Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's always fun to come in here and see how the opposition have once again gone down the road to Damascus. I don't know how many times since we came into government that I've seen that happen. They oppose something when they're in parliament and, when they get into opposition, all of a sudden, they say: 'Yahoo! Let's go for that.' I will quote a couple of people. The shadow Treasurer, Mr Taylor, said in September 2018:

… I have one very, very simple goal, which is, to get prices down in the short to medium term—

he was talking about energy—

Nuclear's not going to help me in that process. As you know, it's a long way off. I know that sector pretty well. I've worked in it in the past and it's a long way off actually solving the real problem we've got to face up to …

Another shadow minister, Mr Joyce, said in June 2017 about nuclear energy, 'It's been ruled out by reason of cost'—short, sweet and to the point. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, said as recently as March 2023: 'I don't support the establishment of big nuclear facilities here at all. I'm opposed to it.' So the coalition understood when they were in government that nuclear power makes no economic sense, yet somehow when they're in opposition, they fail to realise it.

AEMO has consistently said that the lowest cost way to deliver a secure and reliable grid over coming decades is a renewable grid with pumped hydro, batteries, flexible gas and transmission. This is exactly what Labor is delivering, working with the states, territories, industry and the community to deliver Rewiring the Nation, the Expanded Capacity Investment Scheme and the gas code. Under the opposition, when they were in government, we had 22 energy plans—well, it's debatable whether they had 22 or 24, but I will be generous and say 22—not one of which they could make into a policy. They were plans, but they were not policy. As my colleague Senator Sheldon said, this is number 23. Why would we think that this is any different to those other 22 proposals? Speak about being all over the show; that's exactly what the opposition are.

On this side, we're already halfway to meeting our 2023 emissions reductions targets in the national grid. We're cutting power bills now, whereas Mr Dutton and the opposition are promising action in two decades time, yet they really haven't got a plan for how they will deliver it. When we talk about the coalition's nuclear plan, I've got to say that it's very generous to call it a plan. It's a scam. It's meant to be divisive. It's meant to wedge us. It's a tactic. I just don't understand why they're not actually trying to focus on helping people. Really, it's a thought bubble. We can't afford Mr Dutton's nuclear delusion and it cannot be taken seriously.

Mr Dutton's risky reactor plan has no detail, no costings and no modelling. It's expensive, it's slow to build and get underway, and it's just too risky for Australia. As I said, it's not a plan; it's a scam. It's a fantasy, and if the coalition's track record on building big infrastructure projects is anything to go by, this thought bubble will cost billions. Let's just think about, I don't know, car parks at train stations. What a disaster! Truly, that side couldn't organise a chook raffle. But maybe those on the other side are just being divisive because they have some allergy to renewables. As I said, Mr Dutton's plan is risky. There are no costings, no serious timeframe, no detail of the types of reactors—in fact, no detail at all.

But cheap power is why one in three Australian households and small businesses is choosing solar. Under Labor we've seen a 25 per cent increase in renewables in the grid and record investment in batteries and storage. We have green lit more than 50 renewable projects, enough to power three million homes. Last year alone, there were 330,000 rooftop solar installations. That's how you deliver cost-of-living relief—not by pushing up power prices with nuclear reactors.

Those opposite continue to stand on the way of cost-of-living relief. You can't keep coming in here and pretending you care about cheaper energy bills after you've opposed energy price relief, and you can't keep coming in here and pretending you care about the cost of living if you just keep saying no to policies that are about dealing—