Some simple questions for you over Labour's energy policy.
They want us to be 100 percent renewable by 2030. The policy is that this is five years sooner than the current policy, so nothing has changed apart from a date.
Is changing a date a policy? In 2025, they're going to have a review to see where they are at. Is having a review a policy?
By the way, whenever we talk of renewables I remind anyone and everyone to watch Michael Moore's documentary Planet of the Humans. And if you go in with an open mind, and this is the problem with the Labour policy, do you still feel the same way about renewables at the end of the documentary?
Anyway, is a policy still a decent policy if its driven by ideology? Further, is it still a decent policy if the ideology is insisted upon despite evidence to show it's wrong?
The reasons for these questions are because the policy as announced is in fact not new. It's already set for 2035, but more importantly the journey there has already been mapped out and it doesn’t add up.
Part of making us 100 percent renewable requires us to turn Lake Onslow into a pumped hydro facility. A massive bucket of water just in case, and the bill for the bucket is $4 billion.
Another question, do we have $4 billion? No we don’t. If we spent $4 billion, would have Onslow on standby just in case make sense? No, it wouldn't.
How do I know this? Because the industry, as in the power industry, has looked at it and concluded it's too expensive. The Productivity Commission has also looked into it and came to the same conclusion.
I told the Prime Minister this a few weeks ago. But as is her want, she doesn’t deal in fact, reports, or experts, she deals in ideology. So, she's spending millions on another report the result of which I suspect we already know. Sort of like hiring Sir Brian Roche or Heather Simpson.
What's widely understood, Onslow aside, by anyone who knows anything about renewables, is that as a country we already do pretty well. 80-plus percent is already renewable energy already.
To get to 95 percent is doable. But beyond that it becomes pointless, it's more money than it's worth, and it's window dressing for the sake of it.
And yet here we are. They have the answers, the reports have been done, but why would you use fact and fiscal prudence when you can make it up as you go along?
So final question, was that a policy? Or was it delusional hot air? Given the target is 2030 will never see the light of day.