Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the Opposition, the member for Brand, if he ever got into government, should be the minister for wishful thinking. In articles in the Sound Telegraph he demonstrates extreme ignorance on issues relating to energy. It is no wonder his climate change blueprint is long on leftie rhetoric and so short on substance. He states:

Only Labor has done the hard work to develop a plan to safeguard Australia’s energy future.

If this blueprint is evidence of hard work, I understand now why Labor is so bereft of policy and why their policy lurches are based on flawed ideology rather than objective reality. To say that the Leader of the Opposition is ignorant of issues relating to energy, particularly nuclear energy, is putting it lightly. I would be quite happy to engage him in a debate on the issues, but I have no doubt that he would lack the ticker to engage me on the issue. He believes that we should focus on things like solar and wind energy. I agree that they have a minor place in the portfolio, but they are unable to contribute significant amounts to baseload power supplies. If the member for Brand were right, surely you would expect at least one nation on the planet to have a significant baseload power contribution from renewables—and here I am excluding hydro.

This is more fanciful stuff from the member for Brand and his supporters, the Greens. One could refer to their attitude as ignorance with prejudice. However, there is one aspect where I agree with the opposition leader. It is the importance of evaluating alternative transport fuel. I, however, believe the ultimate fuel for the transport sector is hydrogen. Hydrogen barely rates a passing mention in his document, and I can understand why. How would the member for Brand propose to generate hydrogen? I have the answer: nuclear reactors are ideal for generating hydrogen using either electrical or thermal processes.

The member for Brand also does not understand issues relating to oil from coal or gas-to-liquid technologies. In reality, although the final product is far cleaner burning than normal petroleum, the production of these fuels releases significant amounts of pollutants. Having noted that there are pollution issues related to these technologies, I believe that we need to challenge industry to develop these technologies, especially oil from coal technologies using the Fischer-Tropps process as used by Sasol in South Africa. The Sasol process has been a commercial concern for about 50 years. We should actively investigate using it here, as I believe it is commercially viable. Production of fuel using this process would be around the $US40 to $US50 mark per barrel. Gas-to-liquid prices are projected to be lower than this but, as there is very little use of this technology at present, it is difficult to say how realistic they are.

Having highlighted these technologies, it is clear that they are merely an interim measure pending the ultimate introduction of hydrogen. Biofuels have been touted by Labor; but, while on the face of it they appear attractive, a choice needs to be made between fuel and food. While Australia has a current abundance of food, it is likely that the price of food will increase quicker than that of biofuels; hence, the availability of a cheap base stock is likely to be very variable and not provide a good basis for stability of supply at a reasonable cost.

Given these arguments, as with the case of electricity generation, all fuel sources should be included in the energy portfolio. Given Labor’s position statement, however, it is clear that hydrogen is not really on the Leader of the Opposition’s radar—and for obvious reasons. The real problem with the opposition leader’s view on energy is that he is looking through the blinkers of an ideology gone mad, promising the electorate fairytale promises of a future energy nirvana.

The government believes that we have an obligation to the Australian people to analyse the alternatives through the objective lens of reality, which Labor is patently not prepared to do. If the Leader of the Opposition has a genuine desire to be educated on the facts of energy, I am quite happy to discuss these safe, exciting and innovative technologies with him. However, I do not think he will avail himself of this opportunity. This is a leader who simply puts politics before probity. (Time expired)