Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Regional Health) Share this | Hansard source

Yes, he said it 97 times. I'm going to quote what the Prime Minister said about that modelling. The Prime Minister said that that modelling, which led to the promise of a $275 fall in energy prices for households, was 'the most comprehensive modelling ever done for any policy by any opposition in Australia's history'. I'm going to repeat that. The RepuTex modelling was 'the most comprehensive modelling ever done for any policy by any opposition in Australia's history'. The people of Australia probably thought: 'Well, they've obviously done the work. If they've done the work, the policy is sound, and, if the policy is sound, we can expect our bills to drop by $275.' There's an inability, on the minister's part, to take responsibility, and that's why we keep asking him about it.

When he gets up to the dispatch box, he starts talking about the home battery scheme. I ask my colleagues and anyone in this place: Did the Prime Minister say, 'Household energy bills will drop by $275 by 2025 if they get a cheaper home battery and they pay 10 grand for it'? Did he add that last bit on? I didn't hear him say that. I just heard him say that their energy bills will be reduced by $275.

It wasn't a plan to reduce prices; it was a plan to reduce coalition seats, and, unfortunately for Australia, it succeeded. But I think it's worth saying that, when you go to the Australian people with a policy and you say it's the most comprehensive modelling you've ever done, you want to have done the modelling and you want to get it right, because now Australians are paying the price.

They're paying the price of a failed energy system that is based on ideology, as many of my colleagues have said. I am a supporter of renewable energy. I think it's a great technology. It needs to be rolled out in the right places, and it needs to be part of a diverse grid. I've spoken before about the Centre for Independent Studies doing some modelling and showing examples from around the world where renewable energy is quite good in a grid up to about 30 or 40 per cent. But, when you get over that, the instability increases, and the prices increase. That is what is happening around the world for the few countries who have tried this, and Australia's attempting to get to 82 per cent renewable energy—intermittent power.

It's not that we don't like renewable energy. It's not that we don't think it has a place, but to put so many eggs in that one basket means that we will get instability of the power grid. That matters for households; I get that. But think about industry that's got to run 24/7. If they don't have reliable energy and if they don't have cheaper energy, I worry—and I'm seeing it in my electorate—that some of those businesses will say, 'It's cheaper and easier to do business offshore.' The global emissions don't change if that happens, but, by gosh, the Australian economy is damaged. People who are employed by those companies lose their jobs. We lose economic activity. The tax receipts will fall. You won't be able to brag about redistributing as much money because you won't be getting as much tax.

It's a real recipe for disaster in the Australian economy. It's causing great damage to families, to workers, to industries. When you go to an election, do the work, get the policy right and be honest with the Australian people; $275 was not honest, and the Australian people are paying the price.

See this speech in context