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's energy plan helping Australian families and small businesses with their energy bills? What proposals for the energy system would leave Australians worse off?

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 the question. I'm pleased to tell the member for Reid and the House about new figures out today which show that last year was a record year for new renewable energy investment. Nine billion dollars was invested over the course of last year, creating 10,000 construction jobs across the country, building the energy system of the future and introducing more and cheaper reliable renewable energy into our grid after a decade in which four gigawatts of dispatchable energy left the grid and only one gigawatt came on. Last year, we saw this record, which benefits families and small businesses.

The honourable member asked me which energy policies might hurt Australians. Of course, the good thing about that $9 billion of expenditure last year is that the vast bulk of it came from the private sector. It came from private investors into our energy system. A policy which would take Australia backwards would be a policy which is taxpayer funded to the tune of $600 billion. That's the policy of the opposition. The nuclear policy is a thirsty one—it's thirsty for money and thirsty for water. That's the indication we have from the opposition. As the Minister for the Environment and Water and I pointed out today, they would need a Sydney Harbour every year for their nuclear policy. The member for Fairfax has been flogging the Harbour Bridge all year. Now he needs to throw in the entire Sydney Harbour, because it's a policy which would take water away from farmers across the country. It would also require money. It would be paid for by taxpayers.

To be fair to the Leader of the Opposition, he's been out talking about his policy. He was out last week. He subjected himself to an interview with that Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Peta Credlin. He was asked, during that interview, about his nuclear policy. I've got to say, this interview is being compared to the Frost-Nixon interviews for its searching intellect and for the tough questions! Ray Hadley wasn't available that evening. But this interview saw the Leader of the Opposition talk about his nuclear policy—I'm going to defend the Leader of the Opposition, because I thought it was a good choice. They could talk about old times, like the 2014 budget, where they took $50 billion out of the health system. As my friend the Minister for Health and Aged Care has pointed out at the despatch box once or twice, the Leader of the Opposition was voted Australia's worst health minister because of the $50 billion he cut. Now, he'd need to cut $600 billion to pay for his nuclear policy, plus $10 billion a year to pay for the free lunch policy, plus the $350 billion of cuts that they admit to. The 2014 budget would look like a Sunday picnic! We know the Leader of the Opposition has said there'll be cuts, but he'll tell us about them after the election. So we have this policy, which will cost $600 billion, and you know what will follow: a horror budget—cigars and all—with cuts to health and cuts to education to pay for his nuclear fantasy.