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

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

"This Government's mishandling of energy policy that is increasing energy prices and threatening energy reliability".

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—

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

():  After two years of Labor, Australians are feeling poorer and Australia, as a nation, is weaker. For nearly 110 weeks the Albanese Labor government has been in power and, on average, every single one of those weeks has seen over 600 additional households sign up for hardship arrangements with their energy retailer.

As of today, there has never been in Australia's history more Australians on hardship arrangements because of Labor's energy policy. Only a couple of weeks ago, I was at the Sunshine Coast Agricultural Show. I met a senior citizen who made it very clear to me that she no longer has hot meals at night because she is desperately nervous about not being able to turn on the heater at night. She has to make a trade-off. But, of course, that's Queensland. There are places right across Australia where we have senior citizens who can neither heat nor eat at night because they cannot afford it.

I was speaking to the Salvos in Maroochydore only a couple of weeks ago. They were explaining to me how they are seeing a completely different set of people coming in. It is not just those who have always been struggling in the lower socioeconomic bracket, but also middle Australia. More and more families are coming for help because they cannot afford to live. Up the hill in my area, in Mapleton, we have a multigenerational family running the IGA. They're going to have to close their doors because of energy prices.

All of these people have something else in common, and it's not just the fact that they are finding it hard to make ends meet. Every single one of them was looked in the eye by the now Prime Minister and promised a $275 reduction in their household power bills. They were made that promise 97 times. This was the same Prime Minister who said that his word is his bond, and yet he has let these people down. Still to this day that Prime Minister and the minister who sits at this table opposite me now have failed to show the courage to look the Australian people in the eye and say that that promise will be broken. Now it's his opportunity to stand in this chamber, after I speak today, and come clean. That promise of a $275 reduction in household power bills will never be met.

This is a minister whose own electorate is in the state of New South Wales. There are people in New South Wales who, in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, will be paying over $1,000 more for their electricity bills than this minister promised them. This is how bad it is. Over last year's and this year's budget, this government announced $6.5 billion in energy relief packages. No doubt the Labor backbench will get up and give their talking points about this. This is billions of dollars to mop up the failure of the minister who sits right here at this table. And guess what? He still can't achieve his $275 reduction in household power bills.

I gave this minister the benefit of the doubt over the first year or so in office. I thought to myself, 'I will give him the benefit of the doubt; he is unconsciously incompetent.' But he now knows full well what is happening, and he still will not come clean, which makes him consciously incompetent. That is a far worse situation, because he knows full well that the people to whom he told untruths are out there struggling to turn their lights on, keep the heating on and cook their meals at night. Yet he goes out still and promises them false prophecies of a world in which prices will come down. But no serious energy commentator agrees with his forecast—his prediction. This is why we have the problem we have.

We have had accusation after accusation from this government, calling on the opposition to release the costings of our energy policy. We have made it very clear; we shall do that in due course and well ahead of the next election. We say that from opposition. Here we have a government that has been in power for two years and still to this day cannot tell the Australian people the cost of its energy plan. The minister can now interject if he likes and tell us the cost of his energy plan. The cost? I welcome the interjection. If the minister does not wish—

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

You might wish to—Member for Fairfax! I've allowed a lot of personal [inaudible] here, but you need to direct your comments through me, in the chair.

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

I apologise, Deputy Speaker, but if the minister wishes to interject with the costings of his policy, he is more than welcome to do so right now. It's not taken. Note that for the Hansard. Yesterday, the Prime Minister was given three opportunities to answer the question about the total system cost of his plan—two questions, one intervention, three times. Not once could he tell us the number. Last night, though, we had the minister go on television and say the total system cost will be $121 billion. But does that include projects like Snowy 2.0? No. What about CopperString? No, it doesn't include that, either. Does it include all behind-the-metre investments made by consumers? No, that's not part of it, either. How about the distribution network? The minister decided he was going to lecture the House today about the difference between transmission and distribution. The distribution network is not included.

So maybe I was wrong. Maybe it's not unconscious incompetence; maybe it is unconscious incompetence. Either way, he is wrong—$121 billion.

Since this government and this minister are incapable of saying the cost, let's go to the Princeton University, University of Melbourne and University of Queensland Net Zero Australia study, which makes it clear that it's $1.2 trillion. That's with a 'T', Minister—trillion dollars. This goes to why we're in this trouble right now. If the minister himself doesn't know the costing of his plan, it's no wonder Australians are now paying among the highest electricity bills in the world. This government has stalled on its renewables rollout. It is running, according to experts, at one-third of the pace at which it should.

This government is suffocating the supply of gas in this country. Right now we have market operators speaking to companies, asking them to not produce so much through winter—down tools, produce less—for fear that, otherwise, households can't use gas. We have, under this minister, 90 per cent of Australia's base-load power exiting the grid over the next decade. Has this minister ever stood and spoken about the need to ensure that we do not prematurely close base-load power stations without a replacement? Never, not even with his own counterparts in New South Wales about the Eraring extension. He's on record saying, 'At most it's maybe a couple of months.' They recently came out saying 'up to four years'. This is the level of incompetence of this minister and of this government, and who pays the price? I'll tell you who: the senior citizen I spoke to at the Sunshine Coast Agricultural Show—that's who. The people who are rocking up to the Salvos and Vinnies, needing help, are the ones who will pay for this absolute incompetence. And it goes on and on.

At the end of the day, under this incompetent Labor government—which still, to this day, cannot cost its own policy in government, with all its resources—it's the Australian people who are hurting. There's a reason why Australians feel poorer today than they did two years ago. That's because they are. Australia as a nation is weaker because of this government, and the minister who sits across from me today is now welcome to stand up and explain to the Australian people the total system cost of his energy plan through to net zero 2050. Minister, it's all yours. Give us a number.

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

What a great opportunity for the House to consider the choice before them at the next election when it comes to energy policy for this country. The member for Fairfax talked about false prophets and false prophecies. I was going to say that he didn't talk about his own policies at all during the MPI, but he did when he mentioned false prophets and false prophecies.

The other thing I was going to say about the shadow minister is that we normally know less about his policies at the end of one of his interviews than at the beginning. We see that regularly. We saw it on at 7.30 last week. We saw it on Insiders on the weekend. He opens more questions than he answers when it comes to his own energy policies, and that's deliberate, because the answers are no good. The answers are no good because nuclear is the most expensive form of energy and it's the slowest to roll out.

But the shadow minister poses questions about the cost of our renewable transformation. He did so during question time today, and, in that instance, he showed his fundamental misunderstanding of the choices before the Australian people. He asked, about the $121 billion, which is the cost which has been identified by AEMO, the independent market operator, for the transformation to renewable energy, 'Does it include distribution?' He seems to think we need more telegraph poles if the energy comes from solar panels and wind turbines than if it does from nuclear reactors. The cost is exactly the same for distribution, regardless of the form of energy that is used. Regardless of whether it's coal, gas, renewables or nuclear, we don't need more telegraph poles. He's fundamentally showing that he misunderstands the choice before the Australian people, and he's showing he misunderstands the work by AEMO. He's normally bagging the work by AEMO. When he's not bagging it, he's misunderstanding it.

The honourable member talks about costs under this government. He did not mention that when they left office the price of power, the price of electricity, in the wholesale market was $376 a megawatt hour and it is $75 a megawatt hour now. He didn't mention that was a target that his predecessor, as minister for energy—his predecessor, my predecessor—the member for Hume set to get the megawatt hour price at the wholesale level down and he failed to do so. He certainly did not mention that, just before the last election, the then minister for energy was so worried about the impact of their government's nine years of neglect, with four gigawatts of dispatchable power leaving the grid and only one gigawatt coming on, that he had to change the law to hide 20 per cent increases to energy prices until after the election.

Again, we have a contest about alternatives. We have our plan for our renewable energy. The opposition are having trouble working out whether they think there is too much renewable energy happening or not enough. They really have to pick a lane. They say there is so much renewable energy. The Leader of the National Party says this rush to renewable energy, there is too much of it happening. They need to cap it. They need to intervene to stop this renewable energy happening. At other times the shadow minister says there is not enough renewable energy to replace the coal leaving the grid. These are the coal closures that were announced under them, and they had no plan to fix it. Their proposal was to fund a new coal-fired generator in Collinsville, which didn't happen, and that was it.

They had the UNGI scheme, which should have been called the 'unfortunately no generation involved scheme', because it did generated not one electron of new power. That is what we inherited when we came to office. What we're doing instead is seeing renewable energy in our grid up 25 per cent since we came to office, 8.5 gigawatts since we came to office, which they could not do.

Let's come to the question before the Australian people at the next election about the choice between the plans. The shadow minister raises cost and reliability. Well, we know that nuclear is the most expensive form of power available. GenCost by AEMO and the CSIRO has shown that time after time. The member for Fairfax has quite outrageously and improperly called it 'Labor's GenCost'. It is not Labor's GenCost; it is not a Liberal GenCost; it is the GenCost of the CSIRO and AEMO. It was prepared when those opposite were in office. I am sure that they did not interfere, that they didn't seek to write the report—they couldn't if they tried. It showed nuclear energy was the most expensive then and it shows that now.

What is the member for Fairfax's big get out of jail card? He says that it is about the cost of construction and that that is the cost for investors; it is not about consumers. Apparently nuclear energy is the only form of energy in the world—the only form of any commodity—that can be really expensive to build but nobody has to make a profit back because of that capital expense. He fundamentally ignores the evidence. It is a fact-free and evidence-free zone when it comes to the cost of nuclear energy for those opposite.

We have had many claims from those opposite that we should do nuclear because it is going to keep the costs down like the rest of the world. Well, let's just see. The member for Fairfax talked about NuScale. It is the big poster child of renewable energy. NuScale is the small modular reactor. He pointed to it. He visited it. He has talked about it ad nauseum. He doesn't talk about it so much anymore because it didn't happen. It was cancelled because the cost blew out from $3.6 billion for 720 megawatts to $9.3 billion for just 462 megawatts and it was cancelled. They keep telling us SMRs—small modular reactors—are coming.

We saw the shadow minister—and really I have to pay credit to his agility—on 7:30 last week. He was asked a pretty straightforward question: 'Small modular reactors form part of your policy. How many Rolls-Royces small modular reactors are there in operation in the world?' He said, 'They are advancing very quickly.' He had four goes and, in the end, Sarah Ferguson answered it for him: there are none, not one commercial small modular reactor, anywhere in the world. The opposition keep saying, 'They are coming.' To be fair, the Liberal Party has had many chances to implement small modular reactors. They keep saying they are coming.

One of the shadow minister's predecessors, as shadow minister, said, 'You would know that new-generation reactors with maximum safety features are now coming into use. They are small, from 250 to 400 megawatts, fully automated and overcome the many safety problems associated with a large-scale reactors of the past.' Who said that? It was the shadow minister for the environment in 1989. Since 1989 they have been talking about small modular reactors.

Of course, we have big reactors as well. The Leader of the Opposition said he was against them, they weren't going to happen, he was going to oppose it, and now they are going to build five—less than 12 months later. And what's the best-case practice there? Hinkley C in the United Kingdom, where the people of the United Kingdom were promised it would be 'cooking turkeys by Christmas 2017' at a cost of A$17 billion Australian, is now estimated to finish in 2031 at a cost of A$92 billion. These are the sorts of experiences we're seeing overseas.

Again, we hear the shadow minister and the opposition saying that 19 out of 20 countries in the G20 have nuclear or are proposing it. It's not true: Germany has cancelled its entire nuclear fleet and says it isn't returning. Other countries, including Italy, have no nuclear.

And, of course, they say the rest of the world is happening! I'll tell you what happened last year with nuclear generation: it fell by 1.7 gigawatts. Around the world, nuclear generation is down because nuclear reactors are closing. Do you know what's up? Renewable energy, by 507 gigawatts. So nuclear is down by 1.7 and renewable energy is up by 507 gigawatts. Solar and wind already generate more electricity than nuclear. In 2025, wind alone will exceed nuclear and, in 2026, solar alone will exceed nuclear, because this is the sensible course of action taken by governments around the world.

And when it comes to reliability, let's just talk about what the opposition's real proposal is here. The Leader of the National Party, I'll give him credit, is at least honest about it. The member for Fairfax doesn't say it, but the Leader of the National Party does. What they want to do is sweat the coal assets for longer—to keep them in the grid for longer. Rely on coal-fired power for longer—that's what they want to do. And the thing about coal-fired power, as it ages, is that it's increasingly unreliable. It's old, it breaks down more; it breaks down so often and unexpectedly that it causes a reliability challenge for our grid. It happens regularly in our grid; it's happening today as we speak. Those opposite would make our energy system less reliable by relying on it more. And, of course, emissions would be much higher for longer, but they would rely on coal-fired power for longer, which would reduce reliability in our grid.

Every claim the opposition makes about nuclear power evaporates at the first sign of scrutiny. The honourable member talks about Ontario. He says that power is so much cheaper in Ontario. He doesn't talk about the $6 billion in annual energy rebates which make power cheaper in Ontario at a cost to the Ontario taxpayers. He says that Ontario's power is cheap, but he doesn't look at Quebec next door, where over 90 per cent of power is generated from renewable hydro, and they only pay half as much as the people of Ontario.

The Leader of the Opposition said that waste is not an issue—it's only one can of Coke worth of waste from a small modular reactor. Well, the Leader of the Opposition was completely wrong. It's about 286 cans of Coke from modular reactors in terms of that comparison. That's more like a tennis court. What we have are 12,500 cans of Coke highly radioactive waste each year from a small modular reactor. If the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand his own policy, how can we trust him to implement it? (Time expired)

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

The High Streets across our country are slowly being stripped of life because they just can't afford the bills. I know this; it's happening in my own community. Each day I wake up to a new local story that says another business has closed its doors. Business insolvencies right across the country are at record highs. The member opposite should be concerned because it's heartbreaking that Western Sydney has some of the highest rates—Western Sydney, where his electorate is. Six out of 10 business failures are in the west, but he's walking out the door, turning his back on his own electorate when he could be hearing the stories of the people who are behind these small businesses in Bringelly, Merrylands, Guildford and Canterbury.

Why is this occurring? Because they just can't pay the bills. And the top one, the top bill they can't afford, is their energy bill. A gym in Penrith was paying around $12½ thousand or $13,000 for energy. Now they're paying $27,000. How is this sustainable? It's absolutely not. Do you know what is going to happen? They're going to close their doors as well. It's not just the cafes and the gyms which are struggling, as heartbreaking as that is; it is also our Australian manufacturers—those manufacturers across Western Sydney that are making Aussie made and are a heavy industry. Do you know what they rely on? They rely on 24/7 reliable energy. Their lights can't go out. They can't put solar panels on the roof. They could have all the solar panels in the world, but they need gas. They need affordable gas. They are making products that our country relies on and that will lead us into the future. They need gas to be making steel. They need gas to be making some of our country's most important safety products, our railways and our roads. The importance of sovereign manufacturing is critical, but right now they are struggling under this government's energy prices.

I've talked about our small businesses and our manufacturers, but do you know who is struggling the most? It's people—the people across our country, in Western Sydney and in all parts of our nation. As my colleague the member for Fairfax said, people are on hardship payments for their energy bills like never before. There are 600 more each week needing support just to pay their energy bills. People are coming up to their local members on the street, saying that they can't afford to both eat and heat. They are lining up at our food banks like never before. I've spoken to some of our local charities who say that the people who they are feeding have double incomes. They're not only feeding these people but helping to pay their bills. They're coming to a food bank and saying, 'I can't afford my electricity bill,' and that food bank is helping them to pay it. Now that very food bank that is helping Australians in need is struggling because their own energy prices are up, and they don't know how much longer they can keep their doors open.

At one stage, there was hope. That hope was given by the Australian Labor Party at the last election when they told the Australian people that their energy bills would be $275 cheaper. That hope has been completely slashed now. How can you say something 97 times and not be committed to it? How can you break a promise so big that you said it 97 times to the Australian people? They haven't admitted to this broken promise, and when we look at the numbers that $275 is now completely gone. People across Western Sydney are now paying over a thousand dollars more for their electricity. Every single person in Western Sydney is struggling—those small businesses, those cafes who tell me that sometimes hardly anyone walks through the door, that gym in Penrith which is at threat of closing and that food bank that is supporting people on double incomes. Do you know what? A grant that I just got into our schools is now feeding kids who aren't being fed before going to school. This is a disgrace.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This matter of public importance would be hilarious if the issue wasn't so serious. The Liberal and National parties—the parties of 22 failed energy policies, which oversaw the announcement of the closure of 24 coal fired power stations without doing anything about it to prepare for the impending power shortage and that changed regulations to hide rising power prices before the 2022 election rather than being honest and transparent with the electorate—are bringing a matter of public importance on energy policy.

The Albanese government was elected on a platform of climate change action and energy transition—cheap, renewable energy to power our industries, our businesses and our homes. Industry gets it. Investors get it. The recent large-scale energy storage tender was massively oversubscribed, because investors and industrialists know this is a good investment for Australia's future and for the return on their investment. Compare and contrast it with the opposition's new nuclear—to call it a policy would be to overstate it. It's a nuclear thought bubble. In a speech at the National Press Club mere weeks ago, the shadow Treasurer insisted nuclear reactors would be commercially viable and could be built without taxpayer subsidies. The argument was that the free market and private investors would decide to back nuclear because it would provide a return on investment, that the taxpayer would not be on the hook to pay for them. Fast forward to now, and guess what happened? No investors, no banks, no investment funds—no-one will touch them, and we the Australian taxpayers, Australian families, will be paying for their nuclear fantasy. Well, that was a bit of a turnaround.

So how much are we up for? Your guess is as good as mine. We know that they've selected seven sites, but on ABC Insiders on the weekend we discovered that they would set up some sort of external body to decide how many reactors would be at each site. So they don't know how many reactors will be on each site, and maybe that's why they can't cost them. Of course, the plan includes a combination of large-scale reactors, which were previously ruled out by the opposition leader but brought back to the table in a 9.75 point Olympic-grade backflip—a reference to you, Dan—and small modular reactors, which are not in operation anywhere in the world and which, when they have been commissioned to be built, have been prone to massive overruns to the extent that projects and companies have gone broke. This is the investment deal that the Liberal and National parties, who gifted the Australian taxpayer a trillion dollars worth of debt, are offering us, a deal that no bank and no investment fund will touch with an unknown price tag.

But, wait, there's more. Even if these reactors were able to be built, they would provide Australia with an unknown about of energy—because they can't tell us that bit either—from a combination of what is calculated to be the most expensive form of energy, small modular reactors, and the second most expensive form of energy, large-scale nuclear reactors. So you get to pour your taxpayer dollars in to produce an unknown amount of energy which you will then pay top dollar to use. And if you think your solar panels on your rooftop will save you from this terrible cost impost, think again. In order to make the nuclear plants viable, they cannot have cheap renewable power flooding the grid and undercutting expensive nuclear power, which needs to be on all the time, so they will be reaching into your solar panel systems and turning them off, cutting them off the grid to further subsidise their nuclear fantasy.

Now, I'm about to run out of time and I haven't even got to how they will cover the power shortfall between the power stations exiting the grid and a theoretical first nuclear reactor being built, let alone an unknown number of reactors around seven sites, but experts calculate that this gap will put up your power bill about a thousand dollars a year over the next decade. And what will they do with tonnes of radioactive waste? What about the issues with the sites they picked—sight unseen, without community consultation, without approval of the owners—some which are already being used for other purposes. How are they going to tackle the state and federal legislative barriers? We know they aren't very good at water, but where are they going to get water for these reactors? I could go on and on and on.

This government's steady, managed transition to renewable energy, with storage and firming as needed, is supported by private investors and modelled to provide cheap energy. In comparison, those opposite want you to pay while you wait, pay through the nose to build the nuclear fantasy, and then pay top dollar— (Time expired)

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The lack of rain in my electorate of Mallee hasn't just wrecked the start of the cropping season for farmers; the lack of wind has been miserable for so-called windfarms as well. Our first wind drought since 2017 highlights what the Germans call dunkelflaute, or the dark doldrums for renewable energy, when the sun is not shining and the wind isn't blowing.

The nationals warned Labor and the Greens for a long time about the danger of relying on intermittent energy to replace coal and gas baseload power. Labor are struggling, at great taxpayer cost, to deliver large-scale batteries and Snowy Hydro 2.0 to back up renewables. Not only has the cost of Snowy Hydro 2.0 blown out sixfold to $12 billion; Snowy Hydro has also suspended their rain-generating cloud-seeding program for the first time in 20 years.

As the Labor and the Greens 'green dream' becomes the cost-of-living nightmare we predicted, the coalition have electrified the national energy debate, promising a proven technology, relied on by 32 other countries, with 440 power plants worldwide. Adding baseload zero emissions nuclear energy to the grid will cost a fraction of the $1.3 trillion that the renewables only approach is expected to cost, which we are all paying for in our energy bills. In Ontario, Canada, where nuclear energy is 60 per cent of their energy mix, households pay 14c per kilowatt hour—lower than any state or territory in Australia. Let's remember: South Australia is the poster child of Labor's and the Greens' dream, with their current 75 per cent renewables mix due to rise to 85 per cent by June 2026. But its current cost is over 50c per kilowatt hour.

In my home state of Victoria the Allan Labor government have a legislated target of 95 per cent by 2035, yet the same Victorian government claimed we are running out of gas—which is Labor gaslighting once again, because we actually have plenty of gas. The Victorian state government is locking up future gas exploration in a Labor ideological campaign for an exclusively wind-solar energy mix. Labor have been mugged by reality, with the Albanese government having to accept gas will now have a role in our energy future. However, AEMO has been warning about impending gas shortages which are suddenly upon us because Labor has undermined gas investment in our country. AEMO have now threatened to prop up gas supply in the east coast market, including potentially requiring producers, pipeline operators and storage providers to ensure sufficient supply. Labor's reckless rush into 'renewables only' as a supposed energy solution has not only put energy reliability in jeopardy; in my electorate of Mallee they are threatening prime agricultural land and pristine bushland with 400 kilometres of the VNI West transmission line, which is attracting wind turbine and solar panel proponents to divide communities with ham-fisted community consultation.

Let's contrast the land footprint of wind, solar and nuclear. Nuclear energy occupies 360 times less land than wind and 75 times less land than solar. That's not to mention the 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines that Labor's 82 per cent renewable generation by 2030 would require criss-crossing regional Australia. While Labor are in their own dunkelflaute—or the dark doldrums—the coalition will keep the lights on, shining brightly, with an all-Australian energy future underpinned by zero-emission 24/7 nuclear energy.

Dan Repacholi (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week the Leader of the Opposition stood in Sydney and made an important announcement about my electorate in the Hunter. He stood over 250 kilometres away and told the people in my electorate they would be getting a nuclear power station. He didn't even have the guts to tell it to their faces, and the half-baked announcement he made won't address our energy needs.

Imagine proposing a solution to an issue that doesn't actually resolve the issue until years after it's needed. It seems hard to imagine, but that's exactly what those opposite have done. Let's simplify this. Ninety per cent of our coal-fired power stations will come to their end of life by 2035. This means we will have to replace the gap this will leave in our energy supply. We could easily continue to build on the progress we are already making. We have renewable energies booming and more to come with offshore wind. We have battery technology being used to store the energy we are harvesting. We have super batteries going into sites at Liddell, Eraring and Lake Munmorah. We have pumped hydro sites established in the Hunter, with construction well underway, and we have firming power like the Kurri Kurri gas plant. All bases are covered. Those options provide stability to the grid and firming power when it's needed. We can continue with the current progress and have enough power in the grid come the time when most of the coal-fired power stations close in 2035. The transition would be seamless.

But the geniuses opposite me have come up with another plan. They have suggested we could spend all our money on nuclear power that will take 20-plus years to build and won't be ready when our coal-fired power stations reach their end of life. And that is only if a miracle can be performed. Those opposite, despite not one of them having experience in the nuclear sector, expect that Australia, which has no experience in the nuclear energy industry, to build these power stations faster than anyone else in the world ever has. Talk about mishandling energy policies and threatening reliability! I may not be a mathematician but it is clear that this does not add up. I know which option sounds to me more like a renewable energy policy, and it is not nuclear.

This is a pretty big stuff-up from the bloke who wants to be our Prime Minister. But it gets worse. The only thing bigger than this stuff-up will be the bill for the project, a project that leaves the lights off for years. We know this, not because the Leader of the Opposition told us in his half-baked policy announcement, which didn't include those details, but because the CSIRO has told us that the cost of power for nuclear reactors is up to eight times more than firm renewables.

The Leader of the Opposition said that the nuclear power station at Liddell would support jobs for decades to come. But he ignored one very important fact: we already have big plans for that site, plans that won't require compulsory acquisition. We announced earlier this year the billion-dollar Solar Sunshot plan that will see SunDrive Solar setting up a manufacturing plant on this site, creating over 5,000 jobs in the next decade. Just today it was announced that there will be another 50 jobs in the solar panel recycling centre on-site there as well.

My opposition to this plan for nuclear power in the Hunter is not ideological. Plenty of other countries around the world, like France, use nuclear power—and that is great for them. My opposition to this proposal for Muswellbrook is around the impact it will have on the jobs plans for our region. This half-baked plan from those opposite puts all these jobs under threat. The coalition's policy does not create jobs; it rips them out of the Hunter. Over 5,000 jobs will be ripped out of the Hunter for a nuclear power station that has not been costed, that has not been consulted on and that creates more questions than answers. The cost of these job losses to communities like Muswellbrook and Singleton will be devastating and felt for decades.

At the end of the day, this plan is too expensive, it hurts my community and it is the most expensive form of power out there. The Hunter deserves better and so does Australia. We had the member for Fairfax in the Hunter in Muswellbrook on Friday. He didn't tell anyone he was coming. He didn't tell any media outlets. He didn't even tell people around the town that he was coming. He just snuck on in there, after the disgraceful announcement that Peter Dutton made, because he did not have the guts to come to the Hunter and do it. We deserve better in the Hunter and Australia deserves better as well.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In Australia we are told that renewables are the cheapest form of energy—the cheapest form of electricity at least. In South Australia—on the mainland; apart from Tassie Hydro—we lead the nation with 71.5 per cent of our electricity grid delivered from renewables last year. Second is Victoria, with 36.8 per cent. So, in South Australia, we are double the next state in Australia. But here is the catch: we also have the highest electricity retail prices, at 45.3 cents per kilowatt hour. The next highest is New South Wales, with 33.84 cents—the source for this is Canstar Blue. For the record, Victoria is 30.42 cents per kilowatt hour. So South Australia has a 50 per cent higher electricity retail bill per kilowatt hour than the next state in Australia, and we have double the next state in renewable energy.

If renewable is the cheapest and we have the most in South Australia, why is it that our retail prices are the highest? There are two main reasons. First is the intermittent nature of wind and solar and the need for an alternative dispatchable source capable of powering the whole network at any time. The second is renewable subsidies, invisible to the wholesale market but embedded in the retail market. I wrote an article for a recent newsletter. It could have been virtually any evening in late autumn—that's our traditional calm period in South Australia. This particular evening it was 8.10 pm on 27 May. South Australia was consuming just over 1,800 megawatts of electricity; however, just 56 megawatts, or three per cent, of this requirement was coming from our 2,742 megawatts of installed renewable capacity. I regret to inform this place that our batteries were flat and contributing just five megawatts. Gas and coal were supplying the other 97 per cent, either generated in South Australia or coming from Victoria. This situation is common in autumn. We had months of it.

To explain, when renewables begin their penetration of a market, it's an easy fit because the full backup is available from existing generators. However, as renewables gain market share, with the aid of subsidies I might point out, they are able to undercut the baseload generators. Investment stalls, equipment wears out and eventually baseload generators withdraw from the market, just as they did at the Northern Power Station in Port Augusta around a decade ago.

So while baseload generators are unprofitable, and there are fewer days that we need them, in times of low renewable generation they are absolutely essential. The system cannot keep operating without them. So until the day renewables can supply energy for 24/7, 365 days a year a full backup system is required. Even if it is just for one or two days a year, a full backup system is required. Consequently, when renewables are in short supply, disposable generation—coal and gas—goes through the roof. The more of it you need, the more you pay. So in South Australia, where we need it the most, we pay the most, and that's one of the reasons why our retail power prices are the highest in the nation—as I said, by a factor of 50 per cent.

The other price driver is the hidden consumer subsidies. The electricity market is a labyrinth of hidden handouts, where renewable generators can make a profit by selling their electricity for down to $60 a megawatt minus. Minus $60 a megawatt on the back of hidden consumer subsidies that are embedded in our retail accounts. Chief amongst these is the LRET, or the large generation certificates that they produce. The cost is passed on to the retailer and the retailer passes it on to the consumer, but that item is not itemised on our account. No wonder those subsidies are popular in the industry! It is a hidden subsidy. It works well in giving them a return on their money, which they would not otherwise invest.

Given the political climate, investment in new coal is not going to happen. I've run out of time. That's a bit of a shame. That is why we have put nuclear— (Time expired)

Gordon Reid (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate on energy is important in Australia. Debate is important, but the argument that is currently coming from the Liberal opposition has exceptionally minimal detail for an extraordinarily large-scale project: minimal detail on cost; minimal detail on the time to build and the construction timeline itself; minimal detail on the legislative requirements that would be needed with the states and territories and also, quite importantly, the use of water—ocean water, fresh water and the like—and the storage of nuclear waste. All of these are important factors in this debate, but we have not heard any credible argument come from this Liberal opposition about these points. This minimal detail is underwhelming, it's disappointing but it's not unsurprising. Minimal detail has been provided to the parliament, to the scientific and energy communities, and, most importantly, to the Australian people—and that is not good enough.

Let's go through a few important points when it comes to nuclear energy production. The Liberal and National Party want to build nuclear reactors right across our country. Well then, if you want to play scientist, let's go through a few things. What reactor type are we talking about? Are we talking about a pressurised water reactor, a boiling water reactor, a pressurised heavy water reactor, a light water graphite reactor, an advanced gas-cooled reactor, a fast neutron reactor or a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor? Which one?

Once we've decided on the reactor type, then there are a few other not-so-minor issues we've got to go through. What fuel are we going to use for our nuclear reactor? Is it going to be enriched uranium dioxide, natural uranium or plutonium oxide? Which one are we going to use here? And what coolant? I know the member for Fairfax needs a bit of this sometimes! Is it going to be water, heavy water, carbon dioxide, liquid sodium or helium? And, at the end of the day, what moderator are we going to use? Water, heavy water or graphite?

The lack of detail and clarity is concerning. Those opposite, claiming that they are a viable alternative government based on this policy alone, are not being upfront with the Australian people, which makes them reckless. It makes them dangerous and, most of all, it makes them deceptive.

Further to these points, on average it takes about 9.4 years to build a nuclear power station. According to the Climate Council, Australia's first nuclear power station will take a lot longer. This is in direct contrast to the assertions being made by the Liberal Party that these nuclear facilities will be built rapidly.

It's also important to note that the World nuclear industry status report 2019which, I will just say, is considered to be the authoritative report on the status of nuclear power plants worldwide—notes:

Trend indicators in the report suggest that the nuclear industry may have reached its historic maxima: nuclear power generation peaked in 2006, the number of reactors in operation in 2002, the share of nuclear power in the electricity mix in 1996, the number of reactors under construction in 1979—

well before I was born. That's just on that.

Now let's look at water, an overwhelmingly precious resource in Australia. In nuclear power stations, water cools the radioactive cores and the water becomes contaminated with radionuclides. Further, figures from the International Atomic Energy Agency show that 45 per cent of nuclear power plants use the sea for once-through cooling, 26 per cent use cooling towers from water mains and then lakes and rivers are used as well, dictated by what is nearest to that plant. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that one reactor requires between 1,514 litres and 2,725 litres of water per megawatt hour. That equates to billions of gallons of water per year, and all of this water requires filtering somehow. In a country where water is precious—something that they seem to not understand—this plan for nuclear energy is ultimately irresponsible.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak about the government's mishandling of the energy policy and increasing energy prices. I thank the member for Fairfax for bringing this to this chamber. I'd also like to take on what the member for Reid, the good doctor, just spoke about—

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

Robertson.

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry—Dr Gordon Reid; I apologise. The member for Robertson went straight to deception, and those opposite have certainly got some form for that.

While we're talking about energy prices, a $275 reduction in power prices was promised by those opposite. And where have the power prices gone? They've increased for most people by over $1,000 a year, and this is going to get worse. It's simply going to get a whole lot worse, because Labor's plan is going to impose 58 million solar panels. These solar panels only last about 15 years—they say, at the most, 20 years. There's nothing renewable about a solar panel, so what do you do with it? You have to bury it. You put it in landfill.

In my previous job as mayor of Whitsunday Regional Council, we had a bit to do with landfills. They're very, very expensive to build, and then you have to monitor them. This renewable dream, this renewable fantasy, will be costing for absolutely ever. Every 15 years, or 20 years at the absolute most, you'll be throwing another 58 million solar panels into landfill. And what about the 3,500 new industrial wind turbines? They are not renewable or recyclable either.

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

They are!

Andrew Willcox (Dawson, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, they're not; all the blades end up in landfills. I've spoken to the proponents of different wind turbine projects, and they've said they're simply not—same as all the concrete on the bottom of them. I said, 'Can you put another tower on top of that?' They said, 'Absolutely not, because everything moves them around and they've got to be totally replaced.' It is a cost of $600,000 to replace one of these wind turbines; that is the cost now.

When you compare these costs to nuclear, which is going to last 80 years, you need to compare all the capital and do the sums on all the capital. You keep talking about renewables being the cheapest form of energy, but you can't just take through the middle of the day a solar panel between 10 and two—I've got solar at my house, a 15-kilowatt system. For those opposite, that would probably run a couple of mid-sized air conditioners. The other day I was having a look at my system, and it was putting out 600 watts. That's not enough to drill a hole; that won't even run a power drill. This is what happens when you have unreliable, intermittent technology. What's their answer to the intermittent, unreliable technology? 'I know; we'll double down on it. We'll build twice as much, three times as much, so that we have more and more intermittent, unreliable electricity.' What other components could you actually buy anywhere else, where you can go and say, 'I want to buy something,' and get told, 'Oh, no, we're not selling you that today'? It's very important that we have power 24/7 in this country, and power we can afford.

What's currently happening with power costs? In my electorate they're getting so expensive. I went to an animal shelter the other day, and I said, 'How are you going with this?' They said, 'We have never been so busy.' People are being forced to give up their pets, their children's pets, their loved pets, because they can't afford to pay the energy bill. I think that is absolutely disgraceful, and I think those opposite should be doing something about that.

Have a look at what's currently happening with manufacturing. You talk about manufacturing. You're never going to get manufacturing in this country until you get energy under control. Energy prices are going through the roof, and you need energy 24/7—otherwise the capital expenditure on manufacturing simply does not work. My recommendation to those opposite is: do the actual numbers. Have a look at what's happening to your power bills. Have a look at the 28,000 kilometres of power lines you want to build—not telegraph lines; that's actually for phone things. Even your energy minister has no idea— (Time expired)

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

The hypocrisy of this MPI and the speakers in it is truly mind-boggling. Those opposite have spent two whole years dreaming up their 23rd energy policy, and the big reveal last week was half-baked at best—no detail, no costings and no consultation with the community. They had almost a decade to advance a new energy industry here in Australia, and they sat on their hands while 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure in the next decade, under their watch. On this side of the chamber we have a reliable renewables plan—the only plan supported by experts to deliver the clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy Australians deserve. In six days time we're taking $300 off power bills. In two decades Peter Dutton wants to serve up the most expensive form of energy there is.

Since we've come to government we've had a 25 per cent increase in renewables, record investment in batteries and storage and over 330,000 rooftop solar installations in just the last year alone. We live in a country rich with land, wind and sun, which is creating boundless opportunities for renewable energy—and we are harnessing them.

We have approved more than 50 renewable projects since the last election and we are already halfway to meeting our 2030 target of 82 per cent renewables in the grid. Just 10 days ago, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy was in Port Kembla to declare the offshore wind zone in the Illawarra—offshore wind, which, I will remind those opposite, was legislated by those opposite under their guidelines. This is the fourth officially declared zone in the country and it will unlock renewable energy jobs, energy security and job security—and they are good secure well-paid jobs too—while supporting onshore manufacturing powered by reliable renewable energy for the Illawarra. It will bring new employment opportunities, creating an estimated 1,740 new jobs during construction and 870 ongoing jobs. It has the potential to generate an estimated 2.9 gigawatts of electricity and that is enough to power 1.8 million homes. The zone will also power existing heavy industry like BlueScope Steel with cleaner, cheaper energy, helping to secure the future of thousands of existing jobs in the Illawarra as well as provide opportunities to attract new job-creating industries using clean energy.

But those opposite are wheeling out the old mis and disinformation machine, dividing local communities and trying to create uncertainty for renewable energy projects. They've been saying offshore wind will be the end of fishing. But just last week, I was listening to an interview on ABC Illawarra with Lindsay McDougall and Steve 'Starlo' Starling. Starlo is a well-known and loved most-prolific fishing writer. He has published over 20 books, thousands of magazine articles and scores of DVDs and videos. When Lindsay McDougall asked him about offshore wind and whether this would in fact lead to more fish, Starlo said, 'If you build it, they will come, and the oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico and places like that are a great example of that. They certainly weren't built to cater to recreational fishermen but they attract a huge amount of fish.' They are real fishing hotspots. You are allowed to fish right up to them. I understand there has to be an exclusion zone on these, and 50 metres is quite reasonable. Most of us can cast nearly that far, so you will be able to cast right up against the structure and let your lures or baits drop down. You know, it will be fantastic fishing and that's what Starlo said. You heard it here first: offshore wind and recreational fishing can coexist.

If the hypocrisy of the MPI question wasn't bad enough, how about the coalition's position on offshore wind? Even after the election, the member for Fairfax was all for offshore wind. On 25 October 2022, the shadow minister said, 'Offshore energy infrastructure has the potential to create significant investment and job-creation opportunities, as well as contribute to Australia's future energy security.' But that is not all. The Nationals are saying it too. The leader said just over 12 months ago, 'We are not against renewables. It should be offshore. That's common sense.'

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

The discussion has concluded.