Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

LLER-FROST () (): I am delighted to rise today to speak about what the Albanese Labor government is doing in this latest budget with regard to the environment, water and tackling climate change. As I said last night in speaking in support of the government's nature repair market bill, my electorate of Boothby is one of the most environmentally diverse in the state. It spans the southern suburbs of Adelaide, and, while it is in an urban environment, it includes everything from coastal and marine ecosystems through to urban wetlands and rivers right through to the Adelaide Hills with the beautiful Belair National Park. One thing I heard loud and clear when running for the seat last year was that the previous government had failed to properly value and protect our environment, and that is why I am so pleased that the Albanese Labor government is bringing to life its ambitious Nature Positive Plan.

This budget builds on the government's first budget, which funded our election commitments, and, crucially when it comes to the environment, we are investing in improving our environment across Boothby. I pay tribute to the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek, for her dedication to making this happen and, of course, to Minister Bowen, who is here in the chamber today. We are investing over $700,000 in our Sturt River project through the government's Urban Rivers and Catchments Program, and through the Warriapependi biodiversity project, the Riverside Drive Creek stabilisation and improvement project and the restoring the Oxbow project we are bringing new life to the Sturt River, which runs through much of Boothby. We are delivering $5 million as part of the Brown Hill Keswick Creek Stormwater Project. This project is aimed at mitigating significant flood risk. It's the sixth most likely flood risk in the country, and it is supported by more than $6 million in funding from the government's Disaster Ready Fund to help protect Adelaide from potentially disastrous flooding.

This 2023-24 budget will help us protect more of what is precious, repair more of what is damaged and manage nature better in the future. The Albanese Labor government is rewriting Australia's old, broken environment laws to better protect our environment and make clearer, faster decisions. At the heart of this plan is $121 million to establish Environment Protection Australia, to restore trust in the system that badly needs it. As someone in this place representing an electorate in South Australia, I know just how important a healthy Murray-Darling Basin is to our way of life, and I am thrilled that we are investing in water infrastructure, fixing the broken water market and protecting the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. We're doing this by investing $103.7 million to deliver on our commitment to undertake the first review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan; investing $197.1 million in projects that provide safe, reliable and secure water for regional and remote communities; helping First Nations people participate in water planning and decision-making by investing $3.5 million in a First Nations environment and water partnerships program; and investing $32.7 million to deliver on our election commitment to restore transparency, integrity and confidence in water markets, including a new water market hub, a digital platform for national water data management, a new water market website allowing farmers to access live water market updates for the first time, and a new water market data standard guaranteeing transparency and enforceability on the data being provided to the Bureau of Meteorology.

When it comes to addressing climate change, this government is committed to lowering our emissions and to doing so in a way that empowers Australian households and businesses. The Albanese government is taking action to drive down household energy costs and ensure Australia's position to take advantage of jobs of the future. The 2023-24 budget funds critical investments to save Australians money on their energy bills and invest in nation-building new industries. For too long, Australians were left behind as the rest of the world moved to take advantage of the economic opportunities that come with action on cleaner, cheaper energy. This was a frustration that was palpable across Boothby and was a key reason I was motivated to represent our community here in the first place. The government's energy-saving plan will make homes, businesses and social housing more energy efficient and drive down energy costs. It includes $1.3 billion to establish the Household Energy Upgrades Fund. This includes turbocharging finance options for household energy upgrades for more than 110,000 households, via $1 billion to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, as well as $300 million to partner with states and territories to support energy upgrades for around 60,000 social housing properties.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've seen in this budget the typical form of the Albanese government—big on propaganda but very light on policy and light on detail. We very much look forward to seeing over time the detail that lies behind a lot of the policy announcements in the budget. Meanwhile, I do have a series of questions that I'm sure the minister would like to answer in detail.

Firstly, investment in Australian resources, especially gas, has stalled following the government's continued interventions into the market, and the same has occurred with renewables now. How will Australia attract the capital needed to power Australia into the future while the government's policies are impeding foreign direct investment? AEMO's Gas statement of opportunities has forecast potential shortfalls every winter for the next three years out to 2026. Repeated ACCC reports have revealed that shortfalls are a real possibility. Based on industry advice, we are now seeing problems also in Western Australia that previously were far more prominent on the eastern coast. When will the government take the looming gas shortages forecast by the experts on both the east and west coasts seriously and reverse its anti-gas policy suite?

The government continues to tell Australians that renewables are the cheapest form of energy but fails to acknowledge the total system costs, which are what people ultimately pay for through their energy bills. When will the government come clean about the total system costs associated with its energy plan and tell the truth about its related policies, its impact on the cost for consumers and how those costs continue to skyrocket? With Liddell shutting down, Kurri Kurri being delayed, Snowy 2.0 pushed back and investment in renewable generation stalling, what is the government's plan to keep the lights on? What steps has the government taken to ensure sufficient, fit-for-purpose energy generation will be online in time for when the Eraring power station permanently closes in 2025?

Will the government continue to steamroll regional communities to meet its arbitrary political target of 82 per cent renewables by 2030? And will it guarantee that it will properly engage and consult with impacted households before rolling out its plan for 22,000 solar panels a day, 40 wind turbines a month and up to 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines? How do the new-found powers of government to declare transmission lines of national significance reconcile with increasing concerns on the part of regional communities that they are being steamrolled over in the government's rush to carpet Australia with transmission lines? Given investment in renewables is not keeping pace with the targets, with the commitments of the government, as evidenced in the first quarter of 2023, what is the government doing to ensure existing energy generation stays open until like-for-like replacement is ready, to avoid an energy shortfall?

The government has put itself at the centre of the gas market and can now dictate how much gas can be sold, to who and at what price. On top of this, the government has hit the sector with one of the world's most punitive carbon taxes. It plans to increase the PRRT and introduce a mandatory code. It's funded green activists to wage green warfare on gas companies and ripped out funding from the budget for gas exploration and pipelines, and around $250 million for CCS. If the government claims to support gas as a transition fuel, which one of these policies has resulted in more gas supply coming to market? What substantive policy measures has the government taken to reassure our trading partners that Australia continues to be a safe place to invest in light of the damage that the government's energy policies have done to Australia's reputation, evidenced by public statements made by senior government officials and industry leaders from countries including Japan? Investment in Australia's resources, especially gas, has stalled following the government's continued interventions into the market, and the same has occurred with renewables. How will Australia attract the capital needed to power Australia into the future while government policies are impeding foreign direct investment? Why is it that government policies in this area continue to be driven by the government's ideological proclivity?

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Australia's environment is under significant pressure. It's experienced significant harm and has been badly damaged in lots of areas. The trajectory is not a good one; the trajectory is for further decline. To the traditional causes of that harm—loss of habitat and the introduction of invasive species—we add some new risks. Climate change is now presenting a really significant risk to our environment and to biodiversity, and we have new biosecurity concerns. As a result of climate change, we have greater frequency and intensity of natural disasters. We saw the catastrophic bushfires on the east coast of Australia where some three billion animals were lost, in addition to an enormous amount of forest habitat.

The Albanese Labor government isn't going to sit by and watch that downward trajectory continue. We're not going to allow the pattern of neglect, denial, wilful blindness and maladministration of the previous government to continue, and the May budget shows that. There are a whole series of investments that start to turn around what was, frankly, one of the most appalling areas of underperformance of the previous government.

The previous government knew quite well what was happening to the Australian environment. They had lots of evidence before them. They commissioned the Samuel review into the EPBC Act, Australia's protection framework, and the Samuel review said:

Australia's natural environment and iconic places are in an overall state of decline and are under increasing threat. They are not sufficiently resilient to withstand current, emerging or future threats, including climate change.

The EPBC Act is out dated and requires fundamental reform. It does not enable the Commonwealth to effectively fulfil its environmental management responsibilities to protect nationally important matters.

That's the report that the previous government commissioned, and that's the very clear evidence that was provided to them. And what did they do? They didn't do anything. They did literally nothing. There was no EPBC reform whatsoever. Graeme Samuel gave them a pretty straightforward and sensible recipe for remedial action, improved national standards and the creation of a national environmental protection agency. And they did nothing—zero. So we're left, as in so many areas, to start to clean up the mess. In this budget, $120 billion will go to the creation of that independent environmental protection agency. But it wasn't just the Samuel review. They had the Australia state of the environment 2021 report. We didn't see it in 2021, because it was one of those reports they preferred to keep to themselves, partly because they knew the story it told. The story it told was of environmental harm and decline, and, on their part, inaction.

We know that over the past two centuries Australia has lost more mammal species than any other continent. We have one of the highest rates of species decline and extinction risk in the OECD. There are more than 1,900 Australian species and ecological communities that are threatened or at risk of extinction. If you want to look at the Murray-Darling Basin, by itself it's home to 16 internationally significant Ramsar wetlands, 35 endangered species and 98 species of waterbirds alone. Rivers and catchments are in poor condition across the Murray-Darling. Native fish populations have declined by more than 90 per cent in the last 150 years.

A member of parliament government yesterday was talking about the nature repair market bills before the House, saying that they were a part of a piecemeal approach to a perceived ill. When you've seen a 90 per cent decline in the fish population in something as magnificent as the Murray-Darling Basin, can it possibly be said that that's a perceived ill? It's just ridiculous. This government won't have that.

This government is taking action on a number of fronts, led by the Minister for the Environment and Water: an extra $260 million to support Commonwealth national parks; $163 million to the fantastic people and institutional architecture that underlie the Australian Institute of Marine Science, so they can continue their fantastic work; and nearly $120 million for community groups, councils, NGOs and First Nations people to take on projects to clean up and restore urban rivers and waterways because at least half of threatened species are present in urban areas. The nature repair market, the EPBC reforms, the national environment protection agency—we've done all these things in a little bit more than 12 months because we can't let Australia's environment and biodiversity fall off a cliff, and that's exactly what those opposite did for 10 years.

Sam Birrell (Nicholls, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I come from the Goulburn Valley, an incredibly productive valley that is built on agriculture and irrigated agriculture. People have come from all over the world to make businesses, lives and families, and employ people, create wealth, create food for Australia and create food and food products that are exported around the world. We should be really proud of that, but that's seriously under threat with the way that this government is approaching the final stages of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has had an impact on my electorate already, economically and financially, but we've accepted it because we accepted that there was a need for the Commonwealth to return water, via the Commonwealth water holder, to the environment. Over 2,000 gigalitres per year have been taken out of the Murray-Darling Basin, and that has led to a significant reduction in irrigated agriculture and significant risk for businesses, but we've worn it. The add-on to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was the sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism—in my area it's called the SDLAM—to deliver 605 gigalitres worth of projects. The states have been working on those projects, but they haven't been given the chance to be developed and finished. They've been disrupted by COVID, disrupted by floods and disrupted by wet years. But they can make some really good environmental steps forward in a sustainable way.

The other part of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan that is frightening—it's not too strong a word—everyone in my region is the 450 gigalitre per year extra amount that was mooted to be returned and given to environmental outcomes down in South Australia. That was only if it could be proven that there was no socioeconomic impact on the basin communities. That was the deal: 'You can have the 450 gigalitres if you can prove there's no negative socioeconomic impact.' In 2018, the basin states agreed that any additional water recovered under the plan—the 450 gigalitres—would be subject to a socioeconomic neutrality test. Successive Victorian Labor water ministers have stood firm for basin communities, and rightly so.

Recovering water for the environment must be balanced against the impact on basin communities, who face a loss of productivity, jobs and economic activity if there is overreach. I just can't emphasise enough how fearful, frightened and devastated people in my community—not just the farmers but the people who work in factories, making products from milk and fruit—are about the economic destruction that this will yield if it happens.

So my questions to the minister are these. Why won't you extend the June 2024 deadline and pursue those sustainable diversion limit adjustment mechanism projects? It would achieve better outcomes for the environment in a sustainable way. Why won't you extend the deadline and give the states the chance to continue developing those projects? I also ask the minister: Is there research showing that recovery of the additional 450 gigalitres would not have a negative social or economic impact for basin communities? If so, will you release it? If not, when will that work be done and released publicly before any water buybacks occur? The deal was for the 450 if there was no negative socioeconomic impact, and I encourage the minister to think about that term 'socioeconomic'—society and economy. Is the impact going to be negative? And if it is then I think the minister needs to stand by the deal that was done when the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was first put together: that that was the only circumstance under which those extra 450 gigalitres—extra, on top of what we've already given—can be taken away.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the opportunity to briefly respond to the member for Fairfax and questions he raised earlier. He asked me a series of questions—I think 10 or 15, or something like that, which is a whole lot more questions than he has asked me in the main chamber this year, which is two so far.

The shadow minister asked me about a number of matters. He asked me about, in effect, investment and capacity in the system. It is rather extraordinary and ironic that the shadow minister would ask me what we're doing to encourage investment, when he and the opposition have opposed every single measure we have embarked upon to encourage investment—most particularly, the Climate Change Act, which renewable energy investors around the world have told me is absolutely vital to their investment decisions. I had the chief executive of a very large, international, renewable investor—in fact, arguably the largest in the world—tell me recently that Australia is now, in his mind, the key market in the world for investment. I asked him what had changed to bring that about, and he said that it was our Climate Change Act. Honourable members opposite opposed that. It is the single biggest thing we have done to send the message to investors in the world that Australia has changed, the government has changed, the parliament has changed and the country has changed. The opposition hasn't changed, but we can't help that. But the transition is occurring without them.

Also, there's our capacity investment mechanism, which the previous government talked about for years and could never deliver. We delivered that last year, in a unanimous agreement with the states and territories. I'm looking forward to making further announcements about that in coming weeks, in terms of the rollout of the capacity investment mechanism in New South Wales, followed by South Australia and Victoria. It's absolutely vital for encouraging investment in dispatchable renewable energy in Australia. Luckily, the shadow minister and the opposition don't have the opportunity to oppose that, because it doesn't require legislation. I'm sure they would if they could, but we're getting on with it and we don't need legislation.

Similarly, there's Rewiring the Nation, which the opposition opposes. When you look at every single chief executive—

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You interject enough for the entire parliament, so don't you worry about that. I appreciate the support of the honourable members on this side; they're very supportive. The opposition opposed Rewiring the Nation, which every single energy chief executive, including Frank Calabria as late as today, has pointed out is absolutely vital for encouraging new investment. In relation to capacity, the honourable member asked me what we are doing about Liddell and about capacity generally—interesting given the closure of Liddell was announced—

An honourable member interjecting—

You did mention Liddell.

An honourable member: In light of Liddell, what are you—

You mentioned Liddell.

An honourable member: It is not a conversation.

He specifically asked me about Liddell and then it went on several questions later. It is fair to ask about it. We will deal with both. Relax. It is okay. I will get to it all. In relation to Liddell, the closure was announced in 2015 and confirmed in 2017, and the shadow minister is very concerned about it in 2023. They did not have much to say in 2015 and 2017, apart from the member for New England, who was Deputy Prime Minister at the time, who said they were going to nationalise it but that did not happen.

In relation to coal-fired power stations generally, I am very pleased to advise the member opposite that this winter there are 2.3 gigawatts more dispensable energy available than there were last winter. You, Madam Deputy Speaker Payne, and the House will recall the crisis last winter which this government inherited. Literally the day we were sworn in, I was getting advice that the energy system was in crisis. That is what the previous government left. We avoided blackouts. We avoided load shedding. It was a whole-of-government effort. We had to work very closely with state and territory colleagues. AEMO did an excellent job. Because the previous government presided over a situation where we had four gigawatts of dispatchable power leave the grid over the decade and one gigawatt came on, we were faced with a crisis. I am very pleased to update the member. I am sure he was not aware of the 2.3 gigawatts. If he chooses to look at AEMO's recent statements about winter readiness, I am sure he would find them elucidating.

An honourable member interjecting—

I can confirm: no nuclear reactors.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

VIOLI () (): The shadow minister covered a lot except price, and price is really important. The shadow minister and I visited a business called Aussie Growers Fruits in Silvan in my electorate with an owner called Laurie. The reason price is so important is because it impacts households when they get their bills. But it impacts businesses, which then impacts households through inflation, and we all know that we're going through one of the greatest inflation crises this country has seen. I will use Laurie's business as an example, and this can be any business across the country. They do food manufacturing. Their energy prices in the last 12 months have gone up $200,000. Laurie is actually lucky. He is on a good fixed contract with his gas at the moment but that is coming off this year, and they are anticipating that their energy prices are going to go up another $200,000 in the next financial year.

But it is not just the price that goes up for Laurie; it is the supply chain. He gets glass in for his products. The price of that is going up. He gets product in from farmers. The price of that is going up because the cost of energy for farmers is going up. And the ultimate result is that the prices of product that he sells to Woolworths and Coles and Aldi and Costco and others have to go up, then they pass that onto the Australian people. When we talk about energy prices needing to come down, it is not just the bills that Australians receive every day; it is every time they go to the supermarket they pay that bill.

This government know that this is a complicated issue but they were very happy during the campaign to simplify it down to one number—$275. They were going to reduce power bills. They used modelling that they received in December of 2021 to continue to make that claim 97 times and, disappointingly, they chose to continue to use that modelling to make that claim at least 30 times after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which significantly altered the energy market. So there is no doubt, especially after taking the opportunity to use modelling, that they would have known it was not relative. So the question to the minister is the government promised a $275 reduction in household energy bills, yet prices are set to go up again by nearly a third come 1 July. Will you admit you have broken your promise to the Australian people? Because people voted in good faith and they are now paying the price every day. But it's not just the prices that we're receiving now. Prices are forecast to continue to go up. The government will talk about their short-term plan, but it's not working, and Australians know that. They know it's not working every time they go to the grocery store and have to pay. I saw two for $11 as the price of Kettle chips, on special, in the supermarket. It was two for $11, for 165 grams.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chips are bad for you.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chips are bad for you, Member for Indi, but some people do like them, and they deserve a treat, and two for $11 seems remarkably expensive. That's the other question for the minister: what are the long-term plans to bring energy prices down? Energy prices, in the government's own budget, are forecast to continue to rise over coming years. But the Australian Labor Party continue to tell people that they've never had it better and they're going to get $500 back, in a temporary, one-off sugar hit. Are the budget papers correct? Will prices continue to rise into the long term or is the government misleading the Australian people? Are they going to bring prices down in the long term or are prices going to continue to go up? This is a serious question.

We all know that it is challenging as we transition to net zero, but we've got an obligation to provide cheap, reliable power to all Australians, including those on fixed incomes, those doing it tough. I grew up raised by a single mum with five kids. I don't know how we would have survived today if we were copping the increases in our power bills that many Australians are copping at the moment. That's the reality. We can continue to talk theatre and all these other things that we talk about, but that's the reality. Australian families, Australian people, Australian businesses are suffering. The government needs to bring these prices down. They don't have a long-term plan.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to correct the record for the member for Casey. We've come out of nine years of coalition mismanagement on climate change action. In case you didn't get the memo, the last election was the election where the Australian public voted for climate action. There were nine failed energy policies. I think it's useful to have a look at what's happening in Australia nationally. In Western Australia we haven't had the same rises in electricity prices, but another place where we haven't had those increases is the ACT. I think it's really interesting that, when I'm talking about these facts, the coalition is not listening. I don't know if they really want to hear the truth. At the last election we saw across Australia that people wanted action on climate change. We saw that in independent areas, in different parts of the country, but we also definitely saw that in Western Australia.

Before I had children, I would regularly speak to school students about climate change, through the scientists in schools program. One of the exercises that I used to do with students, which everyone is welcome to do right now if they'd like, is ask them to close their eyes and imagine a fantastic experience that happened in the last 12 months. I'd get people to do this for 30 seconds, and then the students would share their thoughts about those experiences. Often those experiences could be something like a bushwalk or going to the beach with friends or camping in a special part of Australia. This is where I could say that we could pretend that humans can only survive in an urban and industrialised world, but that's not the reality. Humans fundamentally need the earth. It nurtures us, and we must nurture it. I realise I probably sound like a tree-hugging hippy, but the truth is that I'm born and bred in the Goldfields, I'm an engineer that's worked on the mines, I grew up in a nickel-mining town and I'm really proud of the contribution of the resource sector, particularly from WA. Also, critical minerals will play an important role in the decarbonisation of not just Australia but the world.

After having a look at the mismanagement of the coalition in both climate change and energy, the thing that I was really proud about when we first had the announcement of our cabinet was the talented ministers that had been assigned to climate change and environment. These ministers are people that get work done.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We phrase it differently from Kalgoorlie. The thing that I'd say is that these are tricky areas. These are wicked problems. There's a reason why these ministers were elected: it's because of the woeful benchmark that was set by the coalition. The truth is that we need to get work done, and we're getting on with the job.

One of the first things that we did in our first two weeks of parliament was to legislate a 43 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. Yesterday, I was so proud to hear our environment minister talking in question time about how we've tripled the size of Macquarie Island Marine Park. Our government has set a target to protect 30 per cent of Australia's land and seas by 2030. This commitment reflects the pressing need to preserve and safeguard the nation's natural ecosystems before they're irreparably damaged. By aiming to conserve such significant portions of Australia's territories, the government is showing its dedication to ensuring the long-term health and resilience of our unique natural ecosystem.

Last month, I was thrilled to take the Minister for the Environment and Water through one of the ecological jewels in my electorate of Swan, the Jirdarup Bushland in Victoria Park. It's home to some of our iconic Western Australian species, like the forest red-tailed black cockatoo, the western banjo frog and the white spider orchid.

An honourable member: Bull ants!

Yes, and some bull ants as well! It's no secret that our minister for the environment loves and respects the environment, and I think that the Swan environment knew this, and that's why the red-tailed cockatoos, which are endangered, popped out and why we had an eagle grace us. I think it was a way of the earth talking back to us. Some of the stuff that we've done in the last budget cycle is including $260 million for Commonwealth national parks and a further $275 million to upgrade the Kakadu National Park, which is already being rolled out. It's an exciting time for the environment. Minister, can you keep on doing great work in WA?

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My constituents want to see meaningful and practical action on climate change. We have the most community renewable energy projects of any electorate in Australia, with dozens of volunteer-led community energy groups supporting their towns to be powered by 100 per cent renewables—communities like Yackandandah, like Beechworth, like Euroa, like Wodonga. Our community energy groups want to improve energy reliability in emergencies, especially bushfires; they want to build the local economy; and they want to contribute to reducing emissions. With these groups, I co-designed the Local Power Plan, a blueprint for regional community energy policy. I then introduced my Australian Local Power Agency Bill 2021, which would scale up community energy across our nation, and I very much look forward to speaking with ARENA in upcoming weeks about implementing important elements of my Local Power Plan, including creating clear pathways to fund community energy projects.

Investing in renewable energy will ultimately reduce the cost of living in households. Electricity and gas prices have soared in the past 12 months, as we, importantly, hear about constantly, and our overreliance on fossil fuels instead of renewables has contributed to this, according to the Climate Council. The rising cost of electricity and gas is one of the biggest contributors to the rising cost of living in my electorate of Indi, and it can really mean that people are choosing whether to pay their power bills or whether to put food on the table. Energy reliability is also a big challenge in my electorate, especially in rural areas at the edge of the grid. In places like Corryong, Euroa and Mansfield, brownouts and blackouts are regular. These are things that you don't necessarily ever have to encounter in a major city.

My constituents' calls for meaningful and practical action on climate change and reforming our energy sector are loud and clear. In response, I've also introduced the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment (Cheaper Home Batteries) Bill 2022 and advocated for government to provide low-interest loans for home electrification. My cheaper home batteries bill offers a simple solution to help everyday people in their homes to purchase a home battery. Right now, a home battery might set you back about $14,500 all in. By including home batteries under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme, which already includes solar, my bill would drive that price down by $3,000. I've had this costed. This is something that government could get on to. To unlock massive savings for Australian households, to bring power security to regional households and to accelerate our transition to renewable energy, we need to make home batteries cheaper.

I'm pleased the government recognise the urgent need for home electrification in the budget by committing $1 billion towards the Household Energy Upgrades Fund. This fund allows the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to partner with lenders to provide households and low-cost loans to upgrade homes through solar panels, modern appliances and improvements such as double-glazing. Funding to support electrification and energy efficiency for social housing is another really welcome initial investment. But, since the Household Energy Upgrades Fund was announced, we have seen scant detail on eligibility for these low-interest loans and how they will be accessed. My constituents are asking me—there is no detail. Incentives to help homes electrify, like the Household Energy Upgrades Fund, must be prioritised for low-income households so that our transition to renewable energy doesn't leave the most vulnerable behind. We know the people experiencing financial disadvantage are also those who are most likely to live in dangerously hot or cold homes. They are most likely to be the people requiring urgent medical care due to heat stress, and they desperately need energy efficient homes. The government really need to move faster on this.

I am deeply disappointed the government have failed to introduce incentives for home batteries under the budget. Current market and government expectations and aspirations are that the renewable energy share of our national electricity grid will reach 82 per cent by 2030. But, according to the green energy markets, this figure assumes that the cost of household batteries will be subsidised this decade, and we're not seeing the government act on this. They are falling well short on this right now, with no direct incentives offered under the budget. This budget was an opportunity for them to endorse my Cheaper Home Batteries Bill—it's there; use it. My questions to the government are, first: who will be eligible for a low-interest loan, how will it work and when will it start? Second, if the government are serious about supporting homes to be more sustainable and reduce their carbon emissions, why won't they support my Cheaper Home Batteries Bill?

Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job of driving down energy prices after a wasted decade which saw the Liberals trot out 22 separate energy policies and absolutely nothing to show for it. For nine long years, other countries around the world seized the economic opportunities that come from investment in cleaner and cheaper energy. In the global race for new energy jobs and investment, we were falling behind the pack thanks to the Liberals opposite. The Albanese Labor government's energy plan is not just about investment in new, cleaner energy technology; it's also about taking action to shield Australian families and businesses from the worst of global energy price spikes. Our Energy Price Relief Plan—which Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party voted against—has decreased wholesale electricity prices by around 40 per cent. For example, a household in my electorate of Hawke could have expected to pay over $2,000 in energy bills next financial year. After the Albanese Labor government's intervention, that same household can expect to save $300 across that same period. And if that household is eligible for further rebates, they can save a further $250. Despite these savings for everyday household budgets, the Liberals have vowed to repeal this relief. They want to push prices up by 50 per cent because of their refusal to accept that an intervention can deliver better outcomes for the Australian people.

While keeping prices down, the Albanese Labor government is also helping businesses and households to access energy savings and upgrades through the 'save energy, save on bills' package. Too many people continue to pay for energy that is leaking out of buildings in inefficient appliances. That's why we're investing $1.6 billion in making homes, businesses and social housing more energy efficient, and driving down energy costs. This includes $1.3 billion to establish the Household Energy Upgrades Fund and $310 million for the Small Business Energy Incentive. The Albanese government wants to give families the tools, the information and the access to cheap financing that they need to take control of their own energy bills and choose effective upgrades for their homes and businesses, all while lowering emissions.

The Albanese Labor government is also focused on environmental repair as we rewrite Australia's outdated environment laws to better protect our environment and to make clearer, faster decisions. The measures in the 2023-24 budget will help us protect more of what's precious, repair more of what's damaged and manage nature better for future generations. I know that many communities in my electorate such as Blackwood, Coimadai, Bacchus Marsh and my home town of Ballan treasure the extraordinary natural environment around us, so I'm very proud to see our government and our minister doing so much more to ensure responsible protection of our environment.

We will invest $121 million to establish Environment Protection Australia to restore trust to a system that needs it and transform our system of approvals. It will be a transparent and independent body that will make environmental assessments as well as decide project approvals and the conditions attached to them. Importantly, it will also make sure that those conditions are being followed on the ground.

We're investing $236 million to establish a reliable national flood warning infrastructure network. The funding will be used to purchase and upgrade gauges, ensuring communities in flood-prone areas can be better prepared and supported when these disasters strike. This will build upon what the Albanese Labor government is doing to ensure that Australia is better prepared for future disasters after years of Liberal neglect in this space.

The Albanese Labor government's budget is delivering the financial and environmental outcomes that Australians want and need. We are putting downward pressure on energy prices, we are investing in future technology and we're protecting our environment. This is work that should not have been stalled, that should not have languished for the last decade under the Liberal Party, but we know that the Liberal Party never invest in these matters that are important to the Australian people. Our government will get on and do it.

Proposed expenditure agreed to.