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

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What is the Albanese Labor government's approach to lowering energy bills after a decade of failed policies? How is this different from other approaches?

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

I thank the honourable member for her question. This is the last sitting day before the Albanese government's $300 in bill relief starts next Monday. It is the last sitting day before every Australian receives a tax cut as well. Everybody with an energy bill is getting energy relief and everybody with a tax bill is getting a tax cut delivered by the Albanese government. We are also getting on with the job in the longer term of delivering renewable energy, as was outlined yesterday by AEMO in the integrated systems plan, a detailed, modelled, considered plan for Australia's future, with all the implications, all the details there.

Of course, that is not all. The budget also included measures to help Australians change to lower bills with one click and also to ensure that they are not rolled over onto more expensive bills automatically without their knowledge. These are important reforms to help Australians with cost of living.

The honourable member asked me what other policies we have rejected? I read that bipartisan respected commentator Peta Credlin in The Australian this morning pointing out—arguing—that the Leader of the Opposition has turned the energy debate on its head. She said, 'Dutton turns energy debate on its head'. I have to say, I don't always agree with Peta Credlin but I thought she hit the nail on the head this morning, because the Leader of the Opposition has turned the energy debate on its head by arguing that the way to reduce bills is to introduce the most expensive form of energy available—nuclear. I thought, 'Yes, that is a fair call.'

There is a debate between commentators. You have Rod Sims, who argues nuclear energy will push power bills up by $200 year. You have Professor Dargaville, who argues it will be $1,000 a year. The Leader of the Opposition could clear it up by releasing his policies and costings. It is 15 weeks since the Leader of the Opposition said he would release the details of his policy 'in a couple of weeks'. It has been 15 weeks and all we have is a map with seven sites, six of which the owners have said they don't want nuclear and five of which are in states with a nuclear ban, so this is all going swimmingly.

The Leader of the Opposition has also turned the debate on its head by arguing for large nuclear reactors, which just a year ago he said he was deadset opposed to and wouldn't have a bar of. He has also turned the energy debate on its head by arguing that the way to ensure reliability in the short-term is through a form of energy that can't be introduced for 20 years. He has also turned the debate on its head by arguing that small modular reactors issue one Coke can worth of waste a year, when it is actually 12,500 Coke cans worth of waste a year.

If the Leader of the Opposition doesn't understand the details of the policies he is announcing, how could he be trusted to implement them? If the Leader of the Opposition is not across the detail, how could he run this country? It just underlines again that he is the biggest risk to Australia's energy and economic future that this nation faces.

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

There is far too much noise. The member for O'Connor was consistently interjecting during that answer. He shall cease interjecting immediately and he is now warned. The member for Hume has the call.