fortunate enough to participate with the Treasurer in an energy symposium held in Parliament House recently about the potential development of renewable energy and other energy options in Far North Queensland. That is a work in progress for the member for Kennedy and for the government. The member for Dawson made a thoughtful and constructive contribution to the debate with particular reference to biomass, which is of significance in his electorate and surrounding areas.

This brings me to the ill thought out contribution by the member for Flinders and his attack on the government’s renewable energy policies. I simply say to the member for Flinders, a simple comparison of what we have put in place over the last two years compared to the opposition’s contribution over the previous 12 years is an interesting exercise. The debate currently before the Senate concerning the introduction of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, putting a price on carbon, provides a very stark contrast between the decisive action of this government—with potential support for the renewable energy sector—and action by the previous government in which the member for Flinders served as a member of the executive. He raised issues such as the question of being honest about the Solar Flagships program and our broader clean energy strategy. I simply say about the member for Flinders, generally, that he has form in making statements designed to get a headline. However, he needs to begin to recognise that in government it is not possible to promise everything to everyone. It is about time he understood that integrity and honesty in government is part of good policy development and establishing one’s standing in broader policy debates.

The comments of the member for Flinders regarding the Solar Flagships program are ill-informed and offensive to my departmental officers who have been working on the development of the program. The Solar Flagships program will deliver significant solar deployment on a large scale in Australia, over two rounds not one round, and so hopefully enable more mature and developing technologies to be deployed in Australia. That is what the clean energy strategy is about—not picking winners but supporting our regulatory environment, through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the renewable energy target legislation, and supporting R&D to bring on clean energy options such as solar, geothermal, wave, tidal and biomass.

This takes me to the contribution by the member for Kingston. I simply say that, as a South Australian, she is clearly conscious of the role that geothermal energy might play in the energy mix. I was therefore delighted on 6 November, as the responsible minister, to announce two geothermal grants for South Australian projects under the Renewable Energy Demonstration Program. This was also acknowledged by the members for Hindmarsh and Braddon—especially by the member for Braddon, who referred to a similar grant for the purpose of researching and developing a range of renewable energy options on King Island. These are grid-related and also involve a focus on potential storage capacity, which is the key to the baseload renewable energy debate.

I go to the contribution by the member for New England. I know that he makes a range of valuable contributions to the House, but I do take issue with his suggestion that the government has given mixed messages on renewable energy. I simply say to the member for New England that we have an integrated strategy that not only includes a regulatory framework involving a price on carbon through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme but also includes a renewable energy target, which guarantees that 20 per cent of our energy will come from renewable sources by 2020.

In support of renewable energy development in Australia, I remind the House that the renewable energy target represents a subsidy to the renewable sector of $20-25 billion by the Australian community. That is a substantial subsidy for facilitating the development of renewable energy in Australia. I would also remind the House that, over and above those regulatory arrangements, the government in the budget of this year put in place a comprehensive clean energy strategy.

The strategy is not about picking winners. It is about working with industry and research organisations, including CSIRO and our leading universities, to make progress on research and development with a view to proving-up potential baseload reliable renewable energy options in Australia. It clearly facilitates a proper focus on carbon capture and storage, because fossil fuels are important to Australia. More importantly, it allocates over $2 billion for research and development of renewable energy in Australia in the years to come.

The Solar Flagships program is potentially the biggest solar flagship deployment in the world. Expenditure will be in the order of $1.5 billion and there will be two rounds for the purpose of selecting the best potential technology in Australia. The member for New England raised the issue of second generation biofuels. I have already announced on behalf of the government the allocation of $15 million to a range of second generation biofuel options. This includes algae, which is very much the hope of the side, and also focuses on the potential use of wood for the purposes of developing second generation biofuels in Australia.

As for the geothermal issue, hopefully it is very much a reliable baseload power source for Australia, with a $50 million program for the purpose of assisting industry with what is an expensive drilling program to prove up geothermal activities in Australia. As for the issue of renewable energy generally and the broader range of renewable options, there is a further allocation of $560 million for the purposes of renewable energy investment in Australia. Some of those program announcements have been referred to by members in their thoughtful contributions to the debate today, such as those as to geothermal in South Australia, tidal in Victoria and, I might say, the integrated renewable energy proposal on King Island, in the seat of Braddon. Clearly, we have put in place a well-thought-out clean energy strategy involving changes to the regulatory environment of Australia, of great benefit to the renewables sector, side by side with key strategic investments to facilitate research and development. Only through that research and development will we break through on the technology front and prove once and for all whether we can actually shore up on a commercial scale renewable energy in Australia. In conclusion, I commend the bill to the House and simply say I am appreciative of the support from the coalition in the facilitation of consideration of this bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context