Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank my Nats colleagues for raising this very important subject as a national debate. They often view it through a regional lens. We heard that in the comments from the previous speaker. I am going to cast an engineering lens across this policy and explain to you why I have strongly opposed it from day one, standing side by side, by the way, with the member for Wide Bay all the way through, and I thank him for his support.

Before I start, let's be clear. We should be able to separate a policy like net zero from the technologies that it relies upon. Those are two very separate things. The technologies are not dependent on net zero. They have been developing for some time, and they will continue to do so. We can have a grown-up conversation separating those two things. Why is it that, under net zero, so many technologies fail? Why is it that green hydrogen, this great promise that was made, has failed so spectacularly that almost every carpetbagger in the land has run away from it? Why is it that offshore wind has received such an emotive 'no' from everyone around it and everyone whose coastlines it's going to affect? Why does it fail that test of social licence? Why did carbon capture fail at the Great Artesian Basin? Why do these things happen over and over again? I could point to SunCable, as well, as another example of a great story that was going to happen but has failed that test. It's something that happens time and time again. It's called the technology valley of death. Other examples are Google Glass and the hyperloop, a transport project in the US—cool ideas and cool technology with absolutely no social licence, no marketability and a plethora of problems that they raise when you try to take them through the commercialisation process.

What this is all about is, when we think about innovation and new technologies, we assign them, as they progress, technology-readiness levels and commercialisation-readiness levels. We think about it, from the first idea through to the test flight—along that pathway, technology progresses. It becomes more and more capable, and it becomes more and more commercially viable as it progresses along there. The technology valley of death kills projects and kills technologies when you push them through that process far too quickly. It's very clear to argue that that is exactly what has happened with green hydrogen. Green hydrogen has a higher technology-readiness level of nine. That's the end of the scale. It's one to nine. It's got a nine. The commercialisation-readiness level is three. This was never going to work. If you stood back, outside of the net-zero conversation, and you asked, purely from an engineering perspective, 'Will this work?' the answer would be no. For carbon capture, it's the same thing. It's absolutely low on commercialisation and high on technology. For offshore wind, it's the same thing again—high technology. It can be done. There's a cool technology there—very low commercialisation.

When this happens, it's not just that we go back to the drawing board and start again. What happens is these technologies get ruled out by the public. They lose social licence. We have seen that over and over again. What we have here is net zero policy trying to force through technology before it is ready and before the market is able to take it up. The bizarre thing, if that weren't bad enough, is that we live in a time where we have a government that is blocking a proven technology at both technology- and commercialisation-readiness levels of nine—well beyond test flight—which is actually out there in the market doing what it does and that would reduce emissions. It's called nuclear. It's used all around the world. We've got one policy that is killing off technologies and another one that is pushing back on ones that are proven and can be used. We are getting nowhere, which is why this isn't working. This trial that we've done of net zero hasn't worked. We can see that in increased emissions.

We can see, when we break down where emissions have changed in Australia for the last 20 years, is that the only place they've changed is where we've changed land-use conditions and stopped farming. That's what's happened. In an electorate like mine, transport industry emissions have gone up over the last 20 years, manufacturing industry emissions have gone up over the last 20 years and intensified agriculture emissions have gone up. These are the bedrocks of my local economy. All of those emissions have gone up. The only thing that takes it down is when we close off farming. I'm very happy to acknowledge members of the LNP who were with me on the weekend and voted against this bill. We're a great grassroots organisation when we listen to our members. I remember the last time we did that. It was the Voice. They got it right then. I'm sure they've got it right this time too. I'm very happy to stand beside the Nats on this issue as well as the members of the Libs who have joined me, because I think it's an important issue for Australia's future.

See this speech in context