Mrs Marino:

Another day, another big-spending program from the Albanese government. I rise this evening to express my strong opposition to the federal government's proposal to subsidise home battery systems across Australia. Those opposite might dress this policy up in noble terms, but the reality is that this is putting lipstick on a pig of a policy. It's a pig of a policy because it's inequitable. It clearly favours the relatively wealthy and does nothing to further the energy affordability and reliability that our national prosperity depends upon.

Let us begin with the economic reality. Home battery systems remain prohibitively expensive for most Australians. Even with these subsidies, the upfront costs can exceed $10,000 per household. This is a significant burden, particularly for Australian families already grappling with rising living costs, mortgage stress, rental stress and inflation. The government's plan effectively asks Australian taxpayers—many of whom can't afford these battery systems themselves—to foot the bill for wealthier households to install batteries. That is not equity; that is redistribution in reverse. Moreover, the return on investment for these systems is questionable. Studies show that, even with generous rebates, the payback period for a home battery can stretch beyond a decade and, in many cases, the batteries will need replacing before they've paid for themselves. That is not a prudent use of taxpayer money. It's also not the first time that we've seen this movie.

In the first phase of large-scale growth in rooftop solar, lavish feed-in tariff schemes across the country introduced between 2008 and 2011 encouraged some 1.4 million households to install panels on their roofs. That was the highest proportion of households of any country, sure. But, according to the Grattan Institute—and the Grattan Institute is hardly a rabid right-wing think tank—state governments began winding back the schemes in 2012. By the time the last of these runs out in 2028, they will have cost the Australian economy some $9 billion. Worse, people who chose not to install solar or who simply couldn't afford it will have paid for the schemes through these subsidies to those who could install the panels worth an eye-watering $14 billion.

These numbers expose the folly of these big-spending government programs that Labor are addicted to. Every time a Labor government decides to shovel billions of taxpayer dollars into a new energy scheme, the economic costs exceed the benefits, there are unintended consequences in terms of market distortion and we end up wondering why we didn't just wait for the technology to mature and become financially viable in the first place.

We also need some honesty around the environmental implications of this. While batteries can support renewable energy, their production is resource intensive. Mining for lithium and other critical rare-earth metals carries significant environmental and social costs, which are often opposed by members of this very government. Remember the McPhillamys gold mine, a $1 billion shovel-ready project whose approval was cancelled at five minutes to midnight because they wanted to appease a small group of noisy agitators. If we're serious about sustainability in this country, we need to consider the full life cycle of these technologies, not just their benefits at the point of use.

My main concern with energy policy under this government in Australia is that nobody is being honest with the Australian people about the trajectory of energy prices in real terms. I'm not just talking about the Prime Minister and his 98-times promised $275 savings on power bills that have, in fact, transformed into households being worse off by more than $1,200 a year. My issue is that even those who support the government agenda, like the Clean Energy Council, told me last week in this very building that power prices will continue to rise, even with the billions that this government is shovelling into its renewable-only fantasy. I find it simply unfathomable that this government is pushing forward with a policy that is economically inefficient, socially inequitable and environmentally questionable. Let us pursue energy reform that is fair, affordable and grounded in sound policy, not one that subsidises the wealthier few at the expense of the many hardworking Aussies whose kids will ultimately be lumped with the national debt from this madness.

See this speech in context