Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015. Before I detail the reasons why I think every senator should support this legislation, it is useful, for future reference, to consider a small technical description of this legislation. In summary, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015 amends the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 to adjust the required gigawatts per hour of renewable source electricity in each year from 2016 to 2030 with a gigawatts per hour target of 33,000 gigawatts per hour in 2020 and to replace the current partial exemption for electricity used in emissions-intensive trade-exposed activities with a full exemption; amends the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 and Climate Change Authority Act 2011 to remove the requirement for the Climate Change Authority to undertake biennial reviews on the operation of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 and subordinate regulations; and amends the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Regulations 2001 to reinstate native forest wood waste as an eligible source of renewable energy.

This is a very important piece of legislation for Tasmania, because we are the renewable energy capital of the world. No other state in Australia uses as much renewable energy compared with non-renewable energy as Tasmania. A 2014 report from the Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics shows that in 2012-13—out of a total of Tasmania's 3,136 megawatt installed capacity—2,630 megawatts were from renewable hydro power. In 2012-13, Tasmania had no electricity generated by either black or brown coal fired power plants; however, the rest of Australia, excluding the Northern Territory, relied on black and brown coal to produce almost 29,000 megawatts of electricity. This sum of 29,000 megawatts of electricity represented more than half of Australia's total installed electricity generating capacity of 56,079 megawatts. Today more than 95 per cent of Tasmania's electricity comes from carbon-free, renewable hydro-electricity which, unlike wind and solar, is able to power heavy industry with reliable baseload power 24 hours a day—whether the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.

Put simply, when we turn the power switch on in Tasmania, we do not pollute the environment with any CO2, so why should our businesses, industries and families be hit with more expensive electricity because of the mainland's RET penalties? Why should 10,000 direct and indirect manufacturing jobs associated with Tasmania's aluminium, zinc, magnesium, cement and paper industries be placed at risk because of RET penalties totalling tens of millions of dollars each year? And, to rub salt into the wound, the RET money raised in Tasmania is going into a fund whose main purpose is to replace mainland coal fired power generators with renewable energy!

The RET scheme that is now in place discounted and ignored most of the renewable energy created by Hydro Tasmania. Parliamentary Library research showed that Hydro Tasmania only received an Australian RET credit income of about $60 million per annum, or five per cent, of the possible RET credits created by the electricity created from Tasmanian renewable water power. So why are we missing out on the other 95 per cent, or more than $1.1 billion per year of possible Australian RET credits? This is an important question that the federal Liberal Party, who first designed the RET system, must answer.

Everyone knows that water, or hydro, power, is one of the best forms of renewable energy available to mankind. Unlike wind power, hydro can supply cheap, reliable, baseload electricity for 21st century factories, businesses and families. There is no risk of brownouts, voltage fluctuations or loss of electricity supply if a community relies on hydro, which Tasmania does. So it disappoints and upsets me that Tasmanian Liberal, Labor and Greens politicians for over a decade have accepted a mainland RET scheme which only pays Tasmania $60 million a year for RET credits, when we should have received more than $1.1 billion if it were to be fair. Since it came in, we would have been $20 billion better off in Tasmania—there is no doubt about that.

Renewable energy is a policy area in which I had major disagreements with Clive Palmer. You will recall Mr Palmer signed an infamous RET deal with former American Vice President Al Gore without my knowledge or approval. If I had blindly followed the Palmer United RET policy of not lowering the RET target before the next election, as the Greens would have done, I would have risked the jobs of 10,000 Tasmanian workers and the viability of all of Tasmania's major manufacturers. My Tasmania already has the highest unemployment rate in Australia. As a matter of fact, two days ago it hit seven per cent. My conscience will not allow me to sit silently and watch as our manufacturing industry and economy is destroyed by what is effectively a sneaky mainland tax which forced (1) every Tasmanian to pay an extra 3.6 per cent on top of their electricity account and (2) our largest manufacturers and employers to pay, on top of all their normal taxes, tens of millions of dollars in mainland RET penalties so that Australia's mainland states have the funds to replace coal fired power stations with renewable energy. One of the main reasons I resigned to become an independent was to put my state's economic health and workers' job security before PUP's RET deal with Al Gore. As I mentioned before—and I will say it again—we do not pollute the environment with CO2 when we turn on our power switches in Tasmania, so why should we be forced to pay any mainland RET penalties?

I am very pleased that this government has listened to my advocacy for the forestry industry and made changes to the current RET scheme which will allow bioenergy to play a greater role in Australia's renewable energy future. Allowing all electricity generated from biofuels created from biowaste—food, meat, all wood, straw, feedstock et cetera—to contribute to our national RET target is another important provision in this legislation. I will also use my vote in the Senate on behalf of the Tasmanian forestry industry and its workers to protect and guarantee the reinstatement of wood waste from sustainable native forestry harvesting and processing operations to contribute once again to the RET target. Nationwide, this will create and support thousands of jobs in rural and regional areas—and I can assure you that they need it. In Tasmania, it will create and support hundreds of vital jobs in our country regions. Despite the blatant lies and mistruths put out by the Greens, all this provision means is that the timber offcuts and small woody waste, which are currently left to rot or burnt in bushfires, can be used in the generation of renewable energy. Not one extra tree will be cut down.

I expect the Greens to criticise my call, but they have caused enough damage to our economy in Tasmania and enough jobs have been lost because of their over-the-top environmental policies. If anyone wants to see what happens when the Greens take over, come and have a look at the chaos, economic and social destruction the Greens have caused to bring Tasmania to the brink of economic and social ruin. Common sense, workers' job security and sustainable economic growth must come first in Tasmania again.

I have never heard so much garbage about energy and climate change. If you listen to the Greens, you will hear that they think that a 21st century economy and industrialised society can sustainably and affordably run on renewable energy. What a load of rubbish! The only form of renewable energy which can provide baseload power for a 21st century industrialised, advanced society with world-competitive energy prices is hydro power. The rest of the renewable sources of energy are unreliable and too expensive to power a 21st century industrialised, advanced society. The Greens are peddling false hope and a blatant lie about renewable energy being able to replace the fossil fuel powered generators, which provide baseload power for our cities and businesses.

Apart from hydro energy, the only way we can cheaply and reliably decarbonise our energy generation while maintaining secure baseload power is to move very quickly to nuclear power generation. It is about time we had an honest debate about that option, and I will be speaking more about that plan in the near future. If we follow the Greens' foolish plan to shut down our fossil fuel power generation and replace it with unreliable, expensive renewables, we can kiss cheap, reliable energy goodbye and say hello to brownouts, power failures and the destruction of millions of manufacturing jobs—what is left of them.

The only way Australia will maintain our comparatively high wages and standards of living is to ensure that our manufacturers, farmers and businesses have access to energy and electricity prices which are some of the cheapest in the world. As a nation, we must never lose sight of the fact that our nation's prosperity, our grandchildren's jobs and our privileged place in the world depend on the fact that we must provide, when compared to the US, Canada, South America, Europe and Asia, the cheapest energy in the world to our businesses. If we do not as a nation focus on cheap energy, it is guaranteed that our standards of living and wages will rapidly drop, because the two biggest costs in making products such as food and in creating wealth are energy and wages. If we do not have cheap, reliable energy, then our relatively high wages and standards of living compared with the rest of the world will disappear.

It is not just me who is speaking this self-evident economic truth about the critical need to secure cheap, reliable energy for our businesses, families and workers. I remind this Senate once again of the words and observations of respected Australian academic Dr Thomas Barlow, a research strategist specialising in science and technological innovation and the author of Between the Eagle and the Dragon: Who is Winning the Innovation Race? On ABC Radio National, he reminded Geraldine Doogue:

One of the key theories of why the industrial revolution occurred and where it did, in the north of England, is that in the 18th century the north of England had an overly unique combination of low energy prices and high labour costs.

That combination was the perfect combination because it encourages a society to substitute labour for capital.

That is one definition of innovation. You want to use fewer people to achieve the same or better outcomes.

Look to the US—at the moment the US is having an energy revolution. They have cheap energy.

The cost of natural gas in the US is about a third of what it was in 2008. And as a consequence we see manufacturing flow back to the US.

But far more significant than the trend in manufacturing is the potential that this creates for an acceleration in innovation.

It is clear that America has learnt the lesson about economic growth, innovation, jobs and cheap energy and that its slow but sure economic revival has come about because its combination of policies has delivered some of the world's cheapest and most reliable energy to its people and businesses.

Quite simply, without cheap, reliable energy Australia is doomed to suffer a terrible fate. Our standards of living will drop, downward pressure on our wages will be irresistible and our manufacturing industry and wealth-producing capacity will collapse, more than they have already collapsed.

Every Green member of this Senate needs to be reminded of the fact that we have climate change and, indeed, there has never been a time in the world's history when we did not have climate change. On page 66 of Al Gore's book, An Inconvenient Truth, there is a graph showing the rise and fall of average world temperature for the last 600,000 years. Al Gore's figures show the average world temperature has been much hotter and much colder than today's average of 14 degrees. And how do I know that today's average world temperature is about 14 degrees? Most members of this place, including the Greens, would have a clue about the value of the temperature, as we are all worried about the temperature, which we don't want to see increase or it get warmer. On page 5 of Tim Flannery's book, The Weather Makers, he says, 'For the last 10,000 years Earth's thermostat has been set to an average surface temperature of around 14 degrees.' Most Greens would not know what the average world temperature is, but they will speak about climate change as if they were experts.

Of course, what the Greens and Mr Flannery fail to tell us is that over the last 300,000 years the world's average temperature, as show on page 66 of Mr Gore's book, was much hotter than our 14 degrees on at least three occasions. At approximately 100,000, 200,000 and 260,000 years ago, the average world's temperature exceeded today's 14 degrees by many degrees. So, yes, of course, there has never been a time in the world's history when we did not have climate change. It is just that the Greens and others who rely on the fear created by the thought of climate change to make money or benefit their political cause will never admit to this reality.

I was present when Ross Garnaut, the architect of one of Australia's most significant climate change policies in 2008, was asked: 'What is the current average world temperature?' He tried to tell me that it was 12 degrees—and this is an expert. Indeed, should anyone require it, I can produce a hand-drawn graph where Mr Garnaut tried to convince me that the average world temperature was 12 degrees and had climbed two degrees in 50 years. I have all of that on paper.

In shaping climate policy, there is a lot of fear and Greens dishonesty, and we have to remember this fact. Even by the Greens own rules on climate change, with 30 to 40 years worth of climate change already locked in, humans cannot stop climate change. We can only make credible plans to adapt, innovate and survive climate change. Practically, that means focusing on Australia's food and water security, energy security and national security. We have to: 1) protect our prime agricultural land and soils, protect our food-growing lands and allow our farmers to be profitable, secure and earn a decent living; 2) build more dams, because if you do not want to drink water then do not build dams—and use those dams not only for water security but for making clean, reliable, cheap hydroelectricity; 3) become world leaders in nuclear energy and electricity production—we must use our uranium resources to secure our energy future and make sure Australia has the cheapest, most reliable and safest energy supplies in the world; and, 4) dramatically boost our military, emergency and essential services so that whatever Mother Nature throws at us, whatever other envious, aggressive countries want to throw at us, Australia has enough trained military, emergency and essential services to care for, protect and defend our current population, our children's future and our national interests.

These are the policies, plans and solutions we should be talking about when we discuss climate change, not the absolute rubbish that comes from the Greens mouths about building wind farms to save the world and stopping unstoppable climate change by killing off Australian manufacturing jobs and making our power charges the most expensive and unreliable in the developed Western world. If you think you can stop the world's climate from changing by making pensioner's pay more for their energy, by building wind farms and by mandating renewable energy targets, then you are worse than deluded. You are dangerously deluded and you should be locked up, because you are helping our enemies destroy our great nation. If you agree with the rubbish that has come out of the mouth of Christine Milne and the Greens, you are, at best, condemning our children to a life of abject poverty in the future.

I will gladly vote for the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015, because it will protect 10,000 Tasmanian jobs, which are tied to the beating heart of our economy—our heavy manufacturing and forestry industries. This legislation will effectively lower the price of energy for Tasmania's biggest employers, our manufactures, and make our timber industry more efficient. This legislation will allow Tasmanian businesses to compete, make a modest profit and sell their products on the world market, which is dominated by countries that are smart enough to deliver cheap energy to their people and businesses and not dumb enough to allow the Greens to be in charge.