Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, 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 putting downward pressure on energy bills, and how does this compare to other proposals?

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 for her leadership in one of Australia's great energy-producing regions and her leadership here in the House. We know that we need to put downward pressure on energy prices because Australians need that. That's why they need the energy bill relief that was in the last budget and the budget before. That energy bill relief is of course included in the $315 billion hit list that the shadow minister for finance put out earlier this week. She actually called it a Ponzi scheme. That's what the opposition thinks of energy bill relief for Australians, which they are receiving on their bills today. They're receiving that relief now.

We're also building cheaper, reliable renewable energy across the country. Last week, when I was in Collie, when I was in Bunbury and when I was in Traralgon, I was able to announce progress with six new four-hour batteries, which will support a million houses across the national energy network, and new renewable energy and a big pipeline in Western Australia.

I'm asked by the honourable member what proposals we rejected. I'm going to use the term proposal lightly because we don't really have a detailed policy proposal from the Leader of the Opposition. Eighty-five days ago he put out seven sites with no details, no costings and no information. Eighty-five days ago we saw seven nuclear reactor sites released. But I do have news for the House. I've got big news for the House: there's more information coming. On the 23rd of this month the Leader of Opposition has a big speech. What's the big title of the speech to inspire the Australian people about his alternative energy plan? It is: 'A nuclear powered Australia—could it work?' I table the Leader of the Opposition's speech. I'm always happy to help.

It's a fair question well asked, to give credit where it's due. But I suggest this: it might be time for the Leader of the Opposition to stop asking questions and maybe start answering a few, like how many hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money will it cost? Will it be costed by the Treasury or the Parliamentary Budget Office as it should be? Can they produce more energy than is currently produced by the coal-fired power stations they seek to replace, because nuclear uses a lot more water than coal and they said they won't use any more water than coal? What will be the impact on bills? Will it be $200, $400 or $1,000 as various experts have said? How will the opposition build these nuclear plants when the transmission lines are already full of energy and they say they won't need any transmission lines?

These are the real questions the Leader of the Opposition should be answering when he gives his big speech on 'A nuclear powered Australia—could it work?' I'll give the Leader of the Opposition this final tip, as this is the last sitting day before his speech: the answer is no.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.