Alison Penfold (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

This government's latest step in its energy policy, the $500 million Battery Breakthrough Initiative to strengthen Australia's battery manufacturing capability, will succumb to the crunch of reality. Dressed up as part of the net zero mandate, it's also a big subsidy to industry, paid for by taxpayers. I wonder what the black-hat economists who made some comments about the $22 billion Future Made in Australia agenda—that it was picking winners and creating subsidy dependence—will think about this latest Albanese government initiative.

For my part, there's a problem in the government's stated intent to re-industrialise the economy with a focus on clean technologies. If we didn't have this headlong rush to renewables as base-load power and the subsequent higher electricity prices, we would not need to re-industrialise. Our industries would be alive, kicking goals and internationally competitive, rather than downsizing and looking to go offshore.

The member for Swan mentioned the national interest in her motion. Well, I think this rush to renewables as base-load power has not been in the national interest, as targets are not being met, costs keep climbing and businesses keep closing. When more people realise that their big power bills are due to the big cost of building a big new wind-and-solar-driven intermittent grid, their view will change. Yes, batteries have their place in households as a way for Australians to participate in reducing emissions and building their own energy independence. In this ambition, I acknowledge the initiative of the Bonny Hills Progress Association for their recent energy saving expo, which I attended. There was a lot of information for households on ways to reduce energy bills with a strong focus on electrification.

A lot of people talk to me about the need for Australia to participate in emissions reduction, but they also speak to me about the dilemma of how to achieve this—that is, this dilemma of pursuing emissions reduction and securing the means to continue to increase our living standards. Rather than address this dilemma, this government is trying to hoodwink the public into thinking that its net zero policy addresses climate change, creates jobs and supports a strong and resilient energy grid and economy. It simply doesn't. Government and indeed this parliament have an incredible responsibility to make sure we get our energy policy and all the other changes to other parts of industry in the economy calibrated to serve the best interests of Australia.

This government's energy policy also deserves scrutiny because this government wants you to believe that its renewables-only policy is the only way to reduce emissions, regardless of the cost and the negative impact on our living standards. The fact is that the race to reduce emissions varies around the world, and some other countries are pursuing real solutions to the dilemma of reducing emissions while maintaining and increasing living standards. Other countries have understood that building an industrial capable energy grid with intermittent power cannot do the job of providing permanent, reliable and affordable power. Look at Finland. It's achieving its net zero policy with nuclear power. France, the US, Japan, South Korea, the UK, Canada and Sweden are all using nuclear power as part of their net zero strategies. Other nations are expanding their use of nuclear energy, with another 20 countries moving to triple nuclear capacity by 2050—all in recognition of nuclear's low-carbon benefits in reducing greenhouse gases.

Every economy is powered by electricity, and industrial ones with abundant natural resources and a highly skilled workforce on an island continent like Australia need base-load power from energy dense sources, like nuclear, coal and gas. While batteries and intermittent power certainly have their place, they cannot provide the power that we need on all the time for our hospitals, industries and cities to function and avoid chaos. Australia and the Australian people will be at our strongest with an energy system underpinned by base-load power, produced by energy dense inputs. Energy dense inputs not only provide the cheapest form of electricity but also are gentler on our natural landscapes and rural communities.

My argument is for Australia both to be part of global emissions reduction and to have a strong, reliable and affordable energy system—one that supports heavy industry, high-tech industry and data centres, as well as our cities, sovereign manufacturing and defence capabilities. Renewables might deliver on the emissions reduction goal, but they do not deliver a strong, reliable and affordable energy system.

See this speech in context