Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Hansard source

I wasn't going to speak, but that performance from the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate warrants me to reply, just briefly. I think it is very interesting that the party that's proposing nuclear reactors around the country as their response to delivering energy security in this country, which will cost $600 billion and drive up power prices by $1,200 for every household, would come in here concerned about the price of electricity and energy for households. Seriously!

This bill is important. It is largely to address some technical issues that have arisen and to ensure there is a consistent licensing scheme in operation for offshore wind projects. We are not going to take lectures from those opposite about the cost of energy, when their solution to that is more coal generation for longer, fewer renewables and some far-out nuclear fantasy of dotting seven nuclear reactors around the country in the 2040s as some solution to people's household bills right now. We're just not going to take it.

I'm sure Senator Duniam might not have seen some of the information that's come out today from the Clean Energy Council.

Well, okay, you're not interested in hearing from them, but the information that they've released today is:

Australia has seen its best year for large-scale renewable energy investment since 2018, finishing the year strong in 2024 with $9 billion in total capital investment committed to projects that will help Aussies keep the lights on, according to new figures released by the Clean Energy Council today.

It also goes on to say that the projects that are under construction now will help with over 10,000 construction jobs. This idea that people are losing jobs is just wrong. We have created 1.1 million jobs, and many of those new jobs are coming from delivering large-scale renewable projects across the country. Senator Duniam is wrong. He's wrong on cost, and he's wrong on the work that's underway around how we are shifting to more renewables.

Renewables are the cheapest form of energy. You can keep dancing around about your nuclear fantasy without providing costings and telling people how much that will cost them, including to keep coal operating. The biggest risk to our energy system at the moment is coal-fired power stations breaking down, and they're doing it regularly. So we need more investment in renewables to make sure that we can support households with this transition. Supporting offshore wind is part of that. Making sure we have a licensing scheme that works is part of that, and that is what this bill does.

But we understand that those opposite want to take us way back—20 years—to ruin all the work that has been done with capacity investment, Rewiring the Nation and the renewable projects that are underway. We know that that is what you are promising, but it's the wrong way. And I think most Australians understand that, because they have solar panels on their roofs and they want batteries at their homes. This is where the future is going. You may not like it, and you might want to fuel it with some far-fetched plan for nuclear energy in 30 years time, but the reality is that that's what households understand because they want help right now with their energy bills. You opposed our energy bill relief. That was a decision you took when we tried to help households with the increasing cost of energy. We helped them. You opposed it.

We want to support households with that transition, and that involves supporting large-scale renewables, it involves supporting storage and it involves supporting investment through things like the Capacity Investment Scheme. All of that has been put in place by Minister Bowen and this government, and you are threatening to unwind it all.

So it's no surprise that you oppose this legislation and you want to kick it off to a committee instead of just allowing these important projects to continue with the legal certainty that they require. We are seeing incredible investment in this country in renewable energy projects, and you want to rip that all up. That is going to cost households. It will cost households in their bills, and it will cost our energy security. So we do not support this amendment. It's just another way for those opposite to take us way back, 20 or 30 years, in energy policy, and we won't support it.