Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the honourable member for Lindsay proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The energy affordability crisis facing Australians thanks to this Government's policies

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy Affordability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know how much the Prime Minister loves to attend Taylor Swift and Katy Perry concerts, but you may not know that he also must be in with the Backstreet Boys, because it seems to be that they wrote a song for him: '10,000 Promises'. Just listen to the lyrics:

Now I see you're just somebody

Who wastes all my time and money

What a lie, you and I

What about your

Your 10, 000 promises?

That you gave to me

Your 10, 000 promises

That you promised me

Once I could handle the truth

When the truth was you and I, ooh

But time after time all the promises

Turned out to be all lies …

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting

Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy Affordability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could sing it! That would be great. If you could multiply the Prime Minister's 97 broken promises to reduce energy bills by $275 by Australia's population of 26 million in 2022, it is more than 10,000 broken promises. It is, in fact, 2.5 billion broken promises. Imagine the songs of heartbreak in that. It's an entire album called 'Albo and Bowen's bungled and broken promises'—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind you to use correct titles for members in this parliament.

Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy Affordability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a mixtape, 2022—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Correct the record, please.

Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy Affordability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's something we can all listen to travelling from our homes to Canberra—

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Member for Lindsay, I want you to go back to where you used the unparliamentary term and put the correct term in.

Melissa McIntosh (Lindsay, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Energy Affordability) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'The Prime Minister and Minister for Climate Change and Energy's bungled and broken promises—a mix tape, 2022 to 2025'. That sounds better! It just rolls off the tongue! It's something we can all listen to travelling from our homes to Canberra, except no-one can afford the Prime Minister's album in this cost-of-living crisis.

From coast to coast, across every stretch of our country, people are suffering. Whether in Lilydale, Shepparton, Hamilton, Mount Gambier, Norwood, Whyalla, Geraldton, Bunbury, Mandurah, Burnie, Launceston, Strathpine, Rockhampton—we know these places—Albury, Narellan or Sutherland, no-one is immune to the broken promises that have left people paying hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars more for their electricity bills thanks to the Prime Minister and the energy minister's bungled energy policies.

How do I know this? Because it's real life. Member on this side are on the ground talking to their people; listening, caring and fighting for them. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition recently announced that Seeley, a business in her electorate, will close operations and cut 125 jobs. This is due to gas issues caused by Victorian Labor. What a surprise! More Labor policies across the country hurting everyday Australians, with jobs gone. Central Queensland MPs, like the members for Capricornia and Flynn, are worried about what happens to workers when their power plants close and how Central Queensland will keep the lights on.

In my own electorate, a Penrith food charity which provides up to 400 meals six times a week is now struggling itself and at threat of closing its doors. Can you believe that? A food charity that is feeding people in need is at threat of closing. When I asked the minister for energy this week about Mama Lana's looking at closing down due to their energy bills increasing by $900, he didn't care one bit. Mama Lana's feeds people right across the Penrith area and also those in the member for McMahon's patch, yet he laughed it off. He didn't even know which energy company looked after my area, then proceeded to pat himself on the back.

What about the 30 per cent, or $1,000, owed to Western Sydney families to meet this government's $275 broken promise? We know that the Prime Minister in particular likes to pretend that they never made this promise, that it never happened. The problem is, he had a press pack with him, and he looked at the camera, straight into the eyes and hearts of everyday Australians, and said: 'Vote for me. I have your backs. And in return your electricity bills will be $275 cheaper.' When asked by a journalist at the very first press conference whether he thought it was possible, the Prime Minister said, 'I don't think; I know, because we've done the modelling.' So, not only did the Prime Minister say it 97 times; he backed himself with the modelling. You just can't make a commitment like that disappear, as much as you try to ignore it. Have people on this side forgotten that promise?

Opposition members: No!

An opposition member: Not on your nellie!

No—not on your nellie! Have the Australian people forgotten this promise?

Opposition members: No!

But what about Labor members' own constituents? Have they forgotten this promise?

Opposition members: No!

I don't think they've forgotten either, because in Parramatta, in Macquarie, in Gilmore, in Whitlam, in Blaxland, in McMahon, in Chifley, in Greenway and in Werriwa they are paying over $1,000 more for their electricity. Some people are really hurting. Over 60,000 people in New South Wales are on energy hardship payments, which is an alarming 82 per cent increase on the 2021-22 figure. The drop in the default market offer did not reverse the damage that has been done to every Australian.

But this isn't the Albanese government's only haphazard policy that is harming people. The energy minister is rushing through fuel efficiency standards. So, the tradies who need to get in their utes to get to job sites early in the morning—to build new homes in this housing crisis, to build the hospitals and roads we need to contend with population pressures—are experiencing a tradie tax. But don't take my word for it. Garth Butler, the principal dealer at Penrith Toyota, said this about the tradie tax: 'The rushed-in fuel efficiency standards will definitely have an effect on our business. Most manufacturers won't be able to meet the targets. They will have to pay the fine and that cost will be passed on to the buyers.' If you ask a tradie, 'Do you want to pay nearly $100,000 for a ute?' they'll say, 'No way.' And it will hurt those in our community who rely on utility vehicles to get to their work and back home again. Penrith is full of tradies, and they travel across Sydney to do their work.

As an Aussie tradie listens to their copy of the Prime Minister's bungled-policies mix tape 2022 to 2025 on their way to work at 5:00 in the morning, they're going to go to a track halfway through the playlist. This is a playlist of 97 songs—a song for every broken promise—and this particular song is 'The Honeymoon Is Over', by The Cruel Sea:

Oh, it ain't no fun no more

I don't know what to say

The honeymoon is over, baby

It's never gonna be that way again

Well, it certainly isn't going to be that way again under this government, and the honeymoon is certainly over for the Prime Minister, even while he continues to tell Australians they have never had it better.

How is that true, when manufacturers are closing their doors because gas has been torn away from them and they just can't afford to stay open? How is it true that people have never had it better when hospitality venues across the country and in every single one of our electorates are closing their doors because there are just not enough customers and they can't keep the lights on? How is it true that Australians have never had it better when they're paying 37 per cent more for their electricity bills? And how is it true that Australians have never had it better when our tradies are being whacked, not only with higher material costs but with a higher ute prices, too? It is extraordinary that right across the country, whether you're a tradie, whether you're a farmer or whether you're a mum and dad just struggling to put food on the table, you are being hit by the Albanese Labor government's bungled energy policies.

Australians want the truth, so I'm going to finalise my MPI by saying, as one of the Prime Minister's own former Labor colleagues, from Midnight Oil, once sang, 'Why won't you tell me the truth?' Why won't this Prime Minister tell Australians the truth?

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to speak on this topic today. It's a fantastic opportunity, because this matter of public importance is one that impacts each and every Australian. It impacts the cost of living, our climate and environment, and it's a matter that Labor actually understands and gets and doesn't make up fanciful stories about. It's a matter Labor takes seriously. It's a matter that Labor is taking action on. So I thank member for raising this topic. Because goodness knows it's not a topic the opposition understands. It's not a topic the opposition takes seriously. It's not a topic the opposition took action on or is capable of taking action on.

Let's start with what those opposite did when they were in government. They had the chance to create a sensible energy policy, one that powered Australia into the future, helped ease the cost of living, and helped do our part to reduce global emissions and fight back against the changing climate. What did the Liberals and nationals do in their decade of government? Well, it's a bit hard to answer, because it's hard to pinpoint anything they actually did. In their decade in government those opposite had 22 energy policies; 22 policies that did not deliver for the Australian people; 22 policies that did not deliver for our environment; 22 policies that did not empower our nation. They flipped and they blocked. Their approach to energy was so chaotic that they even dumped their own Prime Minister over it.

The far right climate denying from the Liberals and nationals ripped up the National Energy Guarantee, setting Australia back years in our transition to a clean energy future. What did they do next? They had the failed underwriting new generation investment program, a program that did not deliver one single dollar to a project or one kilowatt of electricity to the market. After that we had the gas led recovery. But this was not a recovery; it was actually gaslighting. It gaslit Australian people. It failed to deliver affordable energy to our domestic energy market. It failed to deliver power to our industries. It failed to deliver anything whatsoever to the Australian people.

It was in this context that the Australian people voted those opposite out, because they could not address the challenges of the times, because they could not govern like adults, because they could offer no solutions—zero solutions—to support everyday working people during some of the most challenging times of the century.

When Labor came to power, we inherited a mess. But unlike those opposite, Labor is a government that actually takes action. We are a government that, when faced with a problem, can work together, come up with a solution and implement it to deliver for Australians. Labor understands energy bills are one of the biggest challenges facing Australian families and small businesses. With energy supplies impacted by the war in Ukraine and supply chain disruptions, Labor is acting to not only shore up our energy supplies but deliver cost-of-living relief and secure the green energy future that we need. The Albanese Labor government has delivered energy price relief rebates to more than five million households and one million small businesses to provide hundreds of dollars off bills. That's six million households and businesses that we have helped, compared to zero from those opposite.

Unlike those opposite, who were at war with the states and territories, this Labor government has worked collaboratively to reduce power bills. The relief builds on government's earlier market interventions to limit coal and gas price increases. Placing a temporary price cap on new domestic gas sales by east coast producers has helped keep wholesale gas contract prices under control, something that we know those opposite would never ever have been able to do. Australians know it's working. It's why the Australian Energy Regulator's Wholesale markets quarterly report shows that average wholesale electricity prices were less than half those in the same period last year.

Even with all this, those opposite maintain their bizarre, crazy, fantastical position and opposition. It's beyond belief. But, when you look at their voting record, it makes sense, because this is an opposition that has voted not only against cheaper energy prices but against all cost-of-living relief measures—all negativity, zero plan. Australians know this. While Labor is delivering more targeted tax cuts for working Australians, those opposite are voting against them. While Labor is building more social and affordable homes, those opposite are saying, 'Nuh.' When Labor is laying the foundations for the green energy future, those opposite have their heads firmly in the sand. They're still being held captive by the ideologically driven right flank of their coalition. The Leader of the Nationals has actually called for a pause on renewables, the cheapest form of energy.

Unlike those opposite, Labor sees that the transition to renewable energy is not only necessary but a golden economic opportunity. Australia stands as the most abundantly renewable-resource-rich nation globally, with more sunlight hitting our landmass than any other country. As a government, we are charging full steam ahead towards becoming a renewable energy superpower. Since being in power, Labor has simply got on with the job of helping us achieve this goal. We ended the climate change wars by enshrining our national emissions reduction targets into law and provided certainty to Australian businesses and investors, which they thank us for heartily. We announced new vehicle efficiency standards, giving Australians more choices of cheaper, more efficient cars to run. We've legislated our $20 billion Rewiring the Nation fund and achieved funding deals for vital new energy infrastructure with New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia, providing essential upgrades to the national grid. We are rolling out 400 community batteries around Australia to help Australian homes harness the cost savings of solar energy. This is what governments do if they take energy supply, affordability and sustainability seriously. We have a plan, and we're implementing it. Compare it with the opposition's decade of doing absolutely nothing.

When we hear about all these amazing achievements of the Albanese Labor government and the opposition are still saying no, the obvious question becomes: what on earth is their plan? We know they don't like renewables. We know they don't want to provide cost-of-living relief. We know they can't be trusted to come up with a coherent energy policy. So what do they want to do? Well, lo and behold, the best those opposite can come up with is nuclear power. This is not a renewable resource. It is outdated, archaic and unbelievably expensive. Their so-called serious alternative plan is to build massive nuclear reactors right across the country, risking our pristine environment, our beautiful oceans, our communities and our schools with the threat of radioactive waste. It's not a plan; it's a fantasy. It's a fantasy because it would not only cost the country billions and billions of dollars, driving up the cost of energy for every hardworking Australian, but take decades and decades to build.

As we have heard, they have a plan for nuclear energy but they haven't got a plan for location or for disposal of the waste and don't know how much it's going to cost. That is not a plan. They have no plan to power Australia. They have no plan to protect our climate. They have no plan to address the cost of living. They have no plan for Australian families, businesses or communities.

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How the Grinch Stole Christmas! is Dr Seuss's story of an ill-tempered grump who goes on a mission. The grumpy, old, green Grinch plots to ruin Christmas for the Whos in the village of Whoville. Australians know that story. Aided by his pet dog, Max, he meticulously designs a bright red suit to disguise himself as Santa Claus, and he breaks into the Whos' homes on Christmas Eve while they sleep to steal everything they own, right down to their last crumb of food, and throw it off the nearby mountain.

What we have on the other side is the narrator and author of the energy story in this country, the Prime Minister and the energy minister, who are not just ruining Christmas for families, but every single quarter when they get their power bills. The energy Grinch effect comes as no surprise to households and families who have been suffering bill after bill under this Labor government after being promised $275 in energy relief. Instead, what do they get? What have they gotten? A government that they trusted and elected on the promise that they have delivered a shortfall of up to $1,027 to households. That is an increase—not decrease of $275—an increase of up to 39 per cent. Further, around 120,000 households are now on a financial hardship arrangement with their energy retailer. That's 59 per cent more than when the coalition was in government. That's 120,000 households, Australian families, who are now on a financial hardship arrangement with their energy retailer.

What is happening in South-East Queensland? On the Gold Coast? In Brisbane? The Sunshine Coast? $622 is how much the average increase is for South-East Queenslanders. That's an increase of 36 per cent to their power bills. In New South Wales, bills have increased by up to $752. That's a 37 per cent increase. In South Australia, electricity bills have increased by up to $696, up 34 per cent. How do South Australians afford it? In Victoria, electricity bills have gone up to $275, an increase of 20 per cent. The proof is in the pudding, in the numbers. In the Australian energy fairytale, right now, that those opposite live in, Dr Seuss and the Grinch are not listening to Australian families and businesses who desperately want power bills reduced.

Australians know that the character of the Grinch is certainly audacious. He's got his own internal narrative going. His narrative is that he believes he's true. He believes his way is the right way. In the movie the Grinch tries to unconvincingly talk up his wins many times with humour, with sarcasm, in a loud voice that changes with his mood. Yet in many jurisdictions we know that energy prices are still going up under his watch, under this energy minister's watch.

In the book that I'm talking about, and the movie, the Grinch and Dr Seuss refuse to admit that their 2025 power price promise is dead in the water. It's lying at the bottom of the mountain, smashed to smithereens, unable to be put together as a promise. Those opposite have already ruined one Christmas for Australians and they likely will again next Christmas, with high power prices. The PM and the energy minister owe Australians an unreserved apology for giving false hope that they would deliver on their promise to make life easier, when in truth life is now harder than ever before for everyday Australians. The Grinch energy effect I've described is well underway in this country, and Australians are left dreaming about the end of that movie where all is well and he abandons his isolation as has something to celebrate at Christmas with the Whos, which would be a $275 reduction in power bills for Australian families and businesses.

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

I listened intensely to the member for Lindsay and the member for Moncrieff talk about the matter of public importance today, which is about the energy affordability crisis facing Australians. The member for Lindsay tried to put into my leader's mouth words that he never said. But she ignored the words coming out of her leader's mouth. We've just had a 15-minute presentation from those opposite, and not a single mention of their great, 23rd energy policy—nuclear. In fact, the member for Lindsay finished 45 seconds early. She would rather say nothing about her great policy then mention it in her MPI—unbelievable! Forty-five seconds of silence is better than their one policy—incredible! And the closest the member for Moncrieff came to talking about her leader was when she spoke about the Grinch. That's the only time she came close to him. It's unbelievable!

I think there is an energy problem in households. I know; I've been talking to people in my community for a long time. It didn't just start in May 2022; we know it's been going for a long time. I wonder if a government having 22 energy policies in a decade might be something to do with it, where they put political lines before power lines, where they put culture wars before serving customers—that might be part of it. But that's history. Our job is to solve the current crisis as best we can.

The member for Dickson's lightbulb moment—nuclear—will never power a single lightbulb; we know that. And it's not going to help people right now. After that wasted decade of culture wars, of Abbott knocking off Turnbull over energy policies—we've seen that waste, and we're not going to do that again. But for those opposite to cling to nuclear as if it is a solution, and to then have a matter of public importance talking about energy affordability and not mention nuclear—they are hung by their own petard. It is incredible they would not mention it. The only renewable resource they believe in over there is ignorance. They're going back into a culture war rather than talking in a fair dinkum way about energy.

We know, because we listen to the experts, that the cheapest form of energy is renewable. They can badmouth the CSIRO all they like—and wasn't that a great slap-down of the opposition leader by the actual scientists? I saw a couple of those opposite at the Science Meets Parliament event last night who'd wandered in by mistake from the brewers event or something, saying, 'Who are these people, these scientists with all their facts and figures and solving the problems of the world with actual things rather than cultural wars?'

Tony Abbott, for all his faults, was a conviction politician, and used energy as a way to knock off Malcolm Turnbull. We saw that in Nemesis writ large, and all the damage inflicted on the Australian people because of that culture war. The member for Dickson is not a conviction politician; he's a confection politician. He confects outrage. He offers no viable solutions. His go-to setting is thuggish behaviour; we know that. And his go-to position is to say no. That's it.

We heard no mention from the two speakers on that side so far of their 23rd energy policy. I'll just point out for the sakes of the member for Moncrieff and the member for Lindsay that their policy, their nuclear solution, will take 20 years to deliver. It will cost Australian taxpayers $387 billion. Guess what? That's a lot of money. And that's without answering all those critical questions: where's it going to be located? Where's the waste disposal? How is it going to be regulated? Minor things! But I didn't hear the member for Moncrieff or the member for Lindsay mention, 'We want nuclear reactors in our electorates.'

There are a few speakers coming after me; I know the representative for Bundaberg will want something on the—what's the river going through Bundaberg? You'll need a lot of water when you have a big nuclear reactor, so I'm sure that they will announce that when they start speaking. (Time expired)

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

It's great to talk about our electricity system and the dreams of the other side. They have fallen for the dream of this renewable energy superpower hook, line and sinker. We have so much more solar resource than anyone else. Well, I hate to disappoint them, but the capacity factor of solar systems in Australia is only 24 per cent. That means we would only be a renewable energy superpower, if we were based on solar, 24 per cent of the time. The rest of the time we'd have blackouts. And the capacity factor of wind is about 40 per cent, just like it is on the rest of the planet. If you want to run a whole system using intermittently- and randomly-generating, incredibly diluted energy systems that use more minerals and essential supplies that we need to use in other parts of our economy—it's wasted on a system that has a lifespan of 20 years maximum—you are dreaming. You are burning up Australia's wealth by producing an incredibly expensive energy system. That's what a renewable energy superpower would look like—lots of blackouts and ridiculously expensive electricity. And we wouldn't be able to run our cities. We wouldn't be able to run our economies.

We would have renewable sewerage that would only work when the system is generating energy. We would have renewable electric trains that would only work when it's sunny and windy. For these things called cities, with 4½ million people—I know you all go to sleep at night and turn your lights off. In New South Wales there are seven gigawatts of energy, alternating current of the right frequency and voltage, in the wires all the time, and similarly in Melbourne. That amount that is always there is called baseload. Renewables that only work 24 or 40 per cent maximum time can't deliver a baseload energy system. Germany has tried. Texas has tried. The grids around England and Europe have all tried. They've spent trillions of euros, US dollars, Canadian dollars. We have spent billions and billions already, and we're just going to waste more, because it's the system that delivers your energy, not the generator.

Sure, renewable energy should be cheap, because it's only available when it's perfectly sunny or windy. I wouldn't want to pay too much for it. But your grid costs go through the roof because the amount of land you have to take up goes up exponentially. You destroy nature. You destroy farmland. Your grid goes up because you need all these unnecessary grids that will only be carrying electricity 24 per cent of the time at best. Lots of times they'll be carrying none. You've just signed off on $9 billion to expand unnecessary grids. Seveny-five per cent of the time most of them are coming from big solar farms way out west. Seveny-five per cent of the time there won't be any electricity because there is no solar energy. But let's go and spend $90 billion anyhow! Is that sensible? You've got to wake up. The system is what costs you money, not the generation. And that's only one thing.

You've also got to put the full system levelised cost into your calculations, which means the cost of all the batteries; the cost of all the grids; the cost of building it every 15 to 20 years; the cost of destroying virgin bush and land, of destroying animals—the eagles—and of destroying nature at sea and on land. That is why it's expensive.

It's a subsidy merry-go-round. We are now subsidising solar and wind with large generating certificates, renewable generating certificates. We are now subsidising the cost of energy with bill relief. And hey presto! All of a sudden New South Wales and Victoria have recognised you need baseload power, so now they're subsidising coal. We should get rid of the whole subsidy merry-go-round and let people called engineers run our grids, rather than pie-in-the-sky academics who think we're going to be a superpower by destroying our energy system. (Time expired)

Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lyne is a serious person who has thought a lot about the issue of nuclear power in this country. I respect his advocacy on this important issue. But I also feel sorry for him, because he's right. He's right that the fundamental problem we have in the Australian electricity grid is the need to have power that can firm up renewables. We need to have power when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. He's exactly right about that.

But here's the problem. The Liberal Party solution has moved precisely away from that solution. They have a situation now where they're proposing baseload nuclear power in conventional nuclear power stations. That is not a type of power that firms up renewables. It's a type of power that you can't turn on and off and that you can't scale up and down. Now that they have abandoned the small modular reactor pie-in-the-sky proposal in favour of conventional nuclear power, the type of power they are proposing is exactly the type of power that we do not need in Australia. Unfortunately all of his arguments—his correct analysis of the problem that we have in Australia—are not tailored to the solution that his party is now proposing.

Friends, nuclear power is not a new proposal in Australia. It's a proposal that's been around for a long time. Since it's now being raised seriously as an alternative proposal by the opposition, it's worth thinking about that history of nuclear power in Australia. The first serious nuclear power proposal in Australia came in 1970. The then Gorton-led coalition government proposed a 500-megawatt nuclear power station. They were serious about it. They set aside $2½ million in the budget, they selected a site in Jervis Bay in New South Wales, they built an access road and they put powerlines into the site. They were going to build a nuclear reactor in New South Wales.

There was just one problem, friends. They got a bit ahead of themselves. They built all the site security and they put in the access road, but they hadn't waited for the Treasury analysis. That Treasury analysis came 12 months later. The Treasury analysis showed in 1971 that building that nuclear reactor would be up to 10 times more expensive than the alternative of a coal plant. Sure enough, very quickly thereafter, the project was shelved. They quietly filled in the access road and cut the power to the site.

We didn't hear much more about nuclear power until a couple of decades later. That came in 2007, when John Howard is Prime Minister. His back is up against the wall and he's going into an election having done nothing about climate change. He needs a policy. So he releases the taskforce report by Ziggy Switkowski saying that Australia should build up to 25 reactors by 2050. He takes that policy to the 2007 election. This time the policy isn't undone by Treasury, friends. He doesn't make the mistake of asking Treasury this time, of course—smart fellow. This time the policy is undone by his colleagues. John Howard, in the middle of the 2007 election campaign, has a nuclear policy.

One by one his candidates, in seats around the country, were asked at press conferences whether they would be happy to have a nuclear reactor in their electorate. You could see the blood draining out of their faces. You could see their political lives flashing before their eyes. One after the other they distanced themselves from their Prime Minister's own policy. In the 2007 election we had no less than 22 coalition candidates distancing themselves from John Howard's nuclear policy. Safe to say, straight after that election, nuclear policy was ditched by the coalition and we didn't hear about it for a long time—until today, friends. Here we are, back—the third chapter in the Liberals' flirtation with nuclear power, pushed by the right wing and pushed by Barnaby Joyce from back in 2019. Morrison didn't want to go anywhere near it. Morrison tried to kick it to the kerb.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's a point of order from the member for Hinkler.

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

The member should address members by their correct titles.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's no longer a member.

Honourable members interjecting—

My apologies. When referring to members of the House please use correct titles.

Andrew Charlton (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Morrison didn't want a bar of this. Morrison was politically toxic enough himself without having yellowcake on top of that, so he kicked it to the kerb. But unfortunately the right wing just kept going. Now they want dozens of nuclear reactors right across Australia. The problem is that it's not a policy that has ever worked or a serious solution to our energy issues.

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

I think it's time in this debate we get some facts on the table. Here are a few. If we're talking about increases in electricity costs under the Labor government, here are some samples: for Ausgrid in New South Wales, since the Labor government came to power, an increase of 29.5 per cent; for Endeavour Energy in New South Wales, an increase of 37.34 per cent; for Essential Energy in New South Wales, an increase of 30.5 per cent; for Energex in the south-east of Queensland, an increase of 35.73 per cent; and for SA Power Networks in South Australia, an increase of 33.51 per cent. They are facts.

That is an increase of over 30 per cent in the cost of electricity at a time when people can least afford it. That is not helpful for the Australian people. I literally have people who have jobs who are living in cars. They can't afford to pay their rent; they can't pay their power bills; they can't buy food.

This is a challenge that is across the board. But when we look at the proposal from those opposite, no-one is actually considering the cost—the proper cost. Look at some of the correspondence, the discussions and the media reports in recent times. There was a piece by James Morrow in the Daily Telegraph, with numbers from energy economist Aidan Morrison, where it was identified that the cost increase that hadn't been considered and wasn't included in Labor's policy was some $121 billion—he missed it by that much!

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy is the Maxwell Smart of the federal parliament! He has missed it by that much. But, unfortunately, there's no Agent 99 to rush in and save the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. There is no-one to help him.

I hear the member for Moreton—and I love following the member for Moreton on an MPI—screaming about the proposed costs for nuclear. 'Three hundred and something billion dollars!' the member for Moreton screams at the sky. Where did that number come from? There's only one source. It was the Minister for Climate Change and Energy.

He can't get this right with literally years of preparation. It's $120 billion that you're out, when the cost of electricity has increased by more than 30 per cent across the board and half of the retail price is in transmission. That's a rough-and-ready number. About 50 per cent of the cost is in transmission. And what is the proposal from those opposite to keep prices down? To build 28,000 kilometres of additional transmission lines. That will go onto the bills of electricity consumers in this country. It is very straightforward; it is simple maths; that is how it works. There is a regulated rate of return that is guaranteed for transmission infrastructure, and the proposal from the federal Labor Party is to build 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines because they can't get the intermittent wind and solar factories to work—because they physically don't!

You cannot have something which, as the member for Lyne pointed out, has a utilisation rate of 22 per cent and expect that it will work all the time. It is at 100 per cent, or at times it is at none. That is the reality; that is what it does. Wind is the same.

If we look at the proposals—even the Minister for Resources has said in a statement that the cost for intermittent wind and solar, or what it actually requires, is nine times more resources than an equivalent megawatt of gas. So the proposal from those opposite is that you need nine times more mining, nine times more people working and nine times the downstream processing, and somehow that is cheaper than a per-megawatt gas capacity.

It's been a while since I was at high school, as I'm sure you'd be aware, but I'm quite confident that if it's nine times higher, it's not cheaper. If it is nine times higher, it is not cheaper by any means. Once again, we have a Labor Party that has missed it by that much. The problem in this debate, across the country and with the policy of the federal Labor governments is that that miss is paid for by the Australian taxpayer, the Australian electricity consumer and, more importantly, Australian businesses who will not be competitive. How can you be competitive internationally if your price is far higher than what your competitors are paying in another country? No-one will invest here. We have seen project after project withdraw from this country because they cannot be competitive.

Once again, we have a Minister for Climate Change and Energy who I think—I shouldn't really call him or compare him to Maxwell Smart, because I think that's unfair to Maxwell Smart; he got a lot more things right with support from Agent 99 than this minister for energy. When you have people like the former ANSTO chief backing up nuclear, I think that's a pretty good endorsement.

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

Here we have another unguided missile by those opposite. The very first thing is describing a crisis. They've very conveniently forgotten that it's a crisis that we have inherited as a consequence of their lack of action. They had 22 policies around energy. They landed not a single one. Four gigawatts leaving the grid, with only one gigawatt coming back online to the energy market. What an utter disgrace and the utter contempt you have for every Australian, standing here today trying to point the finger at us for an energy affordability crisis. Those opposite understand the time it takes to land good policy. It took them 10 years and they didn't achieve anything.

Let's look at exactly what we have already embarked upon. Not only is it a case of understanding the affordability of energy, understanding the market as a whole and the cost-of-living pressures generally being experienced by all households. We've done plenty of that already, from tax cuts to cheaper medicines, more affordable child care. We're working hard to look at the whole problem. On energy, we have worked to introduce an energy price relief rebate. But for those opposite who talk about their concern for households being able to afford the bill, what did they do when that bill was before the House? They voted against it, because they actually don't care. They liked the squeeze because it gives them some weird and quite uncomfortable relevance in this place to better argue about something. If they cared they would have supported that rebate that went to five million households and some million small businesses for energy bill relief.

It goes further. It was quite ironic that they not once mentioned nuclear in terms of their own policy. The last speaker, the member for Hinkler, spoke about it in terms of what we said. But it's very cute that not one person yet and—I hope the next speaker proves me wrong—is prepared to talk to their nuclear energy policy as a way of addressing energy affordability. It's quite a joke. They're talking about four or five potential reactors around the country. Even if we take the member for Hinkler's suggestions that our quotes which have come not just from the minister but through government agencies who have done the research with the scientists sitting beside them, even if is it is not correct, that that estimate of around $364 million is accurate, even if we just take the UAEs, around $36 billion and multiply it by four or five, we're looking at $180 billion.

That does not make for an affordable household bill. That's going to be household energy bill 500 per cent higher than what they experience now. They're completely delusional if they think this is a way of addressing today's household cost of living pressures. Instead, we know that industry, businesses, are completely committed to the transition to a renewable energy future. Already we are sitting at around 38 per cent powered by renewable energy. Tasmania is a case in point. The ACT is a case in point. We are inundated with industry talking to us to be able to speak to the appetite to able to jump on board towards a renewable future.

The Clean Energy Council, Boundless Earth, the Heavy Industry Low Carbon Transition Cooperative Research Centre, Beyond Zero Emissions, the Australian Hydrogen Council, the Future Batteries Industry, Fortescue green energy—there are so many people, and sitting behind some fantastic industries, businesses and research centres, that are already on board with this. Let's not forget that the Minister for the Environment and Water has already ticked off 45 approvals for renewable energy projects that have all powered 2.5 million homes, and she has another 128 projects in front of her.

We talk about let the market decide. They are deciding, and this is exactly the direction where they see their future, where they see commerciality, and where they see a way of being able to have a win for consumers, for households and for their industry and business. We're backing in that good judgement. We're backing it in by setting the right targets, with our safeguard mechanism, with our ability to be able to enshrine targets that are meaningful, that companies can work towards, and better send a signal that this is a country to invest in because there is surety that this is the path where heading on; we're not backflipping and suddenly dropping what is the absolute sustainable future for this nation.

Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the speakers who've come before me, including the member for Hasluck. The member for Hasluck sort of gives the game away, when MPIs like this talk about serious topics and she's goading the coalition to come up with a talking point or a corflute for an election. You said, 'Please, please mention nuclear', because you're salivating for that to be used in an election campaign. Well, Australians expect better than that. They expect the government, not the opposition in waiting—maybe one day, but you're the government—to be focusing on their needs. Energy isn't just one of those other niche areas. It is fundamental to our economy and indeed fundamental to human life. The whole history and the heart of human progress has been linked to energy. Energy is key to wealth, health, nutrition, infrastructure and life expectancy. And this idea that we can play politics with that key fundamental input to our society and productivity and see manufacturing industries go from this country overseas and import those products back in and say that we feel good about ourselves—well, shame on you. Shame on you for turning that serious debate into one of cute campaign politics.

We need to improve productivity in this country. If we don't, there are only two other solutions: cut government spending—government programs—or raise taxes. That's the alternative. And if you want to raise productivity, there are three key levers. There's technology, and as one member over here, who has some knowledge of technology, said, that's not coming from this place; that's coming from the private sector. And then there are energy and industrial relations. And you've given up on productivity increasing, on industrial relations. You've made it harder; you've made it worse. So we're left with energy, which flows through to every business, every small business, every household and every section of our economy.

Those who spoke previously noted that this isn't just about productivity in the economy; it's about households and how they're struggling now with the cost of living. Energy bills, next to food and the mortgage, are some of the most expensive things you can open an envelope for. That's why 120,000 households are on financial hardship arrangements with their energy retailer. In Victoria, my home state, electricity bills have gone up to $275, up by 20 per cent. That's better than in many other states. So, Labor has fallen short of its election commitments.

And promises do matter. No-one forced the Prime Minister, or the then opposition, to make the promise of a $275 reduction.

A government member: By next year!

And I note the interjection, 'By next year!' That's not going to happen. You know that. We know that. That's not going to happen. But if that makes you feel better, I will add that to the claim.

We've had a 40 per cent increase in power bills across this nation—or 39 per cent, to be precise—and you said, 'Well, that's not our fault; it's the war in Ukraine.' Yet that invasion occurred on 24 February 2022, and right up until 18 May—mere days before the election—that promise was maintained. If that was the factor—not a factor, but the factor—then why was that promise maintained months after the invasion started? And then you got some potential good news, when the regulator said that in some areas there was a potential drop of 0.4, to 7.1, and champagne corks were popped. We heard it many times here in question time. Suddenly it's as if there's no more war in Ukraine; that's all on the government. So, suddenly, when there's good news, it's your doing, but when there's bad news, it's someone else's fault. Well, news flash: when you become the government you're responsible for the good news and the bad news. You can't cherrypick and just take the things that are good. You must step up and be responsible. I recall the Prime Minister, the then opposition leader, saying he would step up, he would take responsibility. We heard that again and again and again.

We're committed to this transition from a coal based economy. We're committed to that, and it's not easy. But let's not pretend we're going to feel good about ourselves by covering this nation in wires, removing parks and green space, scarring our landscape and riding roughshod over communities, just to have industries imported from overseas. That doesn't help the climate, the economy or families.

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I must say the hypocrisy of this MPI today is astounding—and during Science Meets Parliament week, no less. It's yet to be seen whether those opposite actually believe in science, and I won't be holding my breath. Thanks to those opposite, we inherited an energy crisis in 2022. They had 22 energy policies and could not land a single one. I think they may have a slight issue with selective memory, but don't worry; I'll help you out. Just in case you forgot, during your decade in office, 24 of our country's coal fired power stations announced that they were going to close. Not only that, eight stations actually closed under your watch, despite your coal-wielding leader, who was in no rush to put one of your 22 policies in place.

On Tuesday, the release of the default market offer, the DMO, showed the retail energy bill benchmark stabilising and trending downwards after the biggest global energy crisis in 50 years. The draft DMO shows price reductions in most jurisdictions, with up to nearly 10 per cent reductions for some small businesses and more than seven per cent reductions for some households. Whilst the evidence shows that our plan is working, we know that families and businesses have still been doing it tough and we're not backing away or hiding from the problems like those opposite. Remember when they changed the law to hide a 20 per cent price hike right before the election? Well, we do. We're doing all that we can to support Aussie families and businesses, and that's why we urgently capped skyrocketing coal and gas prices, and we have been rolling out bill relief to around five million households and small businesses since July last year. Remember when those opposite voted against urgent bill relief for many millions of Australians, including pensioners, low-income families, and veterans? Well, we remember.

The Albanese Labor government's plan is the only one supported by experts to deliver a clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy system. It's supported by independent advice from the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator—that the lowest cost plan for a reliable energy grid is Australia's world-leading renewables, like solar and wind, firmed up with batteries, pumped hydro, flexible gas, and transmission. That's what our 82 per cent renewables by 2030 plan delivers, and we are getting on with the job.

Last year alone, we saw a record investment in batteries and large-scale storage, with $4.9 billion in new financial commitments—27 large-scale batteries under construction at the end of 2023, over 337,000 rooftop solar systems installed across the country and 5.9 gigawatts of renewable generation added. Whilst the opposition are out there playing scare tactics and making smokescreens with nuclear plans, we know that nuclear energy is wrong for Australia. It is far too expensive and it will take far too long to build. Our chief scientist and market operators know this. Business knows this. And the energy market themselves know this. Even AGL, the single biggest owner of coal fired power stations in Australia, have left the opposition leader out in the cold by ruling out building nuclear plants at the sites of their retiring generators.

But I must say that our Prime Minister put it best yesterday. He said:

Nuclear power is a lot like the Liberal Party. No help to anyone today, completely wrong for Australia's future, and notorious for waste that takes forever to clean up.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring that Australia has a reliable energy system over the coming decades, whilst those opposite are dreaming up a recipe for disaster and a reliability crisis. All month we have been waiting for those opposite to release their grand nuclear plan. But we find out this week that they are yet to work out four of the smaller issues—issues like safety, disposal, cost or location. Where are you going to put them?

We understand rising bills are one of the big challenges facing Australian families and small businesses, and that's why we're rolling out targeted relief that won't increase inflation. On 1 July this year, Labor will deliver a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, because on this side of the chamber we want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Our changes mean that all 13.6 million taxpayers will receive a tax cut—2.9 million more than would have benefited under the previous government's plan from five years ago.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has concluded.