Coalition frontbencher Christian Porter has said it’s “too early to say” if the South Australian blackout was caused by the state’s heavy reliance on renewables, but admitted it appeared unlikely, and continued the government’s criticism of state targets.
Porter, the social services minister, appeared on ABC’s Q&A alongside Labor spokesman for climate change and energy Mark Butler, media executive Marina Go, social equity advocate Eva Cox, and Trisha Jha from the Centre for Independent Studies.
The first question led to a discussion on the debate around energy targets which was sparked following a statewide blackout in South Australia last week.
Why are politicians so afraid of renewable energy? @cporterwa & @Mark_Butler_MP respond #QandA https://t.co/6Ef6bDlBNr
— ABC Q&A (@QandA) October 3, 2016
A number of politicians had sought to link the blackout, which occurred after an extreme storm brought down more than 20 power pylons, with South Australia’s electricity mix containing more than 40% from wind and solar.
Porter denied anyone from his side of politics had made the link. Asked directly if he believed there was “any connection between the use of renewable energy in South Australia and the power cuts”, Porter told the audience it appeared unlikely but “it was too early to say”.
Federal energy minister Josh Frydenberg said on Sunday preliminary reports had advised him there was no link.
Porter told Q&A governments needed to have a debate through the council of Australian governments (Coag) around state targets for renewable energy, which he said “wildly vary”, and were “not a good path forward for the renewable energy industry”.
“The issue around renewable targets is that for every cause there is an effect,” he said.
“Now, if you set a renewable target of 100% or 50% and you put time lines on that, there will be a very substantial effect from your, as an individual state, trying to meet that target. Now, what we’re simply saying is that through the Coag process surely it’s better to have an alignment and understanding, particularly with interconnected east coast grid, between the states.”
Butler said politicians “broke the protocol” of not seeking to score political points during natural disasters last week.
“The shocking thing was that the points that Mr Turnbull sought to make over the last several days are simply not founded on any truth,” he said.
“Either he’s been deliberately trying to lie or he doesn’t understand how electricity policy works.”
Butler said the states introduced their own targets within a “vacuum” of federal policy, and Labor supported a single nationwide target of 50% by 2030 in order to cut pollution levels, meet the Paris agreement and replace ageing generation infrastructure.
Porter said he partly agreed. “The whole point is that there is no point in having these really long-run federal targets if they are either undermined or overly supported by this massive variation in state targets.”
State governments have said their targets are necessary to reach the goals Turnbull agreed to in Paris, to reduce emissions to between 26% and 28% below 2005 levels by 2030.
Government officials admitted to a Senate inquiry last week there had been no modelling to determine if existing policies could achieve the emissions reduction targets.
Cox said the real question was why the floods and other extreme weather events occurred.
“It’s all very well saying we’re complying with international obligations but we have a serious issue if we have many more of those storms which you don’t expect and nobody predicted.”
The panel also spent a large amount of time discussing the welfare reform scheme announced by Porter last month. The $96m plan seeks to end intergenerational welfare, and has called for ideas from state and territory governments, stakeholders and NGOs.
Why are young people who could work receiving payments while older people turned down? @cporterwa & @evacox #QandA https://t.co/72JI8xma2P
— ABC Q&A (@QandA) October 3, 2016
He said the government had identified three groups – young parents, young students and young carers – who had the “worst outcomes in terms of the way in which they are able to transition into and maintain employment for long periods”.
He said around 16% of that group would never leave the welfare system.
A questioner named Rose told the panel she became a full-time carer for her younger sister when she was just eight years old, after her father became unwell and her mother was wheelchair dependent with a neurological disorder.
How will blanket policy understand unique experiences of young carers? @cporterwa responds #QandA https://t.co/QdD0t4shWj
— ABC Q&A (@QandA) October 3, 2016
“I didn’t ask for this role, I landed in it at a very young age. My young care allowance is $8 a day,” she said.
“I don’t want to be seen as a burden on the government, nor do I wish to be welfare dependent for my lifetime.”
Rose asked Porter how the new policy understood the “unique and often stressful experiences of young carers” like her and her sister.
Porter said the policy was not about “blanket solutions” and the government was trying to “design policies around very small groups using the data and the non-government sector, with government money to assist us.”
To another question about the proposed four-week wait for under 25s before they could receive payments, Porter conceded it would place strain on families for “a very short period of time”
Butler said the proposal was “harsh, cruel [and] unproductive” and Labor would vote against it again.
“For a 24-year-old who loses their job through no fault of their own to be thrown on the scrap heap is cruel, and … it’s beneath us as a country,” he said.
He said it was a small amount of money on the budget and should be dropped.
