Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to warnings in the recent Australian Energy Council report in which a CEO of an energy company said, 'Bills will increase for the next decade.' Prime Minister, why is the part-time energy minister, full-time president, more concerned with the next decade of COP negotiations than he is with the next decade of power bills for Australian households and businesses?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks to the honourable member for his question. Those opposite have been quoting an Australian Energy Council report. I think I heard shadow minister Tehan quoting from that report earlier on. Either they are being tricky or they are wilfully misrepresenting the report of the Australian Energy Council. Here's what it says:

The AEC supports the transition to net zero emissions by 2050 on the premise that the least cost, lowest impact pathway is an energy system dominated by renewables (wind and solar, including rooftop solar) and firmed with battery storage, gas and pumped hydro. There is generally broad alignment across industry about this energy mix …

They also say:

AEC members understand the urgency of climate change and the crucial role the energy industry must play to support Australia's net zero ambitions. Australia's energy transition is irreversible; there is no turning back.

In arguing to abandon net zero, those opposite are arguing for even higher power prices. They are smashing investor confidence and investor certainty, and they would be weakening our economy as a consequence. For what? Just so they can win this unedifying race to the far right in their own party room—one after the other trying to outdo each other on having a more extreme position on net zero.

When it comes to renewables, and when it comes to the orderly transition to net zero, this is what a dozen energy retail CEOs have had to say:

… the least cost, lowest impact pathway is an energy system dominated by renewables … and firmed with battery storage, gas and pumped hydro,

as I just said.

Joel Gilmore, an expert from Griffith University, said:

It's very clear that relying on coal and gas is going to be more expensive than renewables.

To fight against net zero is fighting against gravity.

Rob Wheals from Squadron Energy said:

We know that Australia's coal fleet is nearing the end of its economic and technical lifespan with coal plant outages driving high price periods.

Coal is killing affordability and reliability.

What about Frank Calabria from Origin? He said:

… the cost of renewable energy and battery storage is increasingly competitive … which means our cost of energy is expected to be more economical through a combination of renewables, storage and Origin's fleet of peaking power stations.

Tony Wood of the Grattan Institute said:

The existing, ageing coal plants will continue to be retired or become very expensive to maintain … There is really nothing in the Liberals' announcements that will reduce power prices.

We know what's really going on. Those opposite have completely vacated the field when it comes to rational, responsible economic policy. We see in Niki Savva's book that they're all lining up to dump on the former leader. They're all trying to blame Peter Dutton for their woes. In Peter Dutton's defence, look what he had to work with over there: the least talented, most divisive and most divided front bench in memory. (Time expired)