Libby Coker (Corangamite, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Water. How many renewable energy projects has the Albanese Labor government signed off on, what has been the response to these projects and what proposals has the government rejected?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Corangamite, who I know is a huge supporter of renewable energy, including great projects like the 'one million household batteries' project in Victoria, which will be one of the largest battery projects in the world.

Of course, as a government, we are absolutely committed to net zero and to Australia doing its share to help the globe get to net zero. We have set an 82 per cent renewable energy target. It is ambitious but we are working day and night to get there. So far, since coming to government, we have ticked off 47 renewable energy projects. That is enough to power three million homes. And the good news is, I have another 136 renewable energy projects in the pipeline in front of me. What is exciting about this is we have managed to speed up the approval of onshore wind projects, for example. We are doing them three times faster than they were done under those opposite. If you look at our total approvals across all types of projects, we have actually doubled on-time approvals since coming to government and, importantly, we have done it without compromising environmental standards.

We have approved terrific projects like the Punchs Creek Solar Farm—enough to power 300,000 homes in Queensland—and the Yanco Delta Wind Farm—enough to power 700,000 homes in New South Wales. We are investing through the $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia plan close to $9 billion for green hydrogen, close to half billion dollars for batteries, about $1 billion for solar panels and, very importantly, support for critical minerals, because we know that critical minerals are absolutely essential in the transition to a net zero economy.

What is the difference? Those opposite had 10 years, and they were told that 24 coalfired power stations were closing and they did nothing to actually replace that generation capacity. Now they have come up with a $387 billion nuclear fantasy and, on top of that, they are now saying that these projects should not even be subject to John Howard's old environmental laws. So, under those opposite, if you are a coal or gas project or you are nuclear, you get the fast track but if you are a renewable energy project you are in the slow lane.