Senate debates
Wednesday, 30 November 2022
Questions without Notice: Take Note of Answers
Energy
3:13 pm
David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am indeed, Deputy President. I rise to take note of the answer to the question to Minister Watt about power generation, something which I know something about. Like some on the other side, I spent the best part of my career working in and around the energy industry, so I know something about it. I would also like to take note of Minister Wong's earlier slur against me when she was comparing me with Senator Rennick. She was in the chamber when I was giving my two-minute speech about my visit to COP 27, and how important I thought it was for coalition senators to be there. I didn't see my very good friend Senator Rennick there. I know Senator Cox was there, but I also didn't see her there.
In this place only a matter of weeks ago when we were debating the legislating of the 43 per cent target I said in my speech, and maybe those opposite can show this Hansard to Senator Wong:
Personally, I am more ambitious than those opposite as to what I would like to see our emissions reduction target be. However, I am not blind to reality, unlike those opposite. I believe we need to be as pragmatic as we are ambitious.
Why am I saying that? JP Morgan's Annual Energy Paper explicitly stated:
Countries that reduce production of fossil fuels, under the assumption that renewables can quickly replace them, face substantial economic and geopolitical risks.
If the energy transition is to succeed, we cannot disconnect the generation methods we currently have before we have a replacement for them.
That's what those opposite have not yet addressed. They've talked about their plan, which was put together by RepuTex, I think it was. When I last worked with them, while I was consulting, they were a polling firm. I'm sure they've learned a lot about energy policy since then, but I'm not sure how those opposite see that as a viable energy plan.
Anyone who starts talking about renewables without talking about firming doesn't know what they're talking about when it comes to energy supply, sovereign energy security and bringing down emissions. The two just aren't the same. None of this can work in isolation. You can't just string wires to some place out in Woop Woop where someone's decided to build a solar farm or a wind farm and think that that's going to give you a good return on your money or not push up power bills. I guarantee you, it will. The $23 billion or $24 billion that was in the budget? Add a zero to that, would be my best estimate. I'm sure I can find ways to cite and prove that.
Batteries are not going to be the answer to firming. They're just not. No-one at COP was talking about batteries being a grid-scale firming source. They may be in the future. Hopefully technology will allow them to be. Hopefully China might still sell them to us at some point. Hopefully Australia could even be a manufacturer of our own since we produce a lot of the minerals that are critical for batteries. But at the moment, and in the foreseeable future—out to 2030—they are not going to be grid-scale.
JP Morgan's annual energy paper stated that putting more renewable energy on the grid will not guarantee lower prices, because energy prices rest on an average cost of generation, not just the actual cost of power. No, it's not just the photons or the knots of wind. It's how it is delivered on a continuous, supported basis. That's the bit that we're not hearing from the other side.
As AEMO's 2022 ISP states, we need to treble the firming capacity from dispatchable storage, including pumped hydro and gas-fired generation to firm renewables that are coming onto the grid.
I do my homework and I've seen and I've found that there are actually some Australian companies that deserve to be backed and that are producing firming sources that might actually provide grid-scale firming. There are also Australian companies delivering printed solar that we can put at the source of use, not where we want to run some wires to.
3:19 pm
Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I rise to respond to the line of questioning put by the opposition to the government today with respect to the proposed parliamentary sitting calendar for 2023. We come into this place—and, yes, it is getting very close to the end of the year—in a week when this government has passed and looks likely to be passing some significant legislative reforms, not only with integrity and the NACC bills but also to provide some of the lowest-paid workers with some real wage increase opportunities, and an increase in the productivity of this country. Yet those opposite choose to go down a route of distraction, pretending that, somehow, the parliamentary calendar for next year and the way we conduct ourselves in this place is the single-biggest issue of the week. Regardless of what they may say, the reality is that a lot of people who watch this place will be going, 'What on earth are the coalition senators on about?' When their cost of living is going through the roof, you lot come into this place and use our sitting calendar as somehow the biggest political issue of the day. Talk about being in the bubble!
Just for the record: as everyone should, always go to the source, or the documents. During question time I went and downloaded this year's calendar from the start of the year—when you lot were in government. I can inform the chamber today that there weren't four weeks of estimates; there were just three weeks of estimates. There is no 25 per cent decrease of estimates. Your government only proposed three weeks of estimates for this year—three weeks only! In addition to that, when you compare it to what this government's proposal is for this chamber, we are sitting on every single Monday—unlike the coalition, who propose that we sit three Mondays less compared to the calendar proposed by the government. In addition to this, this government has also put on the table four additional days on a Friday, if required. Then, on top of that, we have an additional week, making 20 weeks of the year in our sitting calendar—compared to your 19 weeks. It's important we deal with the facts. All you have to do is download the calendar from the start of this year that your lot had proposed and put to this chamber. It is important that we deal with the facts, which is something that the opposition are not very good at doing. They are not very good at dealing with the facts.
I also want to note—and I know Senator Birmingham has raised these objections with Senator Wong in the chamber and made some interjections earlier—it is the case there won't be a MYEFO this year, and, as has been past practice, there is no need to have that extra week of estimates. That is what the Leader of the Government in the Senate articulated today during question time. That is a very simple explanation as to why we're not having an additional week of estimates, as per the proposed draft before us today. It is important that we always look at what previous governments have done, whether they were Labor or Liberal. It is important that we look at the previous sitting calendars, and it is always important that we look at what the facts are.
I just wanted to make those few short points today. It is hypocritical, coming from the opposition—who also didn't want to sit on Saturday; they made it very clear they did not want to sit this Saturday to deal with the changes to the Fair Work Act to give the lowest-paid workers in this country a pay rise. Your side of politics said 'no way' to sitting longer, 'no way' to giving low-paid workers an increase to their wages.
I'm happy to sit here on a Friday or on a Saturday, as long as low-paid workers get a pay rise, Senator Birmingham.
3:24 pm
Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I've got to say: desperation comes to the fore. There's a pattern emerging here from the government. They talked a big game before the election. Then they come into this place, having been elected, slip-sliding away from their promises left, right and centre. There's no mention of the $275 energy price reduction promised by the government in this place anymore. That's gone, and gone with it is any sense of transparency.
Senator Ciccone comes in here and puts on a bright face. I've been here nearly 20 years, Senator Ciccone, and I've never seen a year where there's been only three weeks of estimates. Senator Ciccone, can I tell you, additional estimates in February is not just about MYEFO. It's about annual reports. It's about a range of other documents that are tabled and published in the parliament, so that the Senate can scrutinise those documents and processes. That's what it is about. The government tries to narrow down the target and narrow down the story to suit their rhetoric, but really what's happening is that there is a 25 per cent cut in scrutiny next year.
Senator, your maths is pretty shabby, because normally there's four weeks of estimates in a sitting year. As I said, I've been here a little while and seen a few years and sat around the table for a few years of estimates. It's a 25 per cent cut next year in scrutiny by this government. They said they were going to have more scrutiny, they wanted to be a more open government, they wanted to see more scrutiny, but that's not what we see in practice.
Senator Wong said during her answer to Senator Birmingham's question that we wouldn't answer a question about sports grants in estimates. I sat there through all those estimates as sports minister and I answered every question. I underwent forensic questioning from Senator Farrell at every estimates. I answered every question. So Senator Wong can make the accusation, but I was there. I answered every question. They try to deflect, they try to blame someone else, but at the end of the day they're not interested in scrutiny. They're trying to slide from scrutiny. They talk about us coming to the chamber, which is the process, with support of other parties around the chamber in respect of the sitting schedule. Yet there was no consultation with the opposition with respect to what the sitting schedule might look like.
In circumstances where there have been major changes or significant changes to the way the schedule looked, there's always been consultation. I don't expect Senator Ciccone to understand that. He hasn't had that level of experience in that process. But there have been plenty of occasions when there have been significant changes to the sitting schedule that have been done in consultation, particularly with the opposition, so that we knew that we could get agreement in the chamber and, in fact, sometimes under the threat of using the chamber.
But what we have this time is a 25 per cent cut in scrutiny through estimates. Additional Fridays, for which there is no standing orders or schedule of programs, so do we get a question time? You can't answer that question. There's no process been undergone there. How come this hasn't been referred to the Procedure Committee so there can be a process? There's no process. It is a complete shambles. The government try to pass it off by saying 'Well, there's no MYEFO so we don't need to do it'. They're not looking at all the processes of the government that are scrutinised in estimates, including annual reports and other reports that are tabled in this place and the opportunity for senators across the whole parliament to scrutinise. We should have that opportunity. They talk about transparency but they don't practice it. There's the secret report that we hear about today about the impacts on the coal industry from the government's policies. They don't want communities to understand what the impacts of those policies are going to be. They talked a big game before the election about what might be, what they might do. They slip and slide, try to blame everybody else. The real pattern is that it's always someone else's fault. It could be the department. What was it we heard the other day? It was a typo in one particular circumstance. They're not prepared to provide the scrutiny and transparency they talked about before the election.
Question agreed to.