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

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

This Government's 'renewables only' policy, with industrial wind turbines, solar factories and 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines, is ripping up agricultural land, pristine wilderness and driving up the cost of living in regional Australia.

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—

A government member: This will be good.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member opposite for the compliment that, 'This will be good.' I want to read a quote to you from Sydney's Northern Beaches Advocate on 7 July 2020. The article is on a proposal for eight wind turbines and a one-hectare solar farm at North Head in Sydney. The proposal was made by a group called the Global Warming Solution. They're self-described as 'a community platform made up of people determined to do something about climate change'.

In response to an inquiry from the Northern Beaches Advocate, the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall, said this:

I would be doubtful that a sensitive environmental and culturally significant area like North Head is the appropriate location.

That says everything about sanctimony corner over there with the teals and the Greens, and the sanctimony line down there of inner-city MPs. We can imagine, can't we, North Head with eight turbines on the hill there, and how much that culturally would upset sailing around Sydney Harbour, how much it would upset having a double macchiato at Sydney Bower there. We've just destroyed culturally everything that happens in Sydney. We understand how much environmental damage one hectare—not a big space—would do.

I don't have a problem so much that the member for Warringah and other inner-city Labor MPs and Greens have said things like that about projects in the city, but what gets me is the absolute hypocrisy of, 'Don't do it in my patch, but go hell for leather in regional and remote Australia.' That's what they're saying here.

It gets worse, though, because when the member for Warringah was talking about this, she was asked about proposals that were going on in Port Stephens, which is obviously up the coast a bit, and proposals in the Illawarra. You know what she said about members on this side who voiced cultural and environmental concerns about those projects? She said, 'They are scaremongering and spreading disinformation.' There is the hypocrisy of this. We can't do wind turbines and a hectare of solar panels on North Head.

Just to put this into perspective, with Labor's reckless renewable-only policy, do you know how many solar panels have to be built around Australia by 2030? Sixty million—not a hectare. You know how many wind turbines are needed to get to that policy? Not the eight that they were looking at on North Head, but tens of thousands. Of course, if you listen to the hypocrisy of sanctimony corner, that's okay because they can all be built in rural and regional Australia, where obviously there are no cultural or environmental issues to deal with.

Let's go through some of the issues that people where I live and where a lot of my colleagues live are concerned about—the tens of millions of solar panels that need to be built and the tens of thousands of wind turbines that need to be built. We do not believe that this is scaremongering and misinformation. This is about habitat loss and fragmentation. This is about disruption of bird migration. This is about ecosystem disruption. This is about soil erosion.

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

Do you really care about that?

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We don't care about it, do we, the member for Hunter? Well, good on you. You're saying that people in the country, farmers, don't care about this? Is that what you're saying?

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

Order! I need you to direct your comments through the chair. I will not have the personal attacks going on, okay? You can bring your remarks through me and dial it down a little bit. And no interjections from the member for Hunter.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will dim it down and direct it through you, Deputy Speaker. For the member for Hunter to say to me, to us and to people in rural and remote communities, 'When have you ever cared about the environment?' is an absolute insult to every country person. In fact, it's an insult to his own electorate. The member for Hunter has just insulted his own electorate, because he lives in regional Australia, and he said, 'When do his members ever care about the environment?' We'll let the member for Hunter's electorate know that he just said that.

Not only that, but we have a lot of environmental issues. We have a lot of issues about both the environment and culture. There are also massive concerns that we have about the waste disposal of these things.

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

I'm going to have to pull you up again. I'm struggling to hear you.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm struggling to hear myself too.

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

Yes. Trust me, colleagues who think they're being helpful to the member for Page: you're not being helpful.

Member for Hunter, do not encourage this. I'd like to hear the member for Page.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Shadow Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think what I'm saying is quite interesting, so I wish I could hear myself. The other major issue with this that no-one has answers to—and, obviously, you don't hear the Greens talking about this, you don't hear the teal party talking about this, and you don't hear inner-city Labor MPs talking about this—is the massive disposal issue that we're going to have with wind turbines and solar panels. Of course, it doesn't matter, because they're not going to be disposed in the cities. There are a lot of environmental issues to consider there.

I want to give out some figures—and I'm sure some of my colleagues will give other examples of this—and some examples of one project in the Central West of New South Wales. Families were offered $5,000 to compensate for visual impacts. Of the submissions from local people received during an environmental impact statement, 96 per cent objected to the project. Insurance prices have doubled because insurance companies are now saying, 'With renewable projects next to your property, it has increased risk.'

The department themselves acknowledged that the construction of transmission lines would result in impacts to diversity. This particular project is dominated by agricultural land use. The project requires the permanent acquisition of 30 parcels of land for infrastructure. The people who objected raised concerns about impacts to landscape, visual amenity, agricultural land, socioeconomic factors and biodiversity. These issues are real; they are real for our communities and communities of people in rural and regional Australia. Again, with the member for Warringah, the Greens MPs and the inner-city Labor MPs, we are just scaremongering. It's just not acceptable to our communities.

I don't know if you remember the movie The Hunger Games. In The Hunger Games there was the Capitol. Who lives in the Capitol? The teals live in the Capitol. The Greens MPs live in the Capitol. A lot of Labor MPs live in the Capitol with President Snow. But what do the sectors do? Sectors 8, 9 and 10 were ag. Sectors 8, 9 and 10 fed the Capitol. Sector 5—there are a lot of sector 5 people here—had the coal mines and the mining; they powered the Capitol. Don't be sector 12—they bombed sector 12. The member for Fairfax would like this: sector 13 was the nuclear sector. At least President Snow was aware of the need for nuclear.

I see this so much in a lot of legislation that I talk about now. There was the Murray-Darling Basin plan, which affected a lot of communities, and the live export ban. The Prime Minister thought it was a great joke last night to insult every sheep farmer in Australia about live exports, saying live exports were a terrible thing. Again, lots of legislation in this chamber is about elite city MPs—the Teals, the Greens and the inner-city Labor MPs—just saying: 'We know what's best for you to do in the rural, regional and remote communities. We'll tell you what you can do, we'll tell you what you can't do and we'll tell you how you do it.'

I can tell you that this issue, along with a lot of others, as I just mentioned—whether it be water issues, live export, agriculture issues or a lot of other things—has my community outraged. There was an uprising in The Hunger Games, and they marched on the capital. They will come and protest. The first one will be the protest to keep the sheep. Our communities have had enough of being told what to do and what they can't do.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I like the member for Page a lot, but that was a lot of hogwash—entertaining hogwash, colourful hogwash, sometimes angry hogwash. I don't think it was fixed in the end by the Hunger Games metaphor or by the 6 January capital insurrection allusion that he seemed to be making. The truth is that managing Australia's energy system at a time of change and challenge is a serious matter, and we should actually take it seriously. We take it seriously. We are taking positive action right now while setting Australia up for the long term. What does that look like? It looks like energy bill relief for every household in Australia while improving investment in renewables, storage and grid upgrades for the long term, making things better right now and making things better for the long term. Already there has been a 25 per cent increase in renewable energy, the cheapest form of new energy generation, and AEMO has consistently noted that the moderation of wholesale prices has resulted from an increase in renewables in our system.

The member for Page knows that, but instead what we get from the member for Page and from the opposition is disinformation, negativity, hypocrisy and fearmongering. You can come to the dispatch box and say how much you don't like being accused of all of those things, but, if you don't like it, maybe just don't do it. If you come here every day with disinformation, negativity, hypocrisy and fearmongering and you get called out for it, you can only blame yourselves. There's one other thing I'd add to that: selective amnesia.

The Albanese government is working to support Australian households and small businesses to deal with the pressures that built up through a decade of neglect, and the member for Page seems to have forgotten that already. I don't think the Australian community has forgotten. We inherited six per cent inflation from those opposite. We came to government just after the highest quarter of inflation this country has experienced in two decades. We now have inflation with a three in front of it. We inherited an energy system that in the previous nine years actually went backwards by one gigawatt in overall generation capability—this from a nine -year-old government that never even managed an energy policy, from a government that stifled investment in the cheapest form of new energy generation. They tried to defund and abolish the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Company. They never brought in legislation to help reform Australia's energy system one iota, but the now shadow Treasurer, the former minister for energy, did seek to change regulation at the last moment to hide a massive spike in wholesale prices.

The member for Page might like to engage in some selective amnesia; that might be something that all those in the Liberal and National parties want to do. But I don't think you can come along with some sort of magic wand and expect the Australian community to go in for the same kind of exercise. The Australian community will not forget the fact that, for nine years, those opposite couldn't manage a national energy policy, that they saw a reduction in energy capacity, that they sought to cut and nobble investment in renewable energy. We are dealing with those consequences now. We are cleaning up that mess right now.

When they flipped into opposition after a decade of doing nothing to prepare Australia's energy system but doing plenty to stifle investment and innovation, they continued to bring in this approach of negativity, disinformation, hypocrisy and amnesia. They voted against price caps. They voted against energy price relief. They have opposed our energy efficiency packages for small and medium enterprises. As I said, there's been misinformation, disinformation, negativity, hypocrisy and fearmongering.

I am going to show the member for Page and his MPI a bit more respect than he and his colleagues are showing to the Australian people because I will actually address some of the hogwash in this MPI topic. The Albanese government, through the work of the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, is absolutely focused on upgrading our transmission grid. It's been needed for some time. Those opposite know that upgrading our transmission grid wasn't just related to the energy transformation and to the need to enable more renewables and storage into our grid. It was required because the transmission grid is old. It's been around for decades. It's been neglected in many parts of Australia. It needs to be upgraded.

Here's a statement on that topic that I think should interest those opposite:

The development of interconnectors and transmission is critical to bringing new generation capacity into the energy system, while shoring up reliability and affordability across state borders.

Thousands of kilometres of new transmission is likely to be needed to connect new generation, and deliver reliable and affordable energy across the national market.

That makes a lot of sense to me. Who do you reckon said that in 2022? It was the now shadow Treasurer. It was the then minister for energy in the coalition government. Did they actually do any of that? Did they plan for any of that or fund any of that? No. But that was the view of the now shadow Treasurer in March 2022—that thousands of kilometres of new transmission was likely to be needed to connect new generation and deliver reliable and affordable energy across the national market. Well, knock me down with a feather. That is what this government is doing. That's what those opposite failed to do for nine long years. We are doing that because that is what the system needs. It needed it irrespective of the introduction of new renewable and storage technology, but it certainly needs it to enable that, and that is the fastest path to cheaper power in this country.

The member for Page doesn't mind actually having in the text of the MPI reference to 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines. He knows that that is rubbish. The integrated system plan has identified 4,000 kilometres of new transmission lines and 1,000 kilometres of upgrades to existing transmission lines. The member for Page knows that, but he comes in here with a number of 28,000. Why? Because he wants to scare Australians. He wants people in regional and rural Australia to be concerned about something which is absolutely rubbish. That is something that we will call out at every turn.

When it comes to this government, we take responsibility for what this country needs. This country cannot go along with an energy system that was left in tatters by those opposite, that went backwards on renewable energy generation, that had no investment in grid upgrades and that tried to quash and suppress renewables and storage when the rest of the world is going down that path. We are going to clean up the mess. We are not pursuing, as they like to call it, a renewable-energy-only policy. That tricky phrase could reduce a whole range of technologies and measures to a single thing. We are supporting investment in the cheapest forms of energy, with storage and transmission technology, across a whole range of different areas—solar, hydro, offshore and onshore wind, geothermal batteries, pumped hydro and so it goes. We are doing that because all of the economics and engineering shows that that is how you make power cheaper, that's how you reduce emissions and that's how you make sure Australia, but particularly regional and rural Australia, benefits from the global energy transition in which we have significant comparative advantages. The rest of the world is going that way. We ignore that at our peril. The advantages for rural and regional Australia are really considerable.

It would have been nice if, during nine years behind the wheel, those opposite had bothered to do anything on that front, if they'd bothered to even have just one national energy policy or if they'd bothered to add just one watt of new energy generation to the system, instead of seeing a gigawatt leave the system. The only bright new idea that they have after nine years of nothing is this nuclear fantasy. That's the one idea. They never did anything to our grid system or to transmission and never did anything in relation to renewables, interconnectors or storage—any of those things.

Now they finally come along with this fantastic solution of nuclear policy. I don't know if you can call it a policy. We don't know how much it will cost. We don't know when the reactors will be built. We don't know what kind of reactors they'll be. We don't know who will build them. We don't know how much energy they will produce. What we do know is that it's the most expensive form of new energy generation. We know it will be entirely taxpayer funded. We know it will put massive costs on every Australian household and on every Australian business. We know that it will decrease the capacity of future Australian governments to invest in health, education, pensions and our defence forces. We know that it will require emergency buffer zones around every single reactor.

We know it will involve the supply of iodine tablets to every single person who lives within those 50-, 60- to 70-kilometre-radius buffer zones. We know it will have to go on the title of people's properties. We know that it will make Australia less energy resilient. We know that it will make us dependent on the countries that build those reactors and supply their materials, because it's certainly not something we're going to do here. We know that much about their policy. We know that it is absolutely the wrong direction for Australia. The Albanese government is going to continue to deliver a cheaper and cleaner energy future for this country.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Campbells Bridge and Maxwell, in New England—you could just about say the whole of the area—as well as Central Queensland and Clarke Creek: all these places are becoming part of the battle.

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, HumeLink. All these places have become part of the battle for our rights in regional Australia. If the member for Fremantle had been present in the halls that we go to, he would hear people say that they feel that they've been completely usurped of their rights, where billionaires have come in and basically schmoozed their way to take the rights away from individuals. If they had the temerity to say, 'Well, we're going to put these swindle factories off the coast of Fremantle,' we could do that. We could have the Fremantle doctor come in, but, no, they won't do that. When you say, 'Well, you could put them off Bondi. They'd work perfectly well there,' no, they won't do that. When you say, 'You could put them in Middle Head. They would work well there,' no, they won't do that.

These swindle factories and these fields of photovoltaic black have all the aesthetic pleasure and the electronic efficacy of a dog fouling your lawn in the morning, yet we have to put up with them. You talk about what happens with nuclear. If you gave us the conditions that you propose for them, then we would have so much more to say and people would be able to ventilate these issues. What you have done in places such as St Arnaud and what you are doing is schmoozing your way and saying how good and how virtuous it is. But, when we say, 'If you believe it's virtuous, why don't you underwrite the dismantling and rehabilitation of the land? Why don't you look after the environment and underwrite their dismantling and rehabilitation, like you would have to if it were a coalmine?' they say: 'No, we're not doing that. That remains with the farmer.'

It's $600,000 a tower. Where does that come from? Their own former ombudsman Andrew Dyer. What farmer do you think has $600,000 a tower? None. So what's going to happen to the countryside? It will become a wasteland. What happens before that? The banks turn up and say, 'We're going to have to impair this asset because you have a contingent liability resting against it.' If you believe that's wrong, do something about it. Come in here and pass the legislation that says you will underwrite the dismantling. But, no, you won't do that. This is a swindle. This is a rip-off. This is wrong.

I'll tell you why it's wrong. It's because at the end of this are billionaires collecting this money and these multinational companies ripping off the Australian citizen. They are being underwritten in secret agreements and capital investment schemes, which we can't get the details about because of commercial in confidence and them not telling us. Basically, it is a free kick in front of the post. You underwrite a billionaire from overseas to build a swindle factory. You underwrite it; you pay for it! But guess who does pay for it? At the end of this is a pensioner. At the end of this is a person who can't afford their power bill. At the end of this is an economy—

Honourable members interjecting—

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

The Member for New England, you do not have the call. Order! Again, you're really escalating the level of noise here, and I genuinely would like to hear the member for New England, so I'm going to give him the call and ask everyone to stop the interjections.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the positive side, they're starting to fall over. Doughboy Mountain has fallen over, and Watsons Creek. As people are becoming aware of their legal liability, they're pulling out. Today, in the renew economy, we have two new ones, Carisbrook and Morgan, falling over. All of a sudden, there's the realisation of this swindle, of this rip-off, of this infliction on the people who are doing it tough. We have people in our area who are off the grid. Power prices went up by six per cent in the last quarter. If they hadn't had their so-called subsidies, it would have been more than 12 per cent. That is a sign of complete and utter disaster, which is the Labor Party's power policy.

The other day, the Prime Minister, when I said that if it were a success, it would have manufacturers lined up to come into Australia, quoted Siemens and Krups. They're not coming to Australia; they're exporting vehicles to Australia. This is it. We are hurting poor people. We are driving our economy into the dirt, and we are inflicting a blight on regional people that urban areas would never, ever accept.

Luke Gosling (Solomon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am absolutely delighted to have the opportunity to speak about the Albanese Labor government's reliable renewables plan in this MPI. This morning, I visited the Majura Community Energy Project with the Minister for the Environment and Water. We announced the environmental approvals for Sun Cable. Sun Cable is a project in the Northern Territory. It is massive.

It was great to speak with the folks at the Majura Community Energy Project. It was commissioned in 2021. It's a 1.2-megawatt solar farm that was funded by more than 350 investors from the ACT community, who each contributed between $500 and $100,000. What an awesome community and a fantastic renewables story right here in Canberra.

However, with all due respect to our territorian brothers and sisters here in the ACT, the Majura project is tiny compared to Sun Cable. Sun Cable would be the biggest solar farm in Australia and one of the largest renewable projects in the whole world. The project was assessed and approved by Minister Tanya Plibersek under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the EPBC, and is an absolutely incredible milestone, a landmark moment, in this project's journey. This follows last month's environmental approval granted by the Northern Territory government and the NTEPA.

Sun Cable is one of the largest energy infrastructure projects to ever receive EPBC Act approval, covering a project footprint from the heart of the Northern Territory to Darwin and extending to the Australia-Indonesia maritime border. The potential of this project is massive. It is expected to generate up to four gigawatts of renewable energy to power new green industries in the NT. This is the equivalent of all the renewable energy currently in the NEM, the National Electricity Market, that serves the east coast and South Australia.

Capturing the territory's reliable sun will be economically and socially transforming for the Northern Territory. Essentially, this project turns territory sunshine—which there is heaps of—and some of the best solar radiance in the world into electricity and sends it parallel to the Stuart Highway to Darwin. It will enable a green manufacturing sector, producing renewable solar power for Darwin and for potential export to Singapore. It will include industries like green hydrogen, sustainable aviation fuels, critical minerals processing and data centres. It will generate $20 billion in economic value, almost 7,000 indirect and direct jobs a year and a peak workforce of more than 14,000. It will provide a long-term source of ongoing employment in remote areas.

That's the incredible thing about this: it is activating regional areas of the Northern Territory where we are desperately looking for employment opportunities, including for First Nations people in remote areas. They can stake a claim in this industry of the future, with 70 years of stable, long-term, intergenerational jobs providing intergenerational empowerment of people in those communities along the 800 kilometres of poles up to Darwin. The traditional owners and local communities have been involved in this project from the beginning and welcome the opportunities that the project will unlock. This approval, the approval that we announced this morning, comes with strict conditions to protect nature, including requirements to completely avoid important species and critical habitat. Power cables have been diverted where necessary to mitigate the environmental impacts. This project is proof that we can have it all with renewable energies in terms of reliable power. We've got all the land that we need. We can have the jobs and a good environment as well.

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

I don't see Labor putting wind turbines up on the Dandenong Ranges overlooking Melbourne or out in Port Phillip Bay, and they aren't blanketing Melbourne's golf courses with black panels or erecting hulking 230-metre towers and transmission lines over people's homes in Toorak, Brighton or Malvern. I wonder why? Labor, the Greens and the teals expect regional Australians to do the heavy lifting on the energy transition, taking away our environment and tranquillity.

Victoria was made famous by the movie The Castle. Instead of an insulting $70,000 compulsory acquisition figure for the Kerrigans' family home to expand an airport, money is now being pushed on farmers for access and factory installation on their land—money that comes from taxpayers and energy bill payers during a cost-of-living crisis. Energy factory billionaires make a fortune from subsidies taken from battling Australians, throwing pensioners' money at landholders to stitch up an energy factory on their land. Some might say the Kerrigan family in the film The Castle should have expected an airport expansion, given they lived in sight of the runway. But our hardworking food and fibre producers on their third, fourth or fifth generation family farm live many miles from the industrial demand in the capital cities.

I have been proud to stand beside our farmers at their protests in my electorate and in Melbourne, and I hear they will soon be here in Canberra protesting the Albanese Labor government's radical anti-farming agenda. The National Farmers Federation's survey out this week shows three out of five farmers strongly disagree with the statement that the Albanese government understands and listens to farmers. Almost three out of four believe the Albanese government's policies are harming farming. A total of 81.6 per cent of farmers are concerned about mining or energy developments on farmland, up 5.2 per cent since last year, with 42.1 per cent very concerned. Almost three in five farmers say competing land uses from mining, infrastructure or urban expansion are having a high to medium impact on their productivity, and 72.4 per cent say the Albanese government is not doing enough to protect arable farmland.

In regional Victoria, the Allan Labor government's recent renewable energy zone mapping almost exclusively prioritised western Victoria and northern Victoria—specifically my electorate of Mallee and fellow coalition electorates of Nicholls, Wannon and Monash. Labor proposes conveniently avoiding the Labor held Ballarat and Bendigo electorates and Dr Haines's electorate of lndi. Labor's supposed REZ hotspots, many on low-altitude terrain and hundreds of miles from the coast, are due to 'low constraints'. What on earth do they mean by that? Low constraints are when you can connect and deliver the resource easily through existing infrastructure, yet the lowest constraints, according to Labor, are in my electorate of Mallee, where there is no transmission capacity. Landholders come to me in tears, literally, protesting at their poor treatment by proponents of the 400-kilometre, 500 kilovolt VNI West transmission line. Surely the absence of a transmission line is a high constraint. I interpret 'low constraint' as meaning there are only some farmers in the way. 'Just push that bulldozer throttle and knock those farmers over.' That's the mentality of Labor, the Greens and the teals.

Well, the farmers are pushing back. Their message to those opposite and the crossbench is, 'Tell 'em they're dreaming.' Farmers are locking their gates. How ironic that the farmers are defending their environments, protesting and locking gates, not the so-called environmentalist Greens or teals. Their radical socialist hard-left agenda is laid bare. It was never about the environment or the planet. The Greens and teals are about looking after their benefactors, and Labor are falling over themselves to keep up. The Nationals stand with our farmers, always have and always will.

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

Energy prices are a serious issue for households and businesses. Climate change and the urgent need to reduce emissions are also a serious issue in our regions and farming communities. The Albanese government understands this, and that's why we're acting and getting on with delivering our renewables plan, because this plan will reduce energy bills in the regions and across our nation, and it will reduce the impacts of climate change, like heatwaves, droughts, floods and fires. These climate impacts cost farmers and the agricultural sector.

This plan has already delivered amazing results, with wholesale energy prices now lower than when the coalition left office. We know that, when renewable energy is backed up with batteries and storage, we can enjoy affordable electricity 24/7 all year round. The Albanese government understands that the answer to lowering everyone's energy bills is for governments and businesses to build massive amounts of new solar, wind, pumped hydro and renewable storage as fast as possible, and it will deliver jobs.

That's why the Minister for the Environment and Water's announcement this morning is so important. Our minister has just ticked off Australia's biggest renewable energy solar project ever. This means we will power seven million homes with renewables, the equivalent of all households in New South Wales and Victoria. This heralds Australia's true arrival as a world leader in clean energy. The Australian Energy Market Operator, who runs our electricity grid, is backing in our approach, saying:

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 …

The independent Office of Impact Analysis has analysed our Capacity Investment Scheme and said:

… consumers are expected to face lower retail electricity prices on average, and a reduction in reliability risks.

On top of this, and much to the dismay of those opposite, the Albanese government wants to see a future made in Australia, which will invest in renewables and make many thousands of jobs. We have the bill before the House right now. It will boost our capacity to build more things here, especially renewable energy components, and that's what Australians want us to do—make more things here. It's a significant investment, but it has the right outcomes. We are also easing the cost-of-living pressures by giving every household $300 off their energy bills over the next 12 months.

Meanwhile, the coalition have no plans to bring electricity prices down now or in the future, with their risky nuclear reactor thought bubble set to add $1,000 to every household energy bill—and it will supply less than four per cent of household energy needs, if it ever happens. We know that nuclear reactors are not even possible until 2040. What are we supposed to do in the meantime? What we know is that it's not costed, lacks detail and will drive up energy bills. Our approach stands in stark contrast, with a 25 per cent increase in renewables since we came to government only two years ago. We are shifting the dial and putting downward pressure on energy bills, and we're doing so much more.

We've just rolled out two amazing rounds of energy efficiency grants for small business. These are being embraced by small businesses across my electorate of Corangamite, from distilleries to retailers and from farmers to breweries. This grant is helping businesses to reduce their energy bills and embrace energy-efficient technology, as well as reduce emissions. It's all part of our broader agenda to tackle cost-of-living pressures, to drive down power prices and to make sure that regional communities are supported with costed, detailed policies that offer real cost-of-living relief. Our plan is working. I'm looking forward to energy bills coming down for people not just in my electorate but across the nation.

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government's relentless march towards its renewables-only policy is hitting Capricornia hard. It is a policy that fails to understand or address the real needs of our communities. My electorate of Capricornia is quickly becoming the epicentre of government backed renewable energy projects.

One such project, the Lotus Creek Wind Farm, has been handed an eye-watering $924 million in funding commitments from the state Labor government. Astonishingly, $300 million of this funding has been siphoned from coal royalties—money that should have supported the industries and jobs that have sustained this region for generations. Yet, despite the enormous investment, the promised returns are meagre. Labor themselves admit that the ongoing operational phase of the wind farm will create just 10 to 15 jobs. It's hard to fathom how such a vast outlay of taxpayer money results in so little benefit for local workers and families.

We don't have to look far to see the effects of this approach. Just down the road from the proposed Lotus Creek Wind Farm is the Clarke Creek Wind Farm, a project that illustrates the real impact on our local communities. Over 90 per cent of the workforce of Clarke Creek are fly-in fly-out workers. Instead of creating local jobs and strengthening our communities, these workers are bussed in and out with little to no engagement with the region. The nearby town of Marlborough, for instance, sees none of the economic benefits that should come with a project of this scale. Workers don't stay in the town. They don't shop there. They don't support local businesses. They simply pass through. The government's push for renewables is leaving Capricornia behind. The jobs created are few, and the benefits for local towns and families are scarce. This government's policy is not just about energy. It's about people's livelihoods. When investment on this scale bypasses our communities, we must ask ourselves: what is the true cost?

Environmentalist Steven Nowakowski and Rainforest Reserves Australia have mapped a mind-boggling 17,119 wind turbine projects proposed for development right across Australia. These wind turbines and solar fields are not being built in the heart of the cities, where the energy demand is greatest. Instead, international developers are pushing their way into our regional and rural communities with the full backing of those opposite. They are clearing untouched vegetation, disrupting natural habitats and putting endangered species at serious risk, all in the name of ideological policy but without regard for the environmental and social costs borne by our communities. The hypocrisy is staggering, considering this level of industrial development would never be approved for any other type of industry. I challenge those opposite: where is the social licence for these projects? You are failing our regional and rural communities.

The Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner's own Community engagement review revealed that a staggering 92 per cent of people were dissatisfied with the level of community engagement on renewable projects. Additionally, 90 per cent felt that they were left in the dark, with inadequate information and unresolved concerns. Yet did Labor listen? Absolutely not. They ignored the thousands of Australians who converged on the lawns of parliament desperate to be heard. This government's disdain for regional Australia is so deep that the minister for energy couldn't even be bothered to respond. It's a clear message that the voices of the regions don't matter to this government.

The government's energy policies should reflect the needs of our communities, not just the ideology of the city based elite. It won't just be regional Australians paying the price for renewables-only energy policy. Already Labor is handing out billions to mop up its broken promise of price reductions. But this hasn't been enough. More than 600 everyday, hardworking Australian families have been going into financial hardship with their energy retailer every week since Labor took office. This is a shame.

Australians can't do another three years of the same Labor pain. The coalition has consistently championed an 'all of the above' approach to energy. We want Australia to be a country where our energy grid works 24/7, not one that is at the mercy of the weather. The truth is simple: you can't run a full-time economy on part-time power. That's why nuclear energy along with renewables and gas is absolutely critical to our energy future. The coalition's approach mirrors that of 19 of the world's 20 largest economies—an approach that balances emissions reduction, economic stability and energy security. Labor must abandon its flawed renewables-only ideology and embrace this balanced path if we are to achieve our energy and climate goals while keeping the lights on, prices down and our economy strong.

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

I'll start by congratulating the member for Page for actually sitting through this MPI, because usually you guys always leave. Congratulations—that's the only bit you're going to get through this.

Yet again, I have to stand in this place and speak on a motion moved by those opposite that doesn't make much sense to me. I'm really staggered that they continue to claim that energy prices are going up because of renewables, especially when they've proven time and time again that they can't be trusted on energy policies. They're even willing to mislead the Australian people on the truth of energy prices. When they were in government they received a report that said the energy prices were going to go up, but they hid it. And the person who hid it from all of us in the country is in chamber right now—the member for Hume. They did nothing to let the Australian people know what to expect and then they acted surprised and blamed us when the prices did eventually go up—which the member for Hume knew was going to happen because he hid it from the Australian public. He can ignore me, like he is now, but he did do this.

We're always going to be upfront with the Australian people, and we're helping to make these expected price rises go down. Don't just take our word for it; today, customers of Ausgrid will receive a letter saying that their energy prices are actually going down. I think I'd rather trust the figures that I'm hearing from Ausgrid over the figures preached to us by those over there, who are driven by their stubborn opposition to the cheapest form of energy.

Let me tell you a fact that those opposite used to ignore: renewables are effective in getting energy into the grid. In fact, we're getting so much energy into the grid that we're having to build more powerlines to increase the capacity of the grid. In my electorate of the Hunter, we have always produced high amounts of energy, and this government is making sure that energy produced in the Hunter is able to be used in other areas that don't get to generate as much. Those opposite always bang on about how they want reliable power, but they don't want us to build the infrastructure that is needed to deliver it.

The motion also states that our policy is only about renewables. What a rubbish statement this is by the member for Page! You'd think that the member for Page would do his research before moving this motion but, clearly, he hasn't. If he had thought to look at our energy policy before moving this motion, he'd see our policy is far from being only about renewable energy. Instead of doing his research, he has been blinded by his party's ideological ignorance. He has come in here and moved this motion and made himself look foolish. Yes, there are some elements of our policy that do include renewable energy. Is the member for Page going to stay and listen to the end of this or not? Because I'd like him to. We would be foolish not to make the most of the cheapest form of energy available—I thank the member for Page for staying! We based our decision on facts, and the facts show that renewables need to be a big part of meeting our energy needs in the future. We have announced the $1 billion Solar Sunshot program, which will create thousands of jobs, many of these being in my electorate. Our policy will also help to see two gigawatts of power put in the grid through offshore wind, which is in the electorate of my good friend the member for Newcastle. This will create huge job opportunities for people in my electorate and also people all around New South Wales.

To say that our policy is solely about renewables is untrue. We have the gas-fired power station in the electorate of my good friend and neighbour the member for Paterson, and we have pumped hydro projects popping up everywhere. In my electorate alone, in the Hunter, we have six pumped hydro projects under development. Neither of these sources of energy fits into the solely-renewables narrative that those opposite are trying desperately to promote, but both are an important part of energy policy and play a vital role in providing baseload firming power to the grid.

Another non-renewable part of our energy policy that those opposite are conveniently choosing to ignore is the importance of hydrogen and the role it will play into the future. In my electorate is a hydrogen hub, and AGL are pushing ahead with their plans to develop the technology in Muswellbrook. In addition, Origin is also going into hydrogen at the Port of Newcastle in the member for Newcastle's electorate. But you won't hear those opposite talk about these parts of the policy, which includes gas, pumped hydro and hydrogen. I guess that if something doesn't fit into the story then they just won't tell it. It's easier for them to ignore it. But ignoring the facts does nothing to provide cheap and reliable energy. Those opposite have misled the Australian people on energy prices, and they are misleading them on energy policy as well. They can't be trusted on energy. We've seen that over the years, and we'll continue to watch what we do.

Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just like to remind the member for Hunter that renewable energy is not reliable. When the sun goes down, solar panels don't work. When the wind doesn't blow, wind turbines don't work. It is quite ridiculous for him to suggest that renewable energy is reliable. This is what the whole problem of energy is all about—reliability.

I'm happy to rise and support this matter of public importance and note that the government's renewables-only energy policy, with industrial wind turbines and solar factories and thousands of kilometres of new transmission lines, is ripping up agricultural land and pristine wilderness and driving up the cost of living in regional and rural Australia. I would like to acknowledge the fact that the opposition speakers in today's MPI represent the electorates which are most affected here in Australia. They are seeing firsthand how farmers are being impacted by Labor's arrogant policy to steamroll local communities in pushing forward with the installation of some 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines, along with solar, wind and battery projects. There are people everywhere in my electorate who are feeling the brunt of Labor's reckless renewable energy rollout. We've identified over 60 wind, solar and battery, and transmission line projects in Central Queensland alone.

Very recently, we gathered a whole lot of data on wind turbines in particular. Our data shows that there are over 18,000 wind turbines proposed up and down the coast of Australia, and this does not take into account any offshore wind turbines. Quite often, those opposite will comment on how cheap this is going to be—that it is not going to be expensive. Let's just examine some of the sunk capital costs that are involved in these 18,000 wind turbines. My colleague the member for Capricornia spoke of a wind turbine project in Central Queensland, Lotus Creek, that has been recently acquired by the Queensland government's CS Energy. It is a project of 46 turbines, which is costing $1.3 billion. If you do the maths on that, it comes out at approximately $28 million per turbine. If you use those figures and project that onto the research that we've done on all of these wind turbines that are proposed, you come to a figure of something like $400 billion. That is just extraordinary. The simple fact of the matter is that that doesn't take into account transmission lines, distribution lines, batteries and all of the things associated with reaching 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030. To suggest that it is not expensive is just ridiculous.

The other problem is that Labor will require 34 times the current amount of utility-scale variable renewable energy in the National Electricity Market to meet its hydrogen expectations. Gladstone has also been nominated as a hydrogen hub. As recently as last year, the Gladstone Ports Corporation—again, a Queensland government GOC—gave a presentation where they proposed a four-million-tonne hydrogen precinct which would require 110 gigawatts of renewable energy. I wonder whether those opposite even understand what 110 gigawatts of renewable energy means. That is approximately double the entire generating capacity of the Australian grid right now. It's just outrageous to suggest that. The presentation went on to say that this will require 10,000 wind turbines to be built and 2½ square kilometres of solar panels. Where are you going to put these projects in Central Queensland?

It is just outrageous to suggest that the Australian economy can rely on renewables only. That is why the coalition is proposing nuclear, which, at the very least, will supply reliable power into the future.

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

Here we go again. Over the past hour we've seen the chalice of cooker Kool Aid be passed throughout the opposition benches, each one taking a nice big sip of climate denial and then spouting harmful misinformation and driving deliberate division in our regional communities. It is the decade of energy policy chaos from those opposite that has Australians paying the price for their inaction. Their 22 failed energy policies are costing regional Australians because we now have an energy sector that is vulnerable to international price spikes and ageing coal-fired power stations, with 24 of 28 announcing their closure under their watch.

But don't worry, the Albanese Labor government is fixing the mess left behind by the former government's decade of denial, delay and dysfunction. Our reliable renewables plan is the only plan supported by experts to deliver the clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy system that Australians deserve. We are maximising cheap, clean energy, with a plan to get our national energy grid to 82 per cent renewables by 2030. We've already delivered a 25 per cent increase in the national energy grid in just two years and we have ticked off enough renewable project to power more than three million homes.

We're investing in battery storage and transmission to ensure reliable power can be accessed everywhere. We're modernising our national electricity grid and delivering over 400 new community batteries for increased reliability across the country, including in my electorate in the suburb of Warrawong and in the member for Whitlam's electorate in Dapto. We're ensuring the benefits of reliable renewables are shared with households and businesses.

We're also creating thousands of jobs with the Future Made in Australia policy. It is estimated that over 60,000 people could be directly employed in new energy infrastructure by 2050. These are good, well-paid, secure jobs of the future for our kids and for our regions. Our renewable energy transformation will require five billion tonnes of steel alone between now and 2050, which will support Illawarra workers at the Port Kembla steelworks.

The usual diatribe from those opposite would have you believe that renewable energy is this big, bad, scary creature. And no, I'm not talking about the opposition's frontbench. Instead of dividing the community, we are bringing them along with us and we saw 330,000 rooftop solar installations last year alone. That is because Australians know that the cheapest and most reliable forms of energy are renewables.

If you listen to those opposite you might also think that renewables are bad for our farms and our oceans but—you guessed it—climate change is the biggest threat to Australia's agricultural sector. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate change has slowed the growth of agricultural productivity globally over the last 50 years with further warming projected to increase food insecurity and supply instability.

I know that those opposite have had a hard time believing our national and international science institutions. Maybe they'll listen to Professor Gregory Andrews, Australia's first Threatened Species Commissioner and a Dharawal man, who said:

The science shows Australia's whales do face serious threats—but not from wind farms. By reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, wind farms help protect ocean habitats from the impacts of rising temperatures and ocean acidification.

The only thing stronger than Australia's abundance of sunshine and natural resources is the opposition's ability to backflip on their policy positions. The member for New England, who has become the poster child for the antirenewables movement, is about as flexible as they come. Delivering an address to the Clean Energy Council Australian Clean Energy Summit in 2017, he said: 'What can I say about renewable energy? It's the great effect it is having on my electorate. You see, at Glen Innes, in excess of $1 billion going to be invested in renewable energy.' A backflip of that degree would have earned him gold at the Olympics.

But that's not all. Not only do they want to dispel the cheapest form of energy; those opposite also want to serve up nuclear, the most expensive form of energy there is, and make regional Australians pay for it. Experts agree that Dutton's nuclear plan is too expensive, too slow to build and too risky. The Albanese Labor government's reliable renewables plan is the only plan supported by experts to deliver the clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy systems that Australia deserves.

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

The discussion has now concluded.