Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Why is it important to have an energy plan for this critical decade? How does this compare with other approaches, and why is it important to be upfront and honest with the Australian people?

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

I appreciate the question from the honourable member for Jagajaga. She asked about our energy plan, and today we've seen AEMO release the Integrated Assistance Plan, which is a concrete, detailed, modelled analysis of what our energy system needs and what our government will deliver. In five days time we will also deliver $300 in energy bill relief to every Australian with an energy bill. All of this is critical. And what else is critical for investment in Australia, for investment in jobs and for investment in our energy system is being part of the international framework of climate and energy. And, of course, an important part of that is being part of the Paris Accord.

What we've seen is a particularly stark comparison in approaches here over the last couple of weeks. Two Saturdays ago, the Leader of the Opposition told theAustralian newspaper that he'd rip up the 43 per cent target. Of course, that would put us in breach of the Paris Accord, and put us in the company of Iran, Yemen and Libya. Great investment destinations—Iran, Libya and Yemen. But we now know, from reading in the Guardian, that this was accidental. It takes some doing to accidentally breach an international treaty, but I hand it to the Leader of the Opposition. There was a flurry of phone calls, we now know. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition rang the member for Fairfax and said, 'Honey, I shrank the Paris Accord.' They dealt with the accident that he created.

This is what we get when we get energy policy on the run, and details made up by the Leader of the Opposition. It was just a year ago that the Leader of the Opposition said:

I don't support the establishment of big nuclear facilities here at all. I'm opposed to it.

I would hate to see what he would do if he were for it—he announced five of them a couple of weeks ago! When it comes to detail, just in the last two weeks, on five separate public occasions, in five separate interviews, the Leader of the Opposition has said, when asked about waste from nuclear facilities, that with a small modular reactor, you get one 'can of coke' a year worth of waste. I heard it the first time and thought: 'Everybody can make a mistake. Everybody can misspeak once; we won't make an issue out of that.' Five times he said it. What is the real figure, based on analysis from Rolls-Royce, the company the Leader of the Opposition has apparently quoted? It's 12,500 cans of coke a year from a small modular reactor. He was just 12,499 out.

This is what we get when we get a Leader of the Opposition who's not across the detail of this important policy area, who's making it up as he goes along, and who's letting the member for New England and Senator Canavan and the member for Hinkler and the Leader of the Nationals write their energy policy. When you let the Nationals near energy policy in Australia—

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

The minister will pause. The member for Deakin will leave the chamber under 94(a).

The member for Deakin then left the chamber.

The minister will refer to members by their titles. There is far too much noise; it's going to stop right now. The minister has 22 seconds remaining.

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

When you let the National Party near energy policy, what you get is an anti-renewables policy for this country. You get the most expensive form of energy. You put Australia in the company of Libya, Yemen and Iran. But, apparently, it all happens by accident.