Sally Sitou (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government acting to reduce the cost of energy? What policies leading to higher power prices has the government rejected?

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

I thank my honourable friend for her question and her leadership when it comes to climate activism in her electorate. Since the parliament last sat, the $300 of energy bill relief from the Albanese government has been applied to energy bills across the country. And of course that comes with our tax cuts which came into force on 1 July to provide cost-of-living relief to Australians today, when they need it—not in decades time but today, because that's when Australians are feeling the pressure. They're feeling the pressure right now, so the relief is flowing right now.

In the medium term, we're also continuing with the task of rolling out the cheapest form of energy, which is renewable energy. While both sides of the House agree that renewables play an important role in Australia's energy mix, we on this side of the House have faith in renewables, which now provide cheaper energy than nonrenewables. To be fair, that was a statement by the member for Fairfax in 2017, when the Liberal Party actually believed in renewable energy and recognised that it was the cheapest form of energy available. The member for Fairfax said that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy. And it's not just the member for Fairfax who thinks that; real experts do as well. We see it from Daniel Westerman, the Chief Executive of AEMO, who has said:

… renewable generation connected with transmission and distribution, supported by hydro, batteries and gas, is the lowest-cost way to supply electricity to homes and businesses …

That's exactly what this government is doing—renewables supported by gas, supported by storage and supported by transmission.

The honourable member asked me what policies we have rejected. Well, I'll use the term 'policy' lightly, because we've seen from the opposition the announcement of seven sites. That's it—no costings, no details, no number of gigawatts, just seven nuclear power sites. I've seen more detail on the back of a cornflakes packet than we have in the opposition's nuclear policy! To assist those opposite, though, we can provide some details for them. They've said that the power that they will generate on these seven nuclear sites will replace the power from the coal-fired power stations that are on those sites—that is, 11 gigawatts, or 3.7 per cent of Australia's energy needs. That's 3.7 per cent, at a cost somewhere between $116 billion—that would be the cheapest—and $600 billion, based on the experience in the United Kingdom. That is between $10.5 billion and $54.5 billion a gigawatt. That's a lot of dollars for not many gigawatts. Well done to the Leader of the Opposition, who says his plan to reduce the cost of power is, in decades time, to introduce a form of power which is $55 billion a gigawatt. That's $55 billion a gigawatt. That's their genius plan. Well, we are not going to be distracted by these plans. We are going to continue with real cost-of-living relief today. (Time expired)