Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Watt. Cost-of-living pressures are front of mind for all Australians. When speaking with constituents in my home state of Western Australia, I often hear that energy affordability is one of their key concerns. The independent Australian Energy Market Operator has said renewable energy is the lowest-cost way to supply electricity to homes and businesses. How is the Albanese Labor government helping put downward pressure on energy bills? How is the government's clean, cheap and reliable energy plan helping all Australians?

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

I thank Senator Sterle, who I know, like every member within the government party room, supports cheaper energy for Australian households. The Albanese government is relentlessly focused on supporting Australians to deal with cost-of-living pressures. Whether it's cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, getting wages moving again or energy bill relief, it is the thing that I know motivates every single member of our Labor government. We know that that means making energy more affordable.

After the coalition's wasted decade in office, where we had—was it 21, 22, 23, 24 or 25 energy policies? I've lost count. After that decade, we're doing the heavy lifting now to ensure that we have cheap, clean and reliable energy into the future. That means investing in the cheapest form of energy—renewables—to support our energy grid over the long term. In the short term, it means important measures like direct energy bill relief that make things a bit easier for all Australians—support that we know that Mr Dutton and every member of the coalition opposed. They voted against our energy bill relief and tried to deny that support to Australians.

Now Mr Dutton and the coalition want to make power prices go nuclear. They are hell-bent on spending $600 billion of taxpayers' money on nuclear reactors, signing every taxpayer up to higher power prices for decades. We know that nuclear will take too long, cost too much and slug every Australian with $1,200 extra on their power bill every year. But the big question that remains unanswered is: how will they pay for it? You don't just find $600 billion lying around the couch. The only possible answer is that Mr Dutton will have to make savage cuts to essential services to pay for his slow, expensive nuclear reactors. Australians have a right to know what will be cut, and Mr Dutton has to tell them now.

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

Senator Sterle, a first supplementary?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last year the independent Australian Energy Market Operator confirmed the Albanese Labor government's reliable renewables plan is the only plan that will deliver cheap, clean and reliable energy to Australian households. Minister, why is the government's reliable renewables plan the best way to reduce household power bills across Australia?

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

Thanks, Senator Sterle. As you know, if you're serious about bringing down power bills, the best option to do so is renewables backed up by gas and batteries. That's what the independent Energy Market Operator says. We want energy to be cheaper, and that's why we're investing in renewables. In contrast, Mr Dutton and the coalition are telling Australians you can trust them to build nuclear reactors. The people who gave us 20-odd energy policies—you can trust them to get it right this time! All they need is a lazy $600 billion of taxpayers' money. 'Trust us,' they say. This is the mob that blew out the cost of Inland Rail by 600 per cent—but, don't worry, you can trust them with $600 billion for nuclear reactors! The same crew who did Snowy 2.0 and blew out the cost there, and who spent $600 million on commuter car parks in places that didn't even have a train station, now want to build nuclear reactors, but they still can't be honest about what they will cut to pay for it. You will be worse off under Mr Dutton.

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

Senator Sterle, second supplementary?

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note Mr Dutton's risky nuclear reactor policy will cost Australian taxpayers $600 billion, as you said. As Senator Canavan put it, 'Nuclear power is on the more expensive end of the scale.' And now for the best part: what are the biggest barriers to delivering cheaper power bills to all Australians—as if I didn't know?

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

The biggest barrier to cheaper power in this country is Mr Dutton and the coalition, with the possible exception of one senator—being Senator Canavan. Look, I think that everyone knows that Senator Canavan and I tend to disagree on most things, but at least he has the courage of his conviction being upfront and honest about nuclear power, because he said, 'Nuclear is not going to cut it. We're not serious. We're latching on to nuclear as a silver bullet because it fixes a political issue for us.' And this is the kicker: 'But it ain't the cheapest form of power.' Thank you for your honesty, Senator Canavan. I couldn't have summed up Mr Dutton better myself. We both clearly agree that Mr Dutton will say and do anything to get himself elected, but the reality is that Senator Canavan, Mr Dutton and every coalition member should also come clean about the cuts they plan to make to Medicare, to housing, to pensions and to education to fund their nuclear reactors.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that further questions be placed on notice.