Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am happy to be finally standing here to speak on the second reading of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2015. I will start by making a positive mention of the great geographic locality we in Australia are gifted with. Unlike many other countries around the world, we are lucky enough to have a coastline stretching right around us. We have an abundance of sun and heat, with a lot of barren land that can be utilised to create renewable energy into the future. As controversial as it may be, we also have wind—a lot of it. And it becomes clear when speaking to a few people in these halls!

There are projects like LMS Energy that extract methane from old tip sites. By burning the methane and creating energy, the methane is reduced to carbon, which is 15 times less damaging to the environment than what it is in the beginning as methane. I was proud to support the retention of ARENA, and I believe that funding into projects such as wave energy are a huge step into cleaner alternatives than fossil fuels. I have been a consistent supporter of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation as I strongly support the assisted funding to help businesses step into less energy-intensive practices. Simple measures such as replacing seals in industrial freezers help reduce the energy usage, right through to projects such as installing solar on rooftops and converting to LED lighting.

Since taking my seat in this Senate, I have been a public supporter of the original 41,000 gigawatt hours as it was originally planned to achieve. However, due to the nature of the bill being dragged out, I also understand that, at that rate, it would be much harder to achieve now than what it would have been if the bill had maintained the bipartisan support that it originally had. I recognise the concerns many people have raised with my office in relation to the inclusion of native forest wood waste. And I will get back to that issue in a minute.

I will not be supporting any amendments to the legislation that do not have the support of both the major parties as I do not want this bill to be sent back to the lower house with amendments. I believe this will give some people in government an excuse to delay the deal that has taken so long to achieve already. From day one, I have said that we need bipartisan support. We saw bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, despite woody biomass. And I expect to see the ALP sitting with the government, regardless of whether or not their amendments to the removal of woody biomass are successful. I want to make it clear that my decision does not mean that I think the Senate should be a rubber stamp. However, when it comes to renewable energy policy in this country, enough is enough. Let's get it through and restore investor confidence to any industry that employs thousands of people both in my state of Victoria and throughout Australia.

I want to go back to the inclusion of biomass. On 11 February, during a matter of public importance, I stated that I do support minor amendments such as extending the exemption to energy-intensive industries to 100 per cent and recognising wood waste sourced from sustainably managed forests as an eligible source of renewable energy within the RET. This has already happened in the lower house. There has been a lot—and I mean a lot—of misinformation spread around, high and low, in relation to the inclusion of woody biomass from native forests. Firstly, I want to start by pointing out that this is not a new suggestion. As a matter of fact, for 10 years it was included in the Renewable Energy Target. Despite outright lies from the Greens and now Labor—or certain factions of it—and extreme environmentalists, it did not lead to one extra tree being harvested. As a matter of fact, it only led to one REC being handed out.

I have received many emails and phone calls from constituents who are gravely concerned about the so-called destruction of our native forests—and rightfully so. It is not their fault that they are being misled. However, their concerns are about issues that are not necessarily related to the inclusion of woody biomass at all. The inclusion of woody biomass is to include by-products of current harvesting operations as an eligible source of renewable energy in the target—by-products of current harvesting operations, not new harvesting operations. We are speaking about a by-product that will rot and break down, releasing carbon or methane into the atmosphere, as it currently does if it stays untouched. We are speaking of utilising a by-product of current harvesting projects; we are not speaking of cutting down a single extra tree, not one—

Debate interrupted.