Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. Minister, what is the total cost of the net zero transition?

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister is away up north, so your question is to Minister Watt.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Watt, what is the total cost of the net zero transition?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Roberts. Yes, I'm representing Senator McAllister, who represents Minister Bowen, while she's in Townsville for the floods. Given I am the representing minister, I'm just waiting to have those figures handed to me. But I know that we have had that transition costed, and it's in the order of $120 billion to $130 billion. That's my understanding. Importantly, the CSIRO—an organisation I know you haven't got an enormous amount of time for but the most reputable science organisation in the country—and the Australian Energy Market Operator, who probably knows more about the energy market than any other group within Australia, have both made clear that ensuring that we meet our future power needs with renewables backed up by gas and firmed by batteries is the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs going forward.

I wasn't too far off the mark. AEMO's integrated system plan found that the net present value under a step-change scenario towards a renewable based system is $122 billion. Of course, that's significantly lower than the figure it will cost for Mr Dutton's nuclear program. As I said, people as reputable in this country as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator have found that it's not just environmental benefits that we get from meeting our power needs through renewables going forward; it's actually the cheapest way we can do so as well. That's the direct answer to your question—it's $122 billion.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me make the question easier. Minister, how much taxpayers' money is the government spending on the net zero transition across forward estimates?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Roberts. I don't have a figure just for the forward estimates, being the next four years. But, as I said, the cost of delivering our power network into the future under the government's plan is $122 billion in net present value terms.

Now, I know there is another plan out there. But is it really a plan, or, as Senator Canavan revealed, is it just a political fix? Whatever it is, that nuclear plan from Mr Dutton costs $600 billion. We know that means that power prices will go up by about $1,200 per household per year. And we know that, to fund that $600 billion that is required for the nuclear program, Mr Dutton will have to put in place very big cuts to things like Medicare, energy support, cost-of-living relief, housing, pensions and all manner of other things to fund the most expensive form of power you can provide.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, Bloomberg has put the cost of Australia's net zero transition at $1.9 trillion. One Nation uses a consensus figure of $1.5 trillion. Across forward estimates, the budget is in deficit. Wasteful, undisciplined government spending is feeding inflation. And you can't even tell me how much will be spent on net zero across the forward estimates. Minister, will you at least give an undertaking to table, on the first day of the March sitting, the figure for the total cost of the net zero transition, including the forward estimates?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I've already provided the figure of $122 billion. I'm not across the Bloomberg estimate that you cite, Senator Roberts, and I'm certainly not across the One Nation consensus figure. I assume that's a consensus between you and Senator Hanson—you've had to sort of thrash that one out between the two of you and arrived at a consensus of $1.5 trillion!

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to answer Senator Watt's question.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps some other time—thank you, Senator Roberts.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe James Ashby was in there as well, with the calculator going, working out a consensus figure. And I certainly don't know what assumptions underpinned the One Nation/James Ashby/Senator Hanson/Senator Roberts consensus figure. But the fact is that the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs into the future—as cited by AEMO and the CSIRO, our most eminent scientific body—is at a cost of $122 billion. That is the cheapest way we can meet our power needs, which I think is a very good reason for any government, no matter what their political party, to pursue it.