Alex Antic (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by coalition senators today.

In so doing, I reflect upon the—I think we would have to say—herculean attempts to defend the renewable industry in circumstances where we simply don't seem to have clear answers on the total cost of Labor's Powering Australia Plan and the decommissioning of these assets. We know these assets are incredibly cost-heavy to build and decommission, but we can't unfortunately get those answers from the government today.

Every Australian deserves cleaner, cheaper power, and, of course, the cost-of-living crisis is largely driven by this problem, but under this Labor government that is simply not happening. We were promised, as we have said maybe 400,000 times in this chamber over the last 2½ years, cost cuts of $275 to our energy bills, our power bills, per annum. However, what many Australians have woken up to over the last two years have actually been increases of sometimes up to $1000 every year on their power bills. Many Australians might be surprised by that. We on this side of the chamber are not. We told Australians at the last election that it wasn't going to be easy under—to use the correct title—Prime Minister Albanese. It won't be easy under Prime Minister Albanese. And here we are two years later. It's become very clear.

The coalition believes that having a balanced energy mix is important. One of the key attributes of that is going to be our plan for nuclear power. When I walked into this place in 2019, one of the first things I spoke about in my maiden speech was the case for nuclear power, particularly coming from the state of South Australia, which is, of course, home to some of the world's largest stockpiles of uranium. We were the state that produced the 2016 Scarce royal commission, which outlined very clearly and very demonstrably the plan for the nuclear energy fuel cycle. It was a plan to mine uranium, to use it for nuclear energy, for nuclear power and for powered electricity. It was a plan for safe nuclear fuel storage after end of life. It was a plan that ultimately would have provided both my state and this nation billions and billions of dollars both upfront and, of course, in a sovereign wealth fund, which would have meant that our children wouldn't need to suffer from the poverty-stricken future they have under a Prime Minister Albanese government, which they're now tanking under. But, at that stage, Australia was already behind the eight ball in terms of a plan for nuclear energy. The rest of the developed world uses it. The comparable country of Canada uses it very ably, and it turned into a multibillion-dollar-per-annum industry for the people of Canada without a single three-eyed fish or three-eyed bear.

All we get from the other side is juvenile undergraduate memes. We know the Left can't meme. We know they can't. A proper meme is like a political cartoon: it requires a sense of humour, and we just don't get that. All we get from this side of the chamber is childish undergraduate scare campaigns when the truth is that this is safe and effective. Safe and effective—for once, that could actually be true. Who would know?

What we need to get on the record here is that our nuclear plan will provide an effective, cost-effective and crucial pathway for the Australian energy future, providing a reliable point of access for baseload power. Nuclear power is ultimately clean and safe, and it will be cost effective. We will be able to make that clear. We should let the market decide that in due course, but at the moment we can simply say that, with huge reserves of uranium and our ability to mine and sell it to the rest of the world, this is a reliably important part of our future energy mix.

The one thing that was missed in the debate earlier on today about the government's failure to answer the questions about the cost of decommissioning was that, unlike wind turbines and solar panels, nuclear power stations have incredibly long lifespans. They sometimes live up to 60 or beyond years, so these costs are not realised until many years down the track.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In just five days time, the Albanese government will commence taking $300 off the power bills of every household. In two decades time, Mr Dutton will serve up the most expensive form of energy that there is. As today's ISP lays out, renewables are the cheapest form of energy. Getting more renewables into our power system will bring the prices down. Cheap power is why one in three Australian households and small businesses are choosing solar. Australians understand this dynamic in their bones, and yet we have an opposition who in the last week has served up an uncosted, unspecified plan to introduce nuclear, indicating that taxpayers will bear the cost and the risk and providing no information at all about what it will do to bills and how much power it will produce.

We're getting on with the job of dealing with the mess that was created by the previous government and their approach to energy policy. Under Labor, we've had a 25 per cent increase in renewables on the grid. We've had record investment in batteries and storage. We've had over 330,000 solar rooftop installations in the last year alone. We've greenlit more than 50 renewable projects since the last election. We're already halfway to meeting our 2030 emissions reduction target in the national grid. We're cutting power bills from 1 July by bringing rebates to every household, and Mr Dutton is promising action in two decades. There is a very clear choice in what is being offered to the Australian people when it comes to energy, and I will say this: now is not the time to turn our backs on the cheapest form of power.

I heard Senator Antic indicate, 'We'll let the market decide,' and I'm somewhat confused by this because, as I had understood it, Mr Dutton's plan is that the Commonwealth will build and operate nuclear reactors. As I understand it, Mr Dutton's plan is that this will all be a public sector activity. I don't understand what Senator Antic is talking about when he says that the market will decide, because it's not my understanding that that is the plan that's laid out.

It's actually reasonable that people are confused, because so far the information that's been put into the public domain is seven sites and perhaps some polling given to one outlet—sites and some polling. We don't have any numbers. We don't really have any indication of what technology is preferred: modular nuclear reactors, an unproven technology, or large ones, something Mr Dutton previously said he didn't support? We don't have any indication about how much power will be generated by these nuclear reactors, and we don't have any indication whatsoever about what will happen between now and 2037, which, under the coalition's incredibly ambitious timetable, is the earliest point in time that they assert that nuclear power will be available to Australians. Putting aside all of the uncertainty about whether such a timetable could ever be achieved, what is supposed to happen between now and 2037? AEMO tells us that we can expect 90 per cent of Australia's coal fired generation to exit the grid by 2035. What is the plan between now and then? None of these questions have been answered.

It is actually quite incredible that a party that aspires to government could put out a policy of this kind, and it's not surprising that, in speaking about it, so many coalition senators seem to be so very confused about what the nature of this proposition actually is, because, as Senator Gallagher pointed out in her answers to questions, this is not even half baked; this is something close to parbaked, perhaps. I'm not sure it's even been mixed. It appears to be a proposition that has been pulled together hastily after a slip of the tongue by Mr Dutton and a realisation by the party that they couldn't allow this vacuum to go on any longer.

The coalition has so many questions to answer about this: how many reactors, what will we do for the communities that don't wish to have reactors in these places, how much radioactive waste will be produced on these sites, how much will it cost, who will pay for it, and what will it do for bills? The truth is that this election will be a very clear choice for Australians between a positive, costed plan and a costly and risky nuclear proposal.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It tells you a lot that, when a government minister stands to defend the answers given in question time, they spend most of the time speaking about the opposition. I'd suggest that's a bad sign for the government.

The other bad sign for the government is that the government so far have very few policies that I can see emerging as their agenda for the next election. All they've done in the past two years has been to feather the nests of their fellow rent seekers and bloodsuckers and all the other fellow travellers that help them with their internal political machine. That's all they've done. It's been a government for vested interests for two years. The big test for this government now is: can it thread together a coherent policy agenda that it can put to the Australian people and that will solve the problems of today, the problems that are facing the people out there, outside this building, such as inflation and housing? As far as I can see, according to the data released today, the problems are getting worse, not better. Inflation is getting worse, not better. You can talk about wages growth, but what people are really interested in is real wages growth. While inflation is eating the wages of workers, Labor have very little to say.

I want to comment on the question that I asked Senator Gallagher today about housing. Unfortunately, we are going backwards on housing.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ha, ha, ha!

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can laugh all you like. I'll take the interjection. It's callous and cold from Labor and Senator O'Neill.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's destruction by your 10 years of government.

Andrew Bragg (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Home Ownership) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take the interjection, and I take the opportunity to remind Senator O'Neill and the government members that in 2018, under the coalition, there were 220,000 houses built, and this year there will only be about 170,000 houses built. So, after spending billions of dollars on boondoggle bureaucracies for the unions, the government is building fewer houses than before. The government is building fewer houses than were ever built under the coalition.

This is the problem with this government. It is so focused on feathering the nests of the rent seekers and the unions that it has no time to solve the problems of today. The key problem facing so many Australians is the ability to get access to a first home, and Labor could not give a rat's. All they're worried about is how they can feather the nests of their rent seekers in terms of policy and in terms of dollars. So, after having spent billions of dollars on boondoggle slush funds, we are going backwards on housing. You can step through all the policies. On supply, the government has two policies: the Housing Australia Future Fund and the housing targets. Both of these are huge failures, and it shows in your willingness and the willingness of government members to constantly interject. It's because you are so embarrassed about your failure to fix housing. You have made housing so much worse, and that is hugely regrettable for Australians who want access to a first home. This has always been a country where a person on an average wage could buy a home, but not anymore. That is the problem facing so many Australians, and all the government has is callous and cold responses.

Then we move to the demand side. We have the Help to Buy Scheme which was, in fact, abandoned last week in the New South Wales budget by the state Labor Party, which said, 'Shared equity schemes are so bad and so unpopular and so horrible that we're going to remove this scheme.' The only demand-side policy the government have here in Canberra is Help to Buy. It was the centrepiece of their election announcement from two years ago, and it is still not legislated. They have no other ideas on the demand side. We have a demand-side policy that is out there which is for people to use their own money and the reason that the government won't countenance relates to the same charge I always lay at their feet: it is a government for vested interests. It is a government that only gets out of bed for its favourite fellow travellers, and the reason it won't consider this idea is that it will hurt the super funds. The government cares more about the super funds than the government cares about people. This is a government for big super funds and unions—not a government for people—and it's disgusting.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's hardly worth responding to the nonsense that was put on the record just then, and I had my chance to critique some of the nonsense that we've heard. Those who are in the gallery and people who are perhaps listening around the country deserve a better conversation of hope. That is what happened when a Labor government was elected.

What we did in the budget that has just passed through the Senate is going to really radically improve the lives of all Australians. For people sitting here—whether you are under the roof of a rental property tonight, an Airbnb or a local motel—the comfort of having your own home and being safe is a really important thing. Trying to keep the lights on is a big challenge. Labor sees that. We didn't ignore it. We didn't come in here and create a litany of miseries about the way the world is. We see what it's like and, instead of leaving Australians hanging, despairing that they're not going to be able to make their payments, we are going to help every single household get $300 off their electricity bill. That will be what happens in Australia on 1 July. We all get bills. It's going to be $75 off each quarter. That's the Australian government—your Australian government—saying: 'I see the challenges that you have in meeting your bills. We won't leave you hanging; we're going to help you.'

I want to address an issue that was raised about housing. Once upon a time I used to be an English teacher. English teachers are not always the favourite teachers of kids who go on to be construction workers. Sometimes those kids just serve out their time at school, make a few friends and are busting to get out and make things and build things—to be plumbers, carpenters or electricians. Young men and young women know that there are really good wages to be had, if they can do that, and that they can make a great contribution to their community.

So many young Australians' lives were interrupted because of the government of the day, the Liberal-National Party government under Mr Morrison, Mr Turnbull and Mr Abbott. They were unable to get any education to help them fulfil their dreams. They couldn't afford to go to TAFE. They wanted to be the workforce for Australia. They wanted to be ready to handle the supply challenges that we face. But they were cut off by a miserly Liberal-National Party government that didn't see talent and just saw cost.

Let me tell you: one of the changes we've made is that 355,000 Australians—young, middle-aged and older—are retraining for free, right now, to build the workforces we need and to make sure we have the teachers we need. We've delivered support for those who are experiencing prac poverty, where they have to go out and train, and they can't afford it. They're going to get $319 a week.

Not too far from here is the seat of Hume, if you head to Goulburn and then up to the southern parts of the city. In Hume there are 79,000 people. This is just one seat. It is the shadow Treasurer's seat. And he's whingeing and moaning. I don't know what makes him so unhappy that 79,000 people who live in the electorate he's supposed to represent are going to get tax cuts of the kind that Senator Wong outlined in her response to questions from government senators today; 13.6 million Australians across the country are going to get a tax cut come 1 July—just a few sleeps away—79,000 of them in the shadow Treasurer's seat. And those opposite are very unhappy.

Why are they unhappy? They are unhappy because, the way they had it concocted, most of these people—teachers, hospitality workers, chefs, sales assistants, receptionists, truck drivers, electricians, cleaners and nurses—were not going to get a tax cut, because people from the opposition do not believe in making sure hardworking, ordinary Australians who have aspiration should get the help they need from this government. They wanted to give it all to the upper end.

Those opposite don't understand that aspiration starts in a fibro house in Blacktown and that people on the lowest wages deserve a tax cut even more than those on the highest ones. If we believe in the opportunity of this country, that is what we have to do, and that is what Labor has done. That is why 13.6 million people will be very happy on Monday that it's an Albanese government here in the Lodge.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A couple of weeks ago we had the Nambour show, which is now known as the Sunshine Coast Agricultural Show. It's a show that I went to when my family were canefarmers on the coast. And as the local senator, my office is in Nambour. Marty Hunt, who was our candidate for Nicklin—a local copper—had a stall at the show, and Ted O'Brien, who's the local member for Fairfax, had a stall. And I did what many on our side of politics do, which is stand there and listen to the concerns of people at the Nambour show. We even had one of those placards for people to put stickers on.

What people are concerned about—the No. 1 issue in Queensland, whether at the Nambour show or out in Quilpie or Cairns or wherever it is—is the cost of living. What drives the cost of living? It is inflation. What we saw today, an inflation rate of four per cent, is a figure that should send a shiver up the spine of every Australian, because they know things are going to get more expensive. And what is driving inflation? The main factor driving inflation is that we have a federal Labor government who are spending billions and billions of dollars driving up the cost of everything.

Why are your mortgages going up? Well, you've got a federal Labor government, and since they've been in power, mortgages have gone up 12 times. Why is your rent going up? You've got a federal Labor government who fail to understand how to achieve an equilibrium in the housing market so we can get young people into the housing market and open up the housing supply. It is cost of living.

What is also interesting is that the concerns of my fellow Queenslanders reflect the concerns of David Crisafulli and the state LNP. Mr Crisafulli's priorities—the right priorities for Queensland—are based on housing, health, crime and the cost of living. Queenslanders are getting a double hit at the moment. They've got a state Labor government who are throwing money out the door like a particularly drunken sailor on shore leave, and we've got a federal Labor government who are doing a pretty good job at aping it. That is what is driving the cost-of-living crisis in Australia.

Finally, I'm not someone who pretends to know a lot about sport—indeed, I broke my arm playing tennis, so I'm not a particularly sporting person—but tonight is the State of Origin. It would be remiss of me, as a Queensland senator, not to say rude things about the Blues, 'the Cockroaches', and also wish my team, the Maroons, 'the Cane Toads', all the best for tonight.

Question agreed to.