Posts

Foxes Guarding the Henhouse

,

During this Estimates session with the Clean Energy Regulator (CER), I questioned them on the government’s setup with the Clean Energy Council (CEC). The CEC is a private lobby group, yet they appear to act as the “gatekeeper” as to which solar panels can be sold under the renewable energy schemes.

WHY has a private industry group, which exists to advocate for its members’ commercial interests, been given the power to decide which products qualify for government incentives?

I was told the Clean Energy Council (CEC) was originally “named” in the legislation effectively as a co-regulator and have been “tested” against competitors. The Regulator admitted that they worked back-and-forth with the CEC to help their application meet the required standards.

I asked if this process was open and transparent to the public. Their response? Happy to take it on notice and of course, they used the “commercial-in-confidence” excuses.

When questioned on how they manage any bias, the Regulator pointed to “regular cadences of meetings” and “reporting.” To me, this sounds like a “soft” approach to overseeing a group that serves its own members.

The Regulator claims they now have “greater control” and that the CEC is merely a “service provider,” however the reality is that a private lobby group still appears to hold a lot of sway. They are monitoring themselves through an action plan and reporting back to the government.

I am deeply concerned about the conflict of interest here. How can a lobbying body be impartial?

Australian taxpayers should not be sold out by a system where the foxes are guarding the henhouse.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Why did the Clean Energy Regulator appoint the Clean Energy Council, a private industry lobby group, as the product listing body for solar panels and inverters under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme? 

Mr Parker: Thank you, Senator. I well understand the question. I will flip the question to Mr Williamson in a minute, lest he not get asked a question today, which would be unfortunate in his final appearance! The appointment of the CEC was done through a process under the law which involved a competitive bidding arrangement, and CEC won that process. 

Senator ROBERTS: Were government ministers involved at the time? 

Mr Parker: Ministers set the legal framework. I don’t think it was actually a decision from [inaudible]. We’ll give it to Mark. 

Mr Williamson: Senator, to help you with the context, originally in the legislation, the Clean Energy Council had been nominated as the body both to accredit installers and also to list approved components. In the original regulations, they were named, and they were effectively a co-regulator. Minister Taylor, a number of years ago, asked us to do a review with the department of the integrity of the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme. Out of that review, there was a recommendation that it be competitively tested, as Mr Parker says, for both the accrediting of installers and the listing of components. We went through a process of going to the market. The Clean Energy Council did not put in an application to continue being the accreditation body, and a new accreditation body was nominated out of that process. As Mr Parker says, for the listing of components, there were a small number of applications, and the Clean Energy Council was determined to be the best of those. The new system, though, is—we have greater control of both the accreditation body and the listing process. They were a co-regulator in the past. Now they are providing a service that we’ve nominated them to do. 

Senator ROBERTS: They provide a service to you? 

Mr Williamson: Yes. We’re the regulator now. We’re the single regulator, so that co-regulatory model that existed before went with that process. Solar Accreditation Australia, SAA, is the accreditation body, and that has nothing to do with the Clean Energy Council. The CEC is, in fact, still the listing body, but they’re doing that for us, as is SAA for the accreditation of installers. 

Senator ROBERTS: What probity checks were undertaken before granting this role to an organisation that actively advocates for its members’ commercial interest? 

Mr Williamson: There was an extensive process, and I can pass to Mr Binning, who was involved in that.  There was a very lengthy process where a lot of questions were asked of the small number of bodies that applied. Mr Binning was actually the decision-maker, and he did not make that decision until we had done a range of checks of the applications and asked a lot of questions and made a lot of requests for further information. I might throw to you, Carl, to add anything else to that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Before you elaborate, what was your role at the time? Who was your employer? 

Mr Binning: The Clean Energy Regulator. I was the delegate for the final decision. As I recall, it was a very thorough process run through our procurement. There was probity advice along the way. A preliminary decision was made. Under the act, we were required to publish that decision. A range of submissions were made in relation to the proposed decision. Those comments were than taken into account, and a final decision was made against the criteria that were established for the process. 

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fairly loose, but it was a long time ago. How does the Clean Energy Regulator manage the inherent conflict of interest in allowing an industry lobby group to control product eligibility for government incentives? 

Mr Binning: We do that through the ongoing governance of our arrangements. We have a regular cadence of meetings and reporting to us. In that reporting, what we’ve really sought to do over the last 18 months—there are two issues that really run intention through that product-listing process, if you like. On the one hand, we are looking for those assessments to of course be comprehensive and rigorous, and that requires that new products, as they come into the country, are compliant with the standards that have been established for those products, whether it is solar panels, inverters, batteries, solar water heaters et cetera. Most of the feedback we got from industry was associated with long wait times for the processing of applications. We’ve had less concerns, relatively speaking, with the rigour of the process and greater concerns with ensuring that the assessments are processed in a prompt and efficient manner. We’ve been working quite closely with the CEC to ensure that there is no compromising of the integrity of the process but that their ability to process applications has been improved. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is the process open to inspection from the public? 

Mr Binning: I’d have to take the detail of that on notice. I wouldn’t say there’s anything that overtly precludes that, but there would be the usual commercial in confidence and those sorts of arrangements. I’m happy to take it on notice and provide advice. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’d appreciate that, and if you could provide the specifics around that on notice. Has the Clean Energy Regulator assessed whether this arrangement complies with Commonwealth probity standards for regulatory functions? I assume there are some. 

Mr Binning: As I said, we have a procurement team at the Clean Energy Regulator. They closely observe the process, and the decisions were made consistent with the requirements that are set out in the act. If my recollection is correct—and I think it is—this process is largely governed by the requirements that are set out in the regulations and in the act. Mr Williamson can probably add to this. 

Mr Williamson: The government and the minister at the time wanted to work within amendments within regulations. 

Senator ROBERTS: That was Mr Taylor. 

Mr Williamson: Correct. To work within the regulations and amend the regulations to give effect—and not to have to go back and amend the act—limited the way in which this could be set up. It wasn’t set up strictly as a procurement but rather as a nomination that required us to go through a set of statutory steps to go out to the market on a number of occasions. Then, as Mr Binning said, with decisions both on the product listing and the accreditation of installers, we had to say that this was our proposed decision and invite further comments. It was a statutory nomination process, but we did actually follow Commonwealth procurement and probity arrangements. 

While it wasn’t strictly a procurement, we did follow such arrangements in arriving at the decision on the nomination process. It took a very long time. The reason it took a long time was to make sure that the applicants were bringing their applications up to a standard where we could make a decision and get a body for each process over the line. It wasn’t fast because those initial applications weren’t adequate to make a nomination. There was a very iterative process with those who applied to make sure that, ultimately, they had put in a satisfactory bid where Mr Binning could make a decision and say, ‘That passes muster.’ 

Senator ROBERTS: What governance framework exists to ensure that decisions made by the Clean Energy Council in its regulatory capacity are impartial and not influenced by its lobbying activities? 

Mr Binning: As I indicated, after awarding the role to the Clean Energy Council, an action plan around the service that they are providing has been established. There is a regular reporting arrangement which ensures, as I said, that they’re meeting the various performance targets that have been established. 

Senator ROBERTS: Does the Clean Energy Regulator audit or review the CEC’s product listing decisions? If so, how frequently and what were the findings? Or do you just have meetings? 

Mr Binning: I would say that we certainly closely scrutinise their performance under the requirements of the agreement that we have in place with them. In addition, we closely observe, monitor and interact with the Clean Energy Council around issues that arise or any industry intelligence that we receive. We will regularly be in contact with the CEC team to check and verify the processes that they are undertaking. 

Mr Williamson: I can add to that. We have also taken samples ourselves. Through separate arrangements with others, we’ve arranged to actually grab samples of products that have been listed and get them tested ourselves. That was both pre and post the nomination of the Clean Energy Council. 

Senator ROBERTS: That still happens. 

Mr Williamson: I believe that happens in batches every now and again. There are limits to the funds we have for this, but we have sampled it because some have claimed that companies may have had a golden sample taken and production runs may subsequently be of a lower quality. We have done that, and, as part of the listing process, the CEC also does more real world sampling. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

The High Price of False Virtue

,

For over 15 years, I have warned that the climate scam is a direct assault on the Australian way of life.

And it’s not just our hip pockets being hit — it’s our humanity.

Labor and Chris Bowen are selling you a “renewable revolution,” yet they aren’t telling you who’s paying the real price.

While Australian families struggle with soaring power bills, children in the Congo are forced into medieval conditions, digging for the minerals that fuel our “green” future.

Women are working in toxic, open-cut mines controlled by the Chinese Communist Party – all so we can pretend we’re “saving the planet.”

Our environment is being destroyed, our wildlife killed off, our economy smashed – and everyday Australians are getting poorer.

It’s not a revolution. It’s a scam!

Note: The data for 2026 confirms that our energy security has been sold off to foreign interests, with the vast majority of these large-scale wind and solar projects owned by overseas entities.

We need to stop this madness and put Australian families and human decency above the “renewable at all costs” cult. There is nothing virtuous about “renewable” energy.

/by

Our Environment Sacrificed for Green Profit

,

The “Green” agenda is bulldozing our forests, blasting our mountains, disrupting whale migration and clubbing koalas – all to “save” the planet from “climate change”.

Labor, the Greens, and the Coalition are sacrificing endangered species for subsidised industrial “renewable” energy projects.

Only One Nation is consistent. We will always protect our environment against the multinational corporations pocketing billions in subsidies while destroying our natural environment.

Transcript

The Australian Greens have abandoned nature, bulldozing forests, blasting mountain ridges, disrupting whale migration, clubbing koalas so that subsidised parasitic billionaires can cover our country in solar panels, wind turbines and transmission lines. Senator McKim says of Tasmania’s Robbins Island industrial project: 

Its habitats, landscapes and sea scapes should be protected under international conventions – not exploited for profit by a multinational corporation. 

Senator Whish-Wilson says: 

… it would be a cruel irony if Australia’s renewable energy projects come at the expense of our threatened and iconic species. 

They’ve done plenty to oppose this project, only for Greens leader Senator Waters to say on national TV: 

I don’t very know much about that … 

Despite endangered species, the project was approved because of claimed climate change.  

Labor, the Greens, the Liberals, the Nationals and the teals are killing the environment and endangered species, supposedly to save the planet. Only One Nation is united and consistent on protecting our beautiful natural environment against multinationals ripping billions off Australians.

/3 Comments/by

The Costs and Risks of Australia’s Largest Solar Project: Sun Cable

,

This is another of my ongoing questions into understanding the cost of net zero. The Sun Cable project is an insane proposal to cover 12,000 hectares of the Northern Territory with solar panels, at a cost of over $30 billion. There are multiple problems with this project, including environmental damage, power loss during transmission and site remediation once the panels reach the end of life.

These large energy companies are not required to, and don’t set aside funds for remediation. This means Australian taxpayers will end up footing the bill for billions of dollars in cleanup costs when this project inevitably fails.

Despite this being the world’s largest solar project and carrying significant sovereign risk, the Minister had no clue what I was talking about.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister, and it’s regarding the SunCable industrial solar project in the Northern Territory. Minister, please advise the Senate of the total value of guarantees and, as a separate figure, the total value of subsidies available to the project. 

Senator McAllister: I am aware that the Minister for the Environment and Water has recently provided approval for the SunCable project. This is a project that, as I understand it, seeks to establish renewable generation capability in the Northern Territory and also significant transmission capability, which will allow that generation to be used within the Australian grid but potentially also to be exported to our Singaporean neighbours. This is potentially an extremely important project. It is also one that is first of kind in the Australian context— 

Senator ROBERTS: I have a point of order, under standing order 72(3)(c): ‘Answers shall be directly relevant to each question.’ I asked about the total value of guarantees and the total value of subsidies. What are they? If you don’t know, please just say so. 

The President: I will draw the minister to that part of your question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator McAllister: The senator asks me to comment, I think, on policies that exist in the Australian context to support the rollout of reliable renewables, and of course— 

The President: Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, on a point of order? 

Senator ROBERTS: I asked about the total value of guarantees and the total value of subsidies. That’s it. 

The President: Senator Roberts, the minister barely said seven words, so let’s just hear the answer. I have reminded the minister of the question, and I will continue to listen carefully. 

Senator McAllister: The Australian government takes our advice about the future of the energy system from experts, and all of the advice that has been provided to us is that the most cost-effective form of new generation to replace the older, ageing assets that are shortly to retire is reliable renewables. 

Senator CASH: He just wanted to know what the figure is. 

The President: Order! Senator Cash, this is not your question. 

Senator McAllister: We take our advice from experts because we believe that Australians deserve the most cost-effective form of energy that is available to us. We can’t actually go back to doing things the way that they were done under the previous government. 

The President: Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, on a point of order? 

Senator ROBERTS: I remind the minister that I asked about the total value of guarantees and the total value of subsidies. 

The President: I have reminded the minister of the question, and I will remind her again, Senator Roberts. 

Senator HENDERSON: It’s okay to say you can take it on notice. 

The President: Order! Thank you, Senator Henderson. 

Senator McAllister: My advice is that this project has been— (Time expired) 

The President: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The project proposes to generate electricity in the Northern Territory and send it to Singapore using a 4,300-kilometre-long cable, mostly undersea. This is five times longer than Norway’s 760-kilometre Viking Link, the current longest cable. Viking Link loses 3.5 per cent of its generation through transmission loss. What percentage of the project’s Australian generated electricity will be lost in transmission to Singapore? 

Senator McAllister: The senator asks about, essentially, the economics of the project that has been approved, and what I can advise the senator is that this is a matter for the project proponent. The government’s role is not to assess the economics of this project. The minister has made a decision in relation to its environmental approvals. This is part of a broader transformation of the Australian economy. We are blessed with abundant sunshine, wind and land, with skilful engineers and skilful personnel, with a mature commercial and legal environment and with a natural electricity system that many other countries seek to talk to us about because of its strengths. These are strengths for Australian communities. They are strengths for Australian regions and they are potentially a source of significant economic opportunity for Australians living in regional communities. (Time expired) 

The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The minister can’t or won’t tell me about guarantees and subsidies nor a core project assumption, so, Minister, my second supplementary question is: how much is SunCable lodging as a rehabilitation bond for the 12,400 hectares of land that will be covered in solar panels? 

Senator McAllister: The senator asks about the terms on which the approval for the SunCable project has been provided. I can tell the senator that Minister Plibersek applies the terms of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to all of the matters that come before her. This is a project proposal that intends to establish a significant source of new generation in the Northern Territory, as you indicated in your first supplementary question. 

The President: Senator Roberts, on a point of order? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is there a rehabilitation bond in place to cover the desecration of the environment? 

The President: Senator Roberts, it’s your responsibility to seek a point of order, not to re-ask your question. If you have a point of order, I invite you to make it. If you don’t, I’ll ask the minister to continue. 

Senator ROBERTS: President, the point of order is one of relevance. 

The President: I believe the minister is being relevant. She has outlined to you the approval processes. So I will ask her to continue. 

Senator CASH interjecting— 

The President: Order! Order! Senator Cash, which bit of ‘order’ doesn’t apply to you? Minister McAllister, please continue. 

Senator McAllister: The minister’s responsibility, of course, is to apply the law when a project is put before her. Since coming to government we have sought to do so in relation to all of the projects before us, but we are pleased to see new renewable projects coming online. Since coming to government, we have given the green light to more than 55 of those under the

/2 Comments/by

The Uni-Party’s Net Zero Utopia

,

The government claims they’ll build 40 huge wind turbines every month, 22,000 solar panels every day and at least 10,000 kilometres of power lines – in less than 6 years. Despite their promises of a ‘net-zero’ utopia, they have no idea how many has even been built.

As coal power stations are forced to shut down and nothing has been built to replace them, Australia is heading towards a scary place.

Blackouts and an environmental wasteland will be the reality of the uni-party’s ‘net-zero utopia’.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. Minister, exactly how many wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and kilometres of transmission lines were built last month? 

Senator Wong: Thank you, Senator. I don’t have a monthly breakdown of what has occurred in terms of renewables since we came to government. But what I can say to you is that we have invested $22.5 billion to, over the next decade, help make Australia a renewable energy superpower. We have a budgeted plan that is backed by the experts at AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator. They have an Integrated System Plan that looks at the total cost, out to 2050, of generation, storage and transmission of renewable energy, which the government is working to and is contributing to. 

I would also make the point, Senator—and you do understand markets—that the uncertainty under the coalition meant that 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure. We did not have new investment to replace them at the scale needed, and that is because the market knew that, with 20-plus energy policies, there was no certainty to enable investment in additional generation and supply. If we want to bring prices down and ensure reliability, we have to have more supply. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Unlike with coalmines, there’s no obligation for industrial wind and solar sites to rehabilitate the land. The cost of pulling down wind and solar sites is left completely with landowners and farmers who have no idea what they’re signing up for. Minister, does your wind and solar plan rely on saddling farmers with the entire cost of disposal, or will your government legislate rehabilitation bonds for wind and solar projects? 

Senator Wong: Senator, what I would say to you is that there has been a lot of investment and a lot of interest from Australians, in terms of both investors and landowners and landholders, to be part of this transition. It is true that there are a lot of challenges associated with it, including investment in transmission, which is one of the reasons the government is working on both increasing the flexibility of the system and also ensuring that more capacity is delivered across the country. For example, our Capacity Investment Scheme has delivered over 32 gigawatts of capacity. We’ve had the largest ever single tender for renewable energy, which is currently open for bids.  

In relation to your issues, I don’t have advice on—(Time expired) 

/6 Comments/by

Wind and solar cannot solve high power prices and inflation

,

Alan Finkel is right when he says we are at a turning point in history. There are two paths for Australia to choose between. One leads to a country where manufacturing thrives and everyone, including the poor, enjoys better living standards on the back of affordable and reliable power. On the other, power prices continue to rise, and the stability of our grid is at risk.

With the highest amount of wind, solar and battery power feeding into the grid in history, Australia’s wholesale power prices have never been higher. All Australians are going to feel the brunt of these price increases. This is a primary cause of our current inflation and it will only get worse, as I have been warning for two years.

Despite net-zero rhetoric, there is an unavoidable truth. Wind and solar cannot solve high power prices and inflation.

Committing to net-zero means that  Government has signed a blank cheque to the wind, solar and battery industry whose only solution is more of the same power shortages and high prices.

For example, the closure of the Liddell coal fired power station will be a loss of 2000MW of dispatchable power.

With unreliable renewables operating on average at 23% of their rated capacity because wind and solar take days off, Australia will need hundreds of square kilometres of solar panels to replace Liddell.[1]

Those hundreds of square kilometres of panels, even running at full capacity, won’t guarantee power is being made when needed. Solar power peaks at midday, far away from the peak demand in the early morning and evening. Wind droughts lasting months have wreaked havoc in Europe.[2] Batteries cannot and won’t fix the gap.

The largest battery in Australia can supply 300MW for an hour and a half, a pittance compared to the 2000MW Liddell could produce.[3] That’s even before we consider that because of transmission and power conversion, battery storage might waste around 20% of the power we use to charge them.[4]

What does all this mean? Wind and solar subsidies force other, more reliable sources of power out of the market. Coal generators are forced into early retirement. Nuclear can’t even be investigated.

Wind and solar are inefficient and intermittent. There is less supply of electricity and it is more unreliable. That makes power more expensive and risky for businesses, employers and wage-earners.

Wind, solar and battery advocates claim that a ‘plan to transition the grid’ can solve all this. What is rarely said is that the plan to ditch coal could cost $320 billion, a cost that one way or another Australians will have to pay from their hip pocket.[5]

Australia is facing down the barrel of a cost of living and inflation crisis. We must abandon the ill-advised forced uptake of wind and solar that is going to keep making power bills more expensive.

Instead, we must stop demonizing coal and build coal fired power stations to cover our transition. Power companies must know that the government won’t force coal to go broke so they can freely invest to maintain their existing assets and build more.

Wherever possible we must build dams with hydro power and retro fit hydro. Snowy Hydro 2.0 has laid bare the false promises of pumped hydro.[6]

And finally, we must investigate nuclear power. Australia has had a nuclear reactor running in Lucas Heights, Sydney since 1958.[7] Australia’s ban on nuclear power is no longer fit for purpose. Everything must be on the table to be investigated if it means bringing Australia’s power bills down.

Although electricity from nuclear is typically more expensive than coal and hydro, in places such as South Australia with its massive uranium reserves and low thermal value coal, nuclear needs to be considered.

It may be years before some of these solutions take effect, but it will be even longer if we do not start them now. Decades of politicians making decisions for the next election instead of the next generation has left Australia with this cost of living and inflation crisis. We must act today with a vision for the future, rooted in reality and with the sole focus of making Australian living cheaper and easier while being environmentally responsible.

[1] For example, 1800Mw Liddell output at 90%, 10-30% capacity factor of solar, estimated 2-3ha (0.02-.03sqkm) per MW of solar power

[2] https://theconversation.com/what-europes-exceptionally-low-winds-mean-for-the-future-energy-grid-170135

[3] https://www.energy-storage.news/victorian-big-battery-australias-biggest-battery-storage-system-at-450mwh-is-online/#:~:text=The%20Victorian%20Big%20Battery%2C%20a,for%20the%20state%20of%20Victoria.

[4] https://opennem.org.au/energy/nem/?range=1y&interval=1w Battery (Charging) vs. Battery (Discharging)

[5] https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/why-it-will-cost-320b-to-ditch-coal-in-three-maps-and-a-chart-20220608-p5as3t

[6] https://www.smh.com.au/national/five-years-on-snowy-2-0-emerges-as-a-10-billion-white-elephant-20220310-p5a3ge.html

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Flux_Australian_Reactor

/3 Comments/by

No plan to remove toxic solar panels

, , ,

Solar panels have a limited shelf life before they lose efficiency and don’t generate enough electricity. When that shelf life is reached, the panels need to be removed and disposed of.

Unfortunately solar panels are full of highly toxic chemicals like lead, lithium and cadmium which are hard to dispose.

Despite knowing about this looming problem for decades, the government has no plan and no budget to clean up the millions of toxic solar panels across the country.

Transcript

Chair, and thank you for appearing today. In terms of clean energy technology development, what is the proposed solution from the government to safely dispose of the heavy metal component of degraded solar cells?

Senator, there is some work underway through ARENA to look at end-of-life issues for solar cells, but to give you a specific answer right now, I’d have to take that on notice.

Okay, thank you, so some work is underway with ARENA, end-of-life. How expensive, I guess you probably can’t answer this question. How expensive will this process be and what amount had been budgeted for this task?

Yeah, Senator, I don’t think we have the right answers for those questions, and certainly from a Commonwealth perspective, there isn’t a budget allocated to that activity.

Who will be responsible for implementing this policy once it’s developed.

So I think that there’s waste disposal issues. So that’ll be governed more by state legislation than Commonwealth legislation.

So we’ll have some Commonwealth legislation hybrid?

No, Senator, I’m saying that

I’m just trying to clarify.

it’s more a state issue.

Okay, it’s a state issue. So is it likely to be privatised or would it be the responsibility of the individual solar complexes owners?

Look, I really don’t think we have answers to those questions, Senator. I think the research that ARENA is doing will provide some light onto whether or not there are issues that need to be dealt with, and then if there are, there will be policy responses developed by the relevant level of government.

If there are issues?

Yeah, that’s right.

So we don’t know if there are issues yet?

I can’t say myself that I’m aware of how significant those issues are. So research is underway.

Senator, this issue further, we’ll take the rest of that on notice. That question…

Thank you. Will these costs be factored into the massively high government subsidies that are the only way to fudge the actual cost of solar to the community who have been duped into thinking that solar is a cheap source of electricity?

We’ll take that on notice, Senator.

Thank you. Isn’t it true that if the subsidies were removed from solar, they would not be viable because solar in reality is much more expensive than coal, which is still the cheapest form of energy apart from hydro?

On notice, Senator.

On notice? Given that we know that within 10 years or less, the Australian landscape will be littered with hundreds of thousands of dead toxic solar cells. What is the plan? You don’t know the plan yet, ARENA?

We’d take that on notice to do that properly for you, Senator.

Okay, thank you. Is it the government’s intention to create a new industry of solar cell disposal?

Same again?

Senator, we’ll take that on notice

Okay. When will this government, Minister, when will this government stop pandering to the greens on this issue when it works out against Australians who now are forced to pay the most expensive electricity bills in the Western world because of the government subsidies paid for solar and wind generation?

Well, I don’t accept the premise of your question, Senator Roberts. I mean, if you look at the record under this government when it comes to energy prices, for instance, we saw quarter on quarter, month on month energy reductions in costs in energy prices. So we take that

Does that have anything to do with COVID?

We take that very seriously. No, that predates COVID, like, we can go to some of the detail of that if you’d like, but we have had a very strong focus on reducing emissions. That’s why we don’t support things like, sorry, on reducing prices and reducing emissions at the same time. And that’s why we don’t support things like carbon taxes. We have pursued approaches that support reliability, ensure, yes, renewables are very important part of the mix. I know that there will be disagreement between the government and yourself, Minister Roberts, Senator Roberts, on that, but if you look at where renewable energy is affordable, of course, that’s a great part of the energy mix. It’s doing an environmental job and it’s also contributing to the overall price points, but we know that there are challenges with that. That’s why you need backup. That’s why you need, for instance, gas-fired power as backup to renewables. And so the mix of energy is important. We take that very seriously, but no I certainly don’t accept the premise of your question.

Do you think, Minister, it’s responsible for a government to embark on a policies as they did with the Howard Anderson Government in 1996 to reintroduce the renewable energy target, to drive renewables, and yet had no plan for how we would deal with the legacies of these solar panels and wind turbines?

Well, look, it’s probably difficult for me to comment.

This is now, excuse me, this is now 25 years.

But it’s probably difficult for me to comment on sort of the policy process in, you know, 1996 and sort of in that government. So it’s, I probably can’t add too much…

Well given that we are now aware of this issue, and we’ve been saying this for years now, given that we’re now aware of this issue, let’s forget 1996, and let’s look at what your government is doing with regard to this issue now. It’s right on us. We’re gonna have these toxic panels all over the country.

Well, look, as Ms. Evans has said, I think some of those questions have been taken on notice, and, obviously, we will provide you with some further detail if we can.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thanks Senator Roberts.

/2 Comments/by

Greens anti-development Motion – South Australia Quarry

,

Transcript

One Nation will not support the motion. Senator Hanson-Young’s motion proposes to kill off jobs in South Australia. South Australia is a low-opportunity economy because the Greens have stopped billions of dollars of investment in ecotourism, agriculture and mining.

The Greens support for wind farms has endangered species of large birds drawn into the turbine blades and their land management policies directly contributed to the catastrophic loss of millions of native animals in the Kangaroo Island fire—millions!

The Greens are no friend to Australian animals, no friend to the poor who need jobs and no friend to mum and dad farmers who produce food for us to eat. It will be a matter for the government of South Australia to assess the quarry expansion proposal.

Motion 953: https://parlwork.aph.gov.au/motions/e16ad7ce-e361-eb11-b85f-005056b57e20

/by