Press conference at National Press Club, Canberra ACT

LAURA TINGLE: Well, thanks, Minister. There’s obviously going to be an energy debate in the lead-up to the next election, but, of course, the other issue that’s just absolutely front of mind for everybody is cost of living. One of the ideas that’s been floated by the Coalition in relation to its nuclear policy is the idea that people living in the region of a nuclear plant might get free electricity or subsidised electricity. But I was wondering whether another issue that’s going to be a matter of contest is the question of providing support for electrification of houses and/or for batteries – you know, whether that’s the next obvious step given, as you say, there’s a lot of solar panels out there. How do you see that household sector and marrying those issues together – the cost of living and energy – working?

CHRIS BOWEN: Yes, in terms of cost of living, absolutely. That has to be the priority. But it’s not a priority if you’re saying we might give you cheaper power prices in 2040 when a nuclear power plant comes on. That is not a sensible response or reaction.

But in relation to today I’d say a few things. Firstly, the Budget before last contained a very significant household support package – a billion dollars to the CEFC to help households with low interest loans, support for social housing in partnership with the states, because social housing should not miss out on the opportunities, and Victoria has just in the last week or so announced the rollout of their program supported by us – 50-50 funding – and we have agreements with the other states as well to do that. Support for local government – $100 million to support the local government to decarbonise, et cetera. So that work is rolling out. Of course, there’ll be always more to do but that work is already starting and rolling out and it’s very important.

Also, this Friday I’ll be taking to the state and territory Ministers a consumer energy roadmap which will provide a framework for all of us to work together on that very question: how do we empower households to take control of their resources, whether it be solar and batteries or electric vehicle charging or reverse charging, into the future and over the next few years. That’s, I think, the next vital piece of reform, to enable households to take control.

We’ve made some progress. States are doing the work. New South Wales has introduced a battery rebate for household batteries. We’re focusing on grid-scale batteries and community batteries. But when we came to office one in 60 houses had a battery; now it’s one in 40. Long way to go, but progress is being made.

ANDREW TILLETT: Thanks, Laura. Andrew Tillett from the Financial Review and also board member here at the Press Club. Under the Paris Agreement we have to – Australia has to commit – announce its 2035 emissions reduction target by February. But the Prime Minister’s declined to commit to doing that by that time in the last few weeks when he’s been asked about it. Can I just clarify with you: will we announce our 2035 target by February as required?

CHRIS BOWEN: Thank you, Andrew. I don’t share your characterisation of what the Prime Minister has done. The Prime Minister has pointed out the alternative government can’t even have a 2030 target let alone 2035 target, so they have serious questions to answer. We’ll abide by our Paris commitments, absolutely.

ROSIE LEWIS: Mr Bowen, the Albanese Government has been accused of giving mixed signals on gas. A couple of examples: it’s meant to be a key energy source through to 2050 and beyond, but then it’s not encouraged under the proposed green rating system or it’s excluded from the Capacity Investment Scheme. So how important will gas be to a second-term Albanese Government? Will you be encouraging public and/or private investment in gas?

CHRIS BOWEN: So, Rosie, again, I don’t agree with the premise about mixed signals, but we are sensible people, pragmatic people when it comes to gas. You’ve got the Liberals, who had a gas-led recovery, which was a bin fire, a gas bin fire. You’ve got the Greens who say gas has no role to play in the system going forward. I disagree with both of those. And the government disagrees with both of those extreme arguments. And they’re equally unhelpful.

Gas will play an important role in our system in three ways, in three ways: firstly, gas-fired peaking and firming of renewables, as I mentioned in my speech. And I think the ISP sums it up. They see gas capacity going up to 15 gigawatts by 2050, but total dispatch coming down. Because we need more support for renewables, but it will be dispatched less and less often as we build the renewables and the storage. And that’s the key, because gas is zero emissions when it’s not being used, when it’s not turned on.

That’s why gas-fired power is an important complement to renewables. Unlike coal and unlike nuclear, which are inflexible, gas’s virtue is its flexible. And as we’re building the storage, as we’re building the system, we’re going to need gas in the system for that. It’s also going to play a role to continuing – to continue to heat the 5 million Australian homes that rely on it. And for industry while we are developing green hydrogen, and we are at pace – it’s not here yet – so from cement making, steelmaking, plastics making, they need gas. So that’s the role of gas, I think, a pragmatic approach to gas.

In relation to the Capacity Investment Scheme, it’s not included, but I say this: even if it was, it wouldn’t win. It’s included in the LTESA in New South Wales. The LTESA – sorry to nerd out on you for a moment – but the LTESA and the CIS are very similar policy mechanisms. The LTESA is New South Wales, CIS is the Commonwealth’s. Gas is allowed in the LTESA and not in the CIS. It doesn’t win in the LTESA because it can’t compete with renewables.

Because the economics of gas are very different. Gas is profitable when it’s turned on. By definition, when you turn it on, it’s very profitable. But it can’t compete in terms of cost to build with renewables. Hence the Capacity Investment Scheme is not the right way to deal with gas.

ROSIE LEWIS: What about encouraging gas? Is there a role for government to encourage investment?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, it depends what you mean by encouraging. I mean, it’s not our role to bankroll it or finance it. But states have, in terms of signing Renewable Energy Transformation Agreements with me, we are agreeing that there needs to be a reliability framework under the rollout of renewables. States can develop that reliability framework in a way that suits their needs in particular circumstances, as is quite right, because their needs will be very different. But if you’re asking me if we are interested in subsidising gas-fired power, no, that’s not the role of the Federal Government.

MIKE FOLEY: Thanks, Minister Bowen, for your address. Of the nine critical transmission projects that AEMO has identified in its ISP, only one is complete; delays are running they say at an average of around three years. Community opposition is one significant factor in that. I’m just wondering: do you think the Federal Government should and could have a greater role in speeding the rollout of those transmission lines, and can you rule out compulsory acquisition of private property to help facilitate that process?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, our role is to – thanks, Mike. Our role is to support the states and the transmission companies in getting the rollout done. And we’re doing that through Rewiring the Nation – $20 billion of funds with agreement with now almost every state. And that’s underpinning important rollouts.

Now, in terms of how the rollouts are going, yes, some – of course, they’re infrastructure projects. Infrastructure projects face challenges and delays. But you mentioned property acquisition. Let me give you an update on Hume Link. For example, one of the important ones, it’s very important for better connections of New South Wales and Victoria and it effectively plugs in Snowy 2.0. Transgrid on the latest figures I’ve seen has reached agreement with 74 per cent of the landholders – 74 per cent of the people we need agreement from to build it. That’s not 100, but it’s not zero. And it’s good progress. And that’s growing all the time.

So, it’s really a partnership. I work with all the states and with the companies to get the job done. Decisions about compulsory acquisition are not ones at the Federal Government level. Inevitably you try very hard, the companies try very hard to get as much agreement as possible from landholders before that’s even contemplated.

MIKE FOLEY: Are you concerned that your 82 per cent deadline is at risk?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, I believe we’ll meet it. And I’ve run through some of the progress. On transmission, as I said, 4,000 kilometres needed between now and 2030, 900 under construction or complete. I am far from complacent, but I’m relatively satisfied with where we’re at. Yes, there are challenges. I’ve never denied that. But more progress than you might think by looking at public debates about it.

POPPY JOHNSTON: Thank you for your speech. A number of EVs were used to support the grid during an emergency in Victoria earlier this year, according to ANU research. What’s your view on the potential of using EVs to manage load across the system, and would you consider measures to stop or delay charging during a grid emergency? I’m interested in what you think about those sort of options.

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, I’m certainly very forward-leaning on the opportunities for vehicle to grid, vehicle to home, vehicle to grid, vehicle to 'X' charging going forward and indeed – here’s the scoop – it’s one of the elements in the consumer energy roadmap I’m taking to state and territory ministers on Friday. Because it is a resource that we need to harness and enable households to harness in their own best interests. I mentioned households taking control. If you’ve got an electric vehicle and you can decide not only when you’re going to charge it, but you can decide when you’re going to take the power in it to charge your home or charge the grid and get paid for that, that’s empowering consumers.

Now, there are certain things we need to deal with – Standards Australia needs to come up with appropriate standards. They’re working on that. We have some regulatory processes to go through, the states and I. But I would be – I am hopeful and confident that states will agree with the consumer energy roadmap and the importance of vehicle-to-grid charging and vehicle-to-home charging, because cars are batteries on wheels. In most cases the capacity in your car will be greater than the battery in your home. It’s just a more powerful battery to get you around. So, we’ve got to try to harness that for the benefit of individuals and the benefit of the grid.

If, theoretically – just go with me – if every car in Australia was electric – and we’re a long way from that, but for the sake of the argument – that would be the equivalent in storage of five Snowy 2.0s. That’s a lot of storage which, again, we want to harness. So, yes, I’m very forward-leaning on the opportunities for vehicle-to-grid charging. It’s going to take us a little while to work it through. I’m not forward-leaning on restricting people from charging at times of their choosing. I would not be supportive of that.

ANTHONY GALLOWAY: Anthony Galloway from Capital Brief. Thanks for your speech. Just to go back to Rosie’s question, can you kind of confirm how long into the future the government projects gas to be a critical form of power generation? And, for example, is it 2050, is it beyond 2050? And is there a risk that if those projections are off and you do need gas as that firming capacity basically in perpetuity that it’s not a debate about nuclear versus renewables; it’s a debate about nuclear versus gas?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, I don’t agree with the last point, because gas will play a role under our system, as I’ve said, I’ve outlined the role I see it playing. The opposition seems to think that they’re going to have more gas earlier, but they haven’t, as usual, got any policy detail about that.

But to your question about what role gas will play, again I refer you to, Anthony, to the ISP which I think lays it out. So, they work on the basis that we will need 15 gigawatts of gas capacity in 2050, but that dispatch will fall from 10 terawatt hours a year to around 6 terawatt hours. And that’s in 2050. So then obviously predictions beyond 2050 start to get more difficult because we’re just talking so much further away. But that shows you pretty clear the direction of travel.

But those 6 terawatt hours are still going to be important. I see it as like life insurance – you don’t need it very often but when you need it, you really need it. That’s the underpinning role of gas in the system.

MELISSA COADE: Hi, Minister. Thank you for your speech. Melissa Coade from The Mandarin. I’d like to ask a question about the tenor of the discourse about climate and energy policy. We – you mentioned polarisation in your speech, and this week Home Affairs released a Strengthen Democracy Taskforce report which highlighted what threat to democracy polarisation in particular caused. As a topic that seems to garner a lot of very heated views, I’d like to ask what you think politicians, elected representatives such as yourself, but also public servants as the experts informing the stewardship of this policy, can do to shepherd a more constructive conversation. I think many everyday Australians might listen to this debate and feel defeated or cynical about the tone it takes on.

CHRIS BOWEN: It’s a fair question, thank you. Firstly, the role of the Department and the bureaucracy is obviously to advise the government of the day, which they do exceptionally well under the leadership of Secretary Fredericks – a first-class department of state. I don’t think it’s the role of the bureaucracy or the Department to, as a matter of course, participate in public debate. There’ll be the odd exception where something is appropriate for them to say, but by and large that is not their role. Different for people like the Chair of the Climate Change Authority or the Chief Executive of AEMO, for example, to talk about the facts. I think that’s where I more see that focus.

But on polarisation, I think it’s a symptom of a broader problem. Climate change is the pointy end of that problem, but it’s a symptom; it’s not just about climate change. You can say the same about health policy and vaccination, for example. Increasingly, people’s motives are being questioned. We can have a robust debate about the best policy response, I don’t mind that. I, you know, can do it as – with as much enthusiasm as the next guy. But increasingly, in social media in particular, you see people’s motives being undermined or impugned, and I think that’s where you get into dangerous polarisation.

For example, you know, questioning – it happens all the time on social media; obviously I see it, it’s often targeted at me. If you’re pro-renewables you’re accused of being a traitor because you’re somehow caught up in a conspiracy about China. Or you’re accused of participating in a climate hoax, which is somehow a conspiracy by scientists to keep getting funding. I’ve got to say, that’s also perpetrated by some members of parliament. You know, Senator Rennick’s Twitter feed is a cacophony of conspiracy theories and attacks on people’s motives, including our intelligence agencies, our health bureaucrats, our climate bureaucrats, the Bureau of Meteorology – and it’s not okay. And someone’s got to call it out. I’m calling it out. I’d welcome Mr Dutton calling it out. It’s not okay to question the patriotism or the efficacy of our intelligence agencies, saying that COVID was a conspiracy by our intelligence agencies. A serving senator of the alternative government? Really? That’s okay? And Mr Dutton does nothing about it. So that sort of polarisation, it happens in the community, you know, and we can say and do more about that, and we all do. But it’s also happening in Parliament House, and that’s not okay.

MELISSA COADE: Are you concerned that this sense of not pulling in the same direction for being solutions-focused might undermine other policies like, for example, Australia’s Southeast Asia Economic Policy to 2040 [sic], which references the importance of renewable transitions as one of its pillars?

CHRIS BOWEN: I think it is, as I said, part of a – a symptom of a broader problem. And, yes, it can impact on other things. And that conspiracy theory rabbit hole develops from climate change to anti-vaxxing to, you know, foreign affairs quite easily. And, as I said, there’s too much of it allowed and perpetrated in Parliament House, in my very strong view. And having climate denial and anti-vaxxing sentiment expressed regularly by a minority but some Liberal Party serving members of parliament in 2024 is not, in my view, okay without it being called out.

ELLEN RANSLEY: Thank you, Minister. Ellen Ransley from The Nightly. Obviously clean energy investment is on the rise, but a new report out this week found the big four banks had loaned more than $61 billion since the Paris Agreement was signed to fossil fuel projects – $3.6 billion of that in 2023 alone. Do you think that undermines the renewables transition? You said it wasn’t the government’s role to bankroll or finance gas. Should there be more guardrails in place around private investment?

CHRIS BOWEN: Look, I do think these are going to be matters for boards and chief executives to deal with and be accountable to their shareholders and their customers and explain what they’re doing and why they’re doing it and the implications. We, under the Treasurer’s leadership, are increasing the amount of transparency and reporting requirements on all companies – not just banks, but all companies, but including banks. And I’m a fundamental believer in capitalism and I’m a believer in the boards being accountable to the shareholders for their actions. And that’s the appropriate place for that argument to be had.

NICK STUART: Thank you, Minister. Everyone in southeast Australia knows that we’re shivering at the moment through a particular period of cold. What fewer people know is that the cold here is being caused by a heat wave over the pole and that’s pushing the cold weather out from Antarctica. Do you feel that there’s a greater need for information to be disseminated so that we actually get a better idea of how climate change really is occurring so that people don’t try to deny it?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, I think you make a reasonable point, Nicholas, that you see in, again, too often in political debate but also in the community, climate change denial expressed as, “Oh, look how cold it is. Global heating is not actually real.” And we all understand that climate change is about much more. Flooding is more common because the oceans are warmer and, therefore, evaporation is greater and, therefore, flooding is worse. And that is the case, you know, across the board with natural disasters – bushfires, flooding, cyclones, all made worse. Not volcanos or earthquakes, but they’re the exception to the rule.

So, I do think it’s a constant battle. But I will say that climate change denial is very much a minority view. It's, you know, based on most analysis I’ve read, 9 or 10 per cent of the community. And the science of climate change is now as certain as the science that tobacco causes cancer. And if you’re not convinced yet of that, I think I’m going to be unlikely to convince people if they’re not convinced with all the evidence.

But I think the bigger problem is this, Nicholas, than that: full-on, open climate change denial is now less fashionable than it was 10 or 15 years ago in a public debate. You can’t do it as easily. It used to be quite common, now it’s not so common. Andrew Bolt still does it, but most other people don’t bother with it. What it has been replaced with is what I call all too hardism. Or what Michael Mann who’s, you know, a very, very good author on climate policy and politics, calls climate inactivism – it’s all too hard. Renewables, it’s all too hard. Renewables, building the system is too hard. Not actually saying we don’t need to do it, but saying it’s all too hard. That is more dangerous, I think, to the public debate than full-on, straight out climate change denial, which you see less and less of.

LAURA TINGLE: If I could just ask, just going back to local communities and cost of living things: one of the things that, I suppose, an appeal in the way the Coalition has approached these nuclear sites is that they see these as communities that are going to be losing their existing sort of economic base because coal-fired power is closing down. How vulnerable is the government in those locations or those electorates to the argument that there are going to be job losses? And, I mean, given that your whole speech today is about this next decade, what can you do to sort of persuade voters in those areas that you’ve got something for them that the other side doesn’t?

CHRIS BOWEN: So, Laura, in my experience in coal communities – and I spend a lot of time there; it’s a key part of my job talking to coal-fired power workers, coal miners about the future – they understand better than anyone the world is changing. They understand how the world works, the world economy works and coal markets work. They know that that job security won’t be there forever. I have never had a coal-fired power station worker argue to me – not once – that that coal-fired power station should be replaced with another one. “We should build another coal-fired power station here so we can keep getting jobs.” They know that it’s not feasible, not realistic, not going to happen, would be irresponsible. They care about the planet as much as the next parent. They want to know there’s going to be jobs there for them and their kids though, and quite right.

And so that’s why we talk about what’s next, the jobs that are next. Some are renewable energy. Some are renewable energy related. The best example I can give you is the Liddell Power Station. It’s been fallow for 18 months or so. It will be replaced by a renewable energy hub owned by AGL. One of their tenants will be SunDrive. SunDrive, who invented the most efficient solar panel in the world, had a key decision about whether to make in Australia or the United States. Following the announcement of Future Made in Australia and Solar Sunshot – as a direct result of that – they decided to make those solar panels in Australia at the Liddell Power Station site. They will employ more people –that one part of the new renewable energy manufacturing hub will employ more people than were ever employed at the Liddell Power Station – more in one place. And there’s room for a lot more of that and AGL is developing other plans.

So that’s all the result of forward-looking actions by AGL, to their credit, and government policy. And I’m focused on doing that on the other coal-fired power station sites as well. That’s why we have the Net Zero Economy Agency, led now by Iain Ross. And that is their sole focus. The sole focus of the NZEA is the future for communities and workers from coal-fired power stations.

Lots of people of goodwill, I’ll be honest with you, have suggested to me other jobs for NZEA – “Oh, we should get the Net Zero Economy Agency to do this or do that or look at that.” And they’ve all made suggestions in good faith. But I’ve rejected all of them because that would dilute the focus of the Net Zero Economy Agency from the job of ensuring jobs in the future for people and communities currently reliant on coal-fired power stations.

ANDREW TILLETT: Thanks again, Laura. A question more for you as the Member for McMahon. We’ve seen a lot of coverage in the last few weeks about the Muslim community organising politically. Also out in your neck of the woods, Dai Le and one of the local mayors there are organising politically to campaign at the next federal election as well. Can you give us a sense of how serious you and the Labor Party is taking these sorts of threats from, I guess, you know, community independents is what you might call them? And do you think, in particular in relation to the Middle East, is this going to push the government into taking, I guess, a more pro-Palestinian approach?

CHRIS BOWEN: I’ll deal with the question. On the latter, Andrew, we make our foreign policy choices and decisions based on the evidence and good policy, not on electoral politics. We don’t do that. And it sometimes annoys me to see newspaper articles saying, “This MP has argued for this, and here’s the percentage of Muslim voters in their electorate.” Like they must by definition have a view about Palestine that’s driven by electoral purposes and not for good policy reasons. So, no is the answer to the last part of your question. We will continue to make our foreign policy choices, like we have – like the vote in the UN which gave greater rights to Palestine – we’ll continue to do that with thorough cabinet processes and a discussion of the policy merits. We won’t be making decisions like moving the Israeli Embassy in a by-election – that’s not our style – for political purposes.

On Western Sydney, which is your question is focused, we take nothing for granted, no vote for granted, no seat for granted. All of us work hard in our electorates and deliver. And I think delivery is the key. In my case, in McMahon I’m proud to have delivered the Urgent Care Clinic for Fairfield – it will be delivered this year – and the new campus of Western Sydney University in Fairfield and many, many other things, which you can only really properly deliver in government. So that’s the focus.

Western Sydney is right to have the view that they’ve missed out on government resources over the last 10 years from both federal and state Liberal governments. And both levels of government are responding in this rapidly growing area of population growth with appropriate levels of resources, as we should. And we’ll continue to do that.

In relation to independents, and particularly in my seat, I actually work very closely with Frank Carbone, the mayor. We work closely on delivering for our area. He’s not a member of the Labor Party; he’s an independent. We work closely together. I and he both expect that to continue for many years to come.

ROSIE LEWIS: Just picking up on the idea of vehicle to grid and vehicle to home, can you explain how it might work in practice, how soon it could be trialled, if it is a trial, in Australia? And how do you ensure Australians that don’t have EVs miss out? Do you have to make EVs cheaper, for example?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, I mean, I find, Rosie, in relation to the second part of the question, there’s huge interest in EVs. A lot of people would like their next purchase to be an EV. Many are going through the path of hybrids on the way – not quite sure about EVs yet in terms of range anxiety as we’re building the charging, for reasons I understand. But I expect EV sales to continue to grow strongly because people want to do that. And, of course, we have delivered support for EV sales through our electric vehicle tax cut and cutting the tariffs through to EV prices. And that’s really driven the take-up of EVs – from 2 per cent when we came to office to much closer to 10 per cent now. Long way to go, but not bad for two years. And I expect that trend to continue as well.

In relation to EV charging and reverse charging, bi-directional charging: of course, as I said, I’ll be taking that to state and territory ministers on Friday. But I want to see progress on a sensible, practical timeline, which is ambitious. Like, I don’t want – this is not a five-year proposition; this is much closer to something we need to roll out over the next year or so. As I said, I want to be clear: there are some practical challenges we need to overcome – regulatory, Standards Australia and other things we need to work together on – but I think working together we can make good and real progress. And I want those opportunities to be available to more people. That’s why I want more people to have the opportunity to buy an EV.

MIKE FOLEY: Minister, you mentioned the risks to investment in renewables should the Coalition form government. You said that investment would dry up with the pursuit of nuclear energy. I’m just wondering now, because media are reporting and I’ve certainly had major investors tell me that that’s already occurring, in the active sense that investment is now more at risk from them, they’re reconsidering their plans to invest. So, my question is: has the renewables rollout already been materially harmed due to the fact that there’s no longer bipartisan support for the 2030 climate target?

CHRIS BOWEN: So, Mike, I think the best answer to that is it has been raised with me as a concern by renewable energy investors, yes. I’m not aware of any particular decision that’s been taken to say, “Well, we were going to invest here in renewable energy and now we’re not.” I’m not aware of any decision that’s been taken on the basis of the uncertainty caused by nuclear power. But has it been raised with me as a concern by renewable investors? Have they paid attention and are they worried about it? Yes.

MIKE FOLEY: And do you think that you need to do anything more to combat the potential loss of, you know, the rivers of gold that are flying into renewables at the moment?

CHRIS BOWEN: I think we need to win the next election and put that issue to bed, is what I think.

LAURA TINGLE: Well, on that note, please thank the Minister.

CHRIS BOWEN: Thank you.