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

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How will the Albanese Labor government's plans for a future made in Australia invest in the jobs, industries and opportunities of the future in the energy sector, and what energy policies has the government ruled out and why?

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my honourable friend for that question. She's a passionate advocate for new energy jobs in the regions. The member for Newcastle and her Hunter colleagues know the opportunities that this policy provides for Australia because they are living those opportunities. They're living them, like at the Liddell Power Station, where the Australian company SunDrive, in response to our Future Made in Australia policy, has announced their plans to open a manufacturing facility. That site will employ more people than were ever employed at the Liddell Power Station.

They are the opportunities that we, the Albanese government, are seizing on the nation's behalf, and last week I had the opportunity to see more of those opportunities. In Adelaide, for example, 5B and Tindo Solar are two great Australian solar companies that will be expanding and creating jobs in response to our Solar Sunshot policy, announced in the budget, and in Gladstone I can see the hydrogen opportunities. Of course, Gladstone is a green hydrogen hub under this government, as are Whyalla, Bell Bay and other sites around the country. These are the opportunities that our regions have, and we make no apologies for concentrating on those regions that are going through economic change—for example, where coal-fired power stations will close. The honourable member asked me about what policies we'll reject.

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

The minister will pause. The member for New England has been completely animated right throughout question time. He's been here in the parliament for almost 20 years. He's going to cease interjecting for the remainder of question time. He's now on a warning. I know he's never been thrown out of parliament before, but it—

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! Members on my left.

Honourable members interjecting—

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How is that possible?

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

Order! It's not a competition. The member for New England is going to remain silent for the remainder of question time.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm asked what policies we reject. I have heard rumours of an alternative policy, but am yet to see any alternative policy. The rumours of an alternative policy are nuclear power plants in areas where there are coal-fired power plants. The Leader of the Opposition hasn't been within a hundred kilometres of any coal-fired power plants since he became Leader of the Opposition, so he hasn't really been engaging in good consultation.

We saw a report last week which underlines why we reject this policy. That was the GenCost report by the CSIRO, which showed again that nuclear power plants are expensive and slow to build. Those opposite were falling over themselves to discredit the CSIRO, led by the Member for New England, who explained in his normal methodical, calm manner that you can't trust the CSIRO because they're Australian.

That got me thinking. CSIRO started GenCost in 2018, when the opposition were in office, and GenCost has consistently shown that nuclear is the most expensive form of energy, including while the opposition were in office. That got me thinking: I wonder what the member for New England thought about it when they were in government? Well, he was asked by David Speers, 'Is nuclear under consideration?' and he said, 'It's not. It's been ruled out by reason of cost.' David Speers went on and said, 'You're in government. You're no less than the Deputy Prime Minister. Why don't you give it a push?' Joyce said, 'Because the cost is too high.'

I wonder what's changed. Sometimes in politics you can overlearn a lesson and you can overcorrect. We were very critical of the then government for having 22 energy policies. We thought 22 was too many. But we didn't mean have zero. One is the sweet spot. Have an energy policy. If the Leader of the Opposition was any good he could release an energy policy. He could at least be up to that. (Time expired)