❓ A parliamentary question regarding the McGowan government's energy policy and potential undermining efforts, followed by a lengthy response attacking the opposition's energy plan and highlighting internal criticism within the Liberal party.
AnsweredQoN 229Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
M c GOWAN
GOVERNMENT — ENERGY POLICY
229. Ms J.L. HANNS to the Minister for Energy:
I refer to the McGowan Labor
government's commitment to the responsible management of Western Australia's
energy sector and the implementation of sensible energy policies. Can the
minister update the house on the work underway by the McGowan Labor government
to futureproof Western Australia's energy system, and can the minister
also advise the house whether he is aware of anyone who is attempting to
undermine this government's responsible and sensible approach?
GOVERNMENT — ENERGY POLICY
229. Ms J.L. HANNS to the Minister for Energy:
I refer to the McGowan Labor
government's commitment to the responsible management of Western Australia's
energy sector and the implementation of sensible energy policies. Can the
minister update the house on the work underway by the McGowan Labor government
to futureproof Western Australia's energy system, and can the minister
also advise the house whether he is aware of anyone who is attempting to
undermine this government's responsible and sensible approach?
AnswerView source ↗
What
a wonderful question from the hardworking member for Collie–Preston. I acknowledge
her deep commitment to energy transition. One of the great achievements
that this government is implementing is Collie's Just Transition Plan.
Everybody knows that there is an energy transition happening, but it must be
done in a proper and sensible way. We have already closed Muja AB, which was a $320
million waste of money under the former government, and we have announced the
planned closure of Muja C. We understand the impact that will have and are
working with the community on that. We have the Energy Transformation Strategy,
the Distributed Energy Resources Roadmap, new inverter standards, the Whole of
System Plan and the foundation regulatory framework reform. We are also
implementing Project Symphony and Synergy's big battery. We have
achieved 1 350 megawatts of additional renewable energy over the last four
years.
We
have a logical plan, but there are risks. I was very interested on 20 May this
year to go to the Mining and Energy Investment
Australia–Europe Critical Resources Strategy and Supply conference, at
which I spoke, as did the member for Cottesloe. I was surprised that the
member for Cottesloe continued to spruik his renewable energy plan that he
released during the election campaign. We have seen over the last three days
that members of the Liberal Party have been leaking against each other through The
West Australian . We also have to remember that the member for Cottesloe
verballed the three government trading enterprise chief executives by claiming
that they all supported his proposal when they had done nothing of the sort. I want
to know this: do the member for Cottesloe's opposition colleagues know
that he continues to push his renewables plan that he launched during the
election campaign? Are opposition members aware that the member for Cottesloe
continues to push this ridiculous, risky and stupid policy? What do his
colleagues have to say? Former Minister for Energy Mike Nahan called it worse
than Colin's canal. Angus Taylor,
the federal Liberal Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, said that it
was the wrong approach . Andrew Hastie, a federal Liberal member, said
that the policy was a lemon. Rick Wilson said, and I quote —
� we need to be honest about the
green energy policy: it's a lemon.''
But that is not all. Some of the
member for Cottesloe's colleagues in the shadow cabinet have talked
about it. The shadow Treasurer said that the energy policy was the stupidest
policy he had ever seen the Liberal Party release. The shadow Treasurer also
said —
''That energy policy, in my
view, is the reason why our costings were such a debacle, because you could not
afford to have that policy costed.''
The shadow Minister for Environment
said —
''This was a desperate gamble,
absolutely catastrophic and ill-conceived and poorly delivered.''
The shadow Minister for Environment
also described it as an absolute disaster. I agree with him. I do not often
agree with Hon Tjorn Sibma, but I do today, because that is what other Liberal
Party members think of the member for Cottesloe's policy. The member
for Cottesloe now has a challenge. Does he want to support this government's
sensible approach to energy policy or will he continue to spruik his failed
agenda that he was still supporting only three
weeks ago? Member for Cottesloe, let me know: do you still think that building
1 500 megawatts of renewable energy 1 000 kilometres north of Perth with
a 500-megawatt battery will solve our energy network? Because none of those
things are true. As we know from The West Australian , Treasury costed
the member for Cottesloe's policy at over $15 billion. I costed it at
$16 billion, but I point out that the Treasury costing is not complete because
the Australian Energy Market Operator said that to implement the policy, we
would need to triple the transmission infrastructure in the north. Treasury
said that if we had that huge contingency of a single facility providing half
of the electricity for Western Australia, we would have to have triple
redundancy, and that would cost over $3 billion for the transmission lines
alone.
When
will the member face up to the fact that he delivered a lemon? We all saw the
costings fiasco—the three stooges . Only one of them is left.
When is the member going to walk away from that stupid policy and join with the
government in a sensible approach to the energy future of this state?
Distinguished Visitors —
Martu Elders and Tony McRae Statement
The SPEAKER : I take the
opportunity to welcome to the Western Australian Parliament and acknowledge in
my gallery the five Martu elders who are with us today with Tony McRae.
a wonderful question from the hardworking member for Collie–Preston. I acknowledge
her deep commitment to energy transition. One of the great achievements
that this government is implementing is Collie's Just Transition Plan.
Everybody knows that there is an energy transition happening, but it must be
done in a proper and sensible way. We have already closed Muja AB, which was a $320
million waste of money under the former government, and we have announced the
planned closure of Muja C. We understand the impact that will have and are
working with the community on that. We have the Energy Transformation Strategy,
the Distributed Energy Resources Roadmap, new inverter standards, the Whole of
System Plan and the foundation regulatory framework reform. We are also
implementing Project Symphony and Synergy's big battery. We have
achieved 1 350 megawatts of additional renewable energy over the last four
years.
We
have a logical plan, but there are risks. I was very interested on 20 May this
year to go to the Mining and Energy Investment
Australia–Europe Critical Resources Strategy and Supply conference, at
which I spoke, as did the member for Cottesloe. I was surprised that the
member for Cottesloe continued to spruik his renewable energy plan that he
released during the election campaign. We have seen over the last three days
that members of the Liberal Party have been leaking against each other through The
West Australian . We also have to remember that the member for Cottesloe
verballed the three government trading enterprise chief executives by claiming
that they all supported his proposal when they had done nothing of the sort. I want
to know this: do the member for Cottesloe's opposition colleagues know
that he continues to push his renewables plan that he launched during the
election campaign? Are opposition members aware that the member for Cottesloe
continues to push this ridiculous, risky and stupid policy? What do his
colleagues have to say? Former Minister for Energy Mike Nahan called it worse
than Colin's canal. Angus Taylor,
the federal Liberal Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction, said that it
was the wrong approach . Andrew Hastie, a federal Liberal member, said
that the policy was a lemon. Rick Wilson said, and I quote —
� we need to be honest about the
green energy policy: it's a lemon.''
But that is not all. Some of the
member for Cottesloe's colleagues in the shadow cabinet have talked
about it. The shadow Treasurer said that the energy policy was the stupidest
policy he had ever seen the Liberal Party release. The shadow Treasurer also
said —
''That energy policy, in my
view, is the reason why our costings were such a debacle, because you could not
afford to have that policy costed.''
The shadow Minister for Environment
said —
''This was a desperate gamble,
absolutely catastrophic and ill-conceived and poorly delivered.''
The shadow Minister for Environment
also described it as an absolute disaster. I agree with him. I do not often
agree with Hon Tjorn Sibma, but I do today, because that is what other Liberal
Party members think of the member for Cottesloe's policy. The member
for Cottesloe now has a challenge. Does he want to support this government's
sensible approach to energy policy or will he continue to spruik his failed
agenda that he was still supporting only three
weeks ago? Member for Cottesloe, let me know: do you still think that building
1 500 megawatts of renewable energy 1 000 kilometres north of Perth with
a 500-megawatt battery will solve our energy network? Because none of those
things are true. As we know from The West Australian , Treasury costed
the member for Cottesloe's policy at over $15 billion. I costed it at
$16 billion, but I point out that the Treasury costing is not complete because
the Australian Energy Market Operator said that to implement the policy, we
would need to triple the transmission infrastructure in the north. Treasury
said that if we had that huge contingency of a single facility providing half
of the electricity for Western Australia, we would have to have triple
redundancy, and that would cost over $3 billion for the transmission lines
alone.
When
will the member face up to the fact that he delivered a lemon? We all saw the
costings fiasco—the three stooges . Only one of them is left.
When is the member going to walk away from that stupid policy and join with the
government in a sensible approach to the energy future of this state?
Distinguished Visitors —
Martu Elders and Tony McRae Statement
The SPEAKER : I take the
opportunity to welcome to the Western Australian Parliament and acknowledge in
my gallery the five Martu elders who are with us today with Tony McRae.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.