Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—On behalf of the member for Fairfax, I move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) the $60 billion blackhole in the Government's energy plan, as exposed by independent analysis from a leading Australian energy economist;

(b) independent analysis has revealed that more than $60 billion of mega-energy projects, which the Government is seeking to build by 2030, are unaccounted for in the Government's logic despite their significant impact on the energy prices paid by households;

(c) the concerns raised pertain to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's GenCost study which evaluates the levelised cost of electricity for different energy generating technologies;

(d) the GenCost study provides the central justification for the Government's radical energy experiment and the repeated mantra that 'renewables are the cheapest form of energy';

(e) the GenCost report fails to account for the true cost of various energy generation technologies by excluding the cost of integrating them into the electricity network;

(f) that this includes projects such as Snowy 2.0, the Kurri Kurri gas plant, significant integrated system plan transmission projects, Tasmania Battery of the Nation, and the Illawarra gas peaking plant;

(g) the $60 billion price tag excludes household batteries and the distribution network;

(h) the Government has wilfully misrepresented the study to blind Australians to the true cost of the Government's plan; and

(i) the importance of a total system cost assessment for energy, including integration costs, because this will be paid for in the energy bills of Australian households and businesses; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) immediately stop misrepresenting the price of various energy generation technologies so that a complete assessment can be done to determine the true optimum investment pathway for Australia's energy market; and

(b) adopt an 'all of the above' approach to energy as the Opposition has done, which allows for a mix of different technologies to be considered, including renewables.

This motion relates particularly to the $60 billion black hole in the government's energy plan, as exposed by independent analysis from a leading Australian energy economist. It's not the coalition putting this; this is coming from an independent economist. Independent analysis has revealed that more than $60 billion of mega energy projects, which the government is seeking to build by 2030, are unaccounted for in the government's logic, despite their significant impact on the energy prices paid by households. The concerns that are being raised pertain to the Commonwealth's Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's GenCost study, which evaluates the levelised cost of electricity for different energy-generating technologies. The GenCost study provides a central justification for the government's radical energy experiment and the repeated mantra that renewables are the cheapest form of energy. We hear this over and over again from Minister Bowen. But Australians are not convinced. Australian families paying their energy bills are not convinced. Australian companies and Australian industry are not convinced.

The GenCost report fails to account for the true cost of various energy generation technologies by excluding the cost of integrating them into the electricity network. This includes projects such as Snowy 2.0, the Kurri Kurri gas plant, significant integrated system plan transmission projects, Tasmania Battery of the Nation and the Illawarra gas peaking plant. The $60 billion price tag excludes household batteries and the distribution network. This government has wilfully misrepresented the study to blind Australians to the true cost of the government's plan. We need a total system cost assessment for energy, including integration costs, because this will be paid for in the energy bills of Australian households and businesses. Therefore, the government is called upon to immediately stop misrepresenting the price of various energy generation technologies so that a complete assessment can be done to determine the true optimum investment pathway for Australia's energy market. The government must also adopt an 'all of the above' approach to energy, as the opposition has done, which allows for a mix of different technologies to be considered. This includes renewables.

The coalition is supportive of a transformation to net zero technologies, but it can't be done on an ideological basis of refusing to look at any other technologies except for renewable energy. We are now starting to see the exact cost of this government's failed energy policy, including the failure to consider keeping gas until we've got sufficient levels of base load power and the failure also to even consider looking at modern nuclear, which has been embraced by many countries throughout the world and will continue to be. There is no country in the world that has successfully moved to renewables only to power its energy supply. We are now seeing the massive cost to our country through the government's zealotry in only looking at renewable energies. This has been seen, particularly, with a $60 billion blackhole now exposed in the Albanese Labor government's radical energy experiment. The government needs to stop now, have a look at its policy, have a look at its costing and provide the Australian people with some honesty and real costing on this policy.

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A year ago, a little after sunrise on 25 October 2022, the member for Fairfax was happy to stand in this place and try to take credit for the rollout of solar and wind power in Australia, almost all of which, to that date, was supported by state government policies. He then suggested that the Albanese government's targets were too ambitious. Then, of course, he also voted against the climate change bill, and, in December, he voted against the price cap and so voted against lower energy bills for all Australians, just as other members of the opposition did. It is beyond bewildering that anyone has bothered to show up to debate this motion—although it can't be said for the member for Fairfax, who is not here to debate his own motion, with the member for Hughes standing there on shaky ground trying to take his place. I hope my speaking on this odd coalition motion doesn't lend any semblance of credibility to it, but I feel obliged to do so as a member of the government committed to tackling carbon emissions and the massive task of transitioning away from reliance on fossil fuels and towards cheap and reliable renewable sources of energy.

After a decade on the Treasury benches, the coalition have amassed a string of best hits in relation to energy policy. In the wake of Prime Minister Tony Abbott tearing up the most effective carbon abatement policy this country has had to date, we had direct action followed by, 'This is coal,' when under Turnbull's prime ministership the soon-to-be next prime minister and now member for Cook implored us not to be scared of a lump of coal. That is the coalition, always wishing it was the mid-20th century. We then saw a rejection of the clean energy target and the introduction of the National Energy Guarantee followed by the scrapping of the renewable energy targets. Then those opposite went all Soviet on us and threatened to use taxpayer dollars to build a coal-fired power plant. We were assured we would make our Paris targets in a canter. Then we saw huge investments in hydro and batteries, but that made a few of those opposite uncomfortable so we then got the gas-led recovery. Over the last decade the coalition have presided over four gigawatts of dispatchable energy, leaving the national energy market with only one gigawatt coming back in. Now they pretend to form policy while only flirting with the nuclear industry.

Like most areas of policy and government this means Australia has a lot of catching up to do, but that catching up has begun under the Albanese Labor government and will continue. In the less than 18 months of Albanese government we have already provided business and investors with the certainty that they crave by legislating emission reduction targets and setting new renewable energy targets. We have capped gas prices to keep electricity prices from spiralling out of control after the coalition kept Australians in the dark in relation to how bad the energy crisis was in the dying days of their government. We have put in place proper incentives for industry to reduce their emissions output through the legislated safeguards mechanism. We have reinvigorated ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. We're investing in hydrogen, solar, on and offshore wind, transmission and the training required to ensure skilled workers are there to keep the lights on for all of us. Australia under Prime Minister Albanese, Minister Bowen and Minister Plibersek is once more being taken seriously on the international stage.

The GenCost report by the CSIRO and AEMO does include the cost of transmission and storage for renewables. It is not uncommon for the coalition to undervalue the CSIRO. Some members opposite may well find it confronting to learn that governments and legislators are always obliged to accept and act on the best scientific advice available. In relation to nuclear energy, the member for Fairfax appears to favour that the GenCost report indicates the nuclear path would be five times more expensive than renewables. The SNRs also promise to be dirtier, creating more nuclear waste. Feasibility is a live issue, and the time frame within which such reactors might be able to be constructed means they would only start to provide energy next decade, by which time the march of renewables will be so progressed as to make the coalition's nuclear thought bubble more farcical than it is now. The sun will rise in the morning, and it's not a metaphor. The sun will rise each and every day in this country, and each and every day it will shine on more solar panels and push wind through more turbines than it did the day before. The member for Fairfax and the opposition need to catch up. The world is turning without them.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Briefly reflecting on the member for Fairfax, the member for Fairfax is on paternity leave. I congratulate the O'Briens on their new addition, the reason he's not in the House.

Gavin Pearce (Braddon, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health, Aged Care and Indigenous Health Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prime Minister Albanese made several promises in the lead-up to the last election. One of course was the infamous promise to reduce household power bills by $275 during their first term. Fast-forward 18 months and today we are a country in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. Instead of power prices going down, families are paying some of the highest prices in the developed world. Small businesses are being asked to do more with less and brought to their knees by the cost of energy. Eighteen months on and Labor's promise of cheaper power bills is in tatters, but on this side we have always known that this was an empty promise because misrepresentation and deception were at the very heart of this promise. Labor has always maintained that a balance of technologies isn't needed because renewables alone will deliver the cheapest energy for Australian businesses and households.

But this position by the minister and by the government is founded principally on one document: the CSIRO's GenCost report. This report evaluates the levelled cost of electricity for different energy-generating technologies. An independent analysis has exposed significant flaws in the way Labor is representing its claim to Australians. This is not what some may call a 'slip of the pen' error. Labor has deliberately excluded $60 billion of integration costs from its renewable energy calculations. This includes in excess of 10,000 kilometres of transmission lines that will be required; 15 gigawatts of storage capacity; Snowy hydro 2.0; and Tasmania's Battery of the Nation project. Tasmania, of course, has less than one per cent of Australia's land mass. However, we receive 9½ per cent of Australia's rainfall and we have 26½ per cent of Australia's fresh water in storage across 54 hydro dams. That's 54 hydro dams turning 30 power stations, some of which are more than 100 years old. These 30 power stations are producing around 9,000 gigawatt hours of clean electricity from hydro power created in Tasmania. That's enough to power 900,000 Australian homes and small businesses.

On this side, we firmly believe that in order to achieve our net zero target an all-of-the-above approach is needed—in fact, it is absolutely mandatory—where a mix of technologies is investigated rather than Labor's single-minded, ideological solution. We are led by economics on this side, and by engineering and science—not by bubbles and deception. I therefore call on this minister to reveal the true cost of Labor's energy transition plan and to admit to Australians—to look down the camera and tell them—that this can only be the result if every single household and business pays more for their electricity.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Deputy Speaker Freelander, I'm just making sure that I'm speaking on the right motion! Sadly, those opposite are not very familiar with original thought; they have continued to revisit the past because they're afraid of the future. We know what's behind the private members bill, and that is the coalition's—

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is that the same motion?

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Actually, it applies to just about every policy! We know that the coalition's nuclear ideology is founded on fantasies from the past and fuelled by the suspicion of sunlight and wind, the cheapest, cleanest and most abundant forms of energy that our continent has. They want to fill their black hole with nuclear power stations. In 2007, during the dying days of the Howard government, the coalition were falling apart on the issue of nuclear power. The Liberals were flirting with the idea of building nuclear power stations, while members of the National Party—remember those guys that used to be connected with farmers before they were taken over by economists, bankers and journalists?—were calling on the Liberals not to build nuclear power stations in Australia. At the time, the Howard government couldn't tell Australians where these plants would be located or where the nuclear waste would be stored. Without that detail, Australians felt insecure and worried about whether a nuclear plant or waste storage would be plonked in their suburb. It's now 2023 and the coalition's current claim is that nuclear energy is the lowest form of low carbon. Where is this fantasy coming from? I was just up in the Federation Chamber, where I heard two speakers talk about energy. There was no mention of nuclear until right at the end.

We know that nuclear is around three times more expensive than firm renewables. New analysis by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water shows that Australians will be lumped with a $387 billion cost burden if nuclear power is used to replace our current fleet of coal-fired power stations. The member for Dickson and his climate-denying coalition colleagues like to talk up their record on the economy, but this figure, $387 billion, is proof that their nuclear energy plan flies in the face of economics and reason. The coalition's $387 billion plan is 20 times the cost of the government's Rewiring the Nation Fund. Through already agreed state deals, it will support unlocking over 26 gigawatts of new renewable generation capacity and over 30 gigawatts of transmission capacity. The World nuclear industry status report tells us that nuclear costs rose 36 per cent between 2009 and 2021, whilst solar costs fell 90 per cent and wind fell by 72 per cent. So I'd like to hear the explanation by those opposite of why they want to hit Australians with a $387 billion cost burden for a nuclear energy plan that flies in the face of economics and reason. The fact is that power generated from solar and wind is cheaper, cleaner and puts downward pressure on electricity bills. And, of course, nuclear is slow to build. If we went down the track proposed by those opposite, it would take decades before they could even flick on a single light bulb. And what would we do in the meantime? Nothing, probably—as, when it comes to dealing with climate and energy, the opposition have proved themselves to be masters of nothingness.

Nuclear energy is not flexible to use. You can't turn a nuclear plant on and off easily. They're even worse than the boilers in a coal-fired power station. So they're very ineffective when it comes to peaking on that superhot day in Queensland, on that cold day in Melbourne or at half-time at the State of Origin game, when there's a great demand for electricity. We need storage batteries, pumped solar et cetera to ramp up and down as needs vary. The opposition have shared no plan or detail on where these nuclear plants would be built. I remember that—

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Moreton!

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that interjection from the member for Petrie, suggesting that nuclear power plants should be built in Moreton. I do take that suggestion and I look forward to taking that to the people of Moreton at the next election. The member for Petrie is proposing it.

After a decade of their energy policy chaos, rather than finally embracing a clean, cheap, safe and secure renewable future, all those opposite can do is whip up a multibillion dollar nuclear-flavoured energy policy fantasy to try to con Australians yet again. The reality is that those opposite are flim-flam artists when it comes to energy. They'll say and do anything to conceal the fact that they wasted a decade. We can't afford to waste any more.

Debate interrupted.