Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question goes to the Prime Minister. The Princeton University's Net zero Australiareport has modelled the capital cost of the energy transition, according to a similar pathway to the government's current plan, for the cost of between $1.3 trillion and $1.5 trillion. Prime Minister, what is the total system cost of the government's plan?

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

I thank the member for his question. I note that the report the member refers to—and they have been referring to it—also makes comments about nuclear energy. They say that it doesn't stack up and that it should be ruled out. It says: 'Don't do it.' As any rational person who's looked at Australia's energy needs and opportunities knows, we have these great renewable energy resources. We have solar. We have wind. We have the anger of the Leader of the Opposition, who made an announcement last Wednesday and then had a meltdown on Saturday. No wonder he's melting down, because one of the things that this reflects is the fact that, since the election in 2022, the lessons learned by those opposite are that they're not right-wing enough, they're not in enough climate change denial, they're not sceptical enough and they're not against marketplace mechanisms enough. What they have done is come out with a position which mainstream Liberals oppose. That's why we worked constructively with the former Perrottet government to make a difference—to put caps on coal, to put caps on gas and to make sure we had the energy price relief plan that has made a substantial difference.

In one week's time, Australians will benefit. Every household will benefit from $300 off their energy bills. What those opposite want to do is: nothing until 2040, and then have higher energy bills. Here's what the Australian Energy Market Operator had to say about costs—

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

The Prime Minister will pause. The member for Fairfax is seeking the call on a point of order?

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

 Yes, the point of order is relevance. The question to the Prime Minister was: what is the total system cost of the government's plan? This is going to be his third go at this one.

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

Resume your seat.

Government members interjecting—

Order! Members on my right. The Prime Minister was talking about the AEMO report and the cost. They were the words he was using when you took the point of order, so he's definitely being directly relevant. I know you would like a number or a figure but you know, under the standing orders, I don't have the authority to direct the Prime Minister for the answer you would like, but he's being directly relevant and he will continue.

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

No wonder they're struggling with numbers. He can't work out this is question 2 from those opposite. He can't get to two. You don't have to count your fingers; you can count your arms or your legs—either one will do!

Here is what the Australia Emergency Market Operator had to say: 'Renewable energy generation drove down wholesale prices in the first quarter of 2024 despite higher temperatures pushing up electricity demand. …We are increasingly seeing renewable energy records being set, which is a good thing for Australian consumers as it is key in driving prices down …' We want lower prices, lower emissions; they want higher emissions and higher prices. That is the difference between the two approaches in this chamber.