Press conference in Sydney, New South Wales

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, thanks for coming everyone. Today Peter Dutton has delivered a Christmas con job. Peter Dutton wants you to believe that he can introduce the most expensive form of energy and somehow that will reduce power prices. AEMO and the CSIRO say nuclear is expensive. Peter Dutton and Ted O’Brien say it’s cheap. I know who I believe, and I think I know who the Australian people will believe as well.

Today Peter Dutton and Ted O’Brien forgot one key figure – the most important figure – your energy bills. After months of talking about what nuclear would mean for energy bills, they couldn’t even put a price on the impact of their plan on the average bills of Australians. Now, we know the experts have already done that work and have said it could increase bills by $1200 – up to $1200 a year. I suspect Peter Dutton and Ted O’Brien know that’s true, hence they’ve chosen to remain silent.

Today, after months of delays and excuses, they’ve finally coughed up their nuclear costings. And now we know why they kept it secret for so long and why they’ve released it so close to Christmas – because these costings are riddled with fundamental errors, with heroic assumptions and with cons.

There are three fatal errors in these costs. Firstly, the Liberal Party has just assumed that the Australian people will need less electricity in 2050 than AEMO has suggested would be prudent to plan for. Now, anyone can do that. That’s pretty easy – just assume you’ll need less electricity, it will cost less to produce less electricity than it costs to produce more. This is a fatal error in their costings. And it is a dangerous error because it is risky. It runs the risk of leaving Australians short of energy they need.

We need to be planning an energy system for economic growth. We need to be planning an energy system for the future, one that has data centres and artificial intelligence. We need to be planning an energy system to give Australians the choices that they may choose to take up, like electric vehicles and electrifying their homes. Peter Dutton and Ted O'Brien have based their whole plan around needing less electricity than AEMO suggests will be needed. So that’s the first fatal flaw.

Secondly, they’ve rejected the work of CSIRO and AEMO, and they’ve assumed an ongoing cost of $30 a megawatt hour when it comes to nuclear. AEMO and CSIRO say to recoup the capital cost of nuclear that would need a price of $145 to $238 a megawatt hour. So that’s a big difference. And, again, in a choice between Peter Dutton and the CSIRO, I go with the CSIRO.

Now, thirdly, they’ve assumed their plan would need less transmission. On page 45 of their modelling, they assume savings because of fewer transmission lines. Now, they haven’t outlined what transmission lines they would cancel. Presumably not the Project EnergyConnect, which is well under construction. Presumably not Marinus Link connecting Tasmania and the mainland, which Peter Dutton has previously said he’s committed to, which is a big project. Presumably not HumeLink which connects Snowy 2.0 to the grid. If they are to be taken seriously, they need to outline exactly what transmission lines they would cancel.

And here’s the thing – it doesn’t matter how you produce electricity, you’ve got to get it to homes and businesses, and that takes transmission. And the transmission lines are full and need to be duplicated regardless of whether the power comes from renewables or nuclear. So that’s a fatal flaw in their costings, and they have a lot of questions to answer about that.

Now, we’re going to do obviously more analysis when we’ve had more time with these costings. But just over the last couple of hours we’ve found these three fatal errors, which lead to a very big black hole. We’ll be saying more about costings. I’ll be saying more about other things, like water use and other implications of their nuclear plan over coming days and weeks.

But all this underlines one fundamental thing: that Peter Dutton is a huge risk. A huge risk to Australia’s energy system and a huge risk to Australia. He’s got basic facts wrong about energy all the way through his leadership. He said that a nuclear reactor would produce one can of coke of waste a year when, in fact, it’s 12,500. He said that he was opposed to big nuclear reactors, he only supported small nuclear reactors, and now he’s proposing five big ones and hardly mentions small nuclear reactors in today’s announcements. He says he knows better than the CSIRO and AEMO. He is a reckless leader who is a risk to Australia.

Australians need cheaper power now, not more expensive power in decades to come. The Liberals say that they can produce power, on their own calculations, nuclear power by 2037, which every expert says is wildly ambitious and not realistic. But even if it’s true, it’s too late.

The alternative is to keep going with the government’s plan, which is seeing more renewable energy connected to the grid this year than any other year in Australian history. That’s what Australians need – cheaper power now, not more expensive power in decades to come. That is a real risk to Australia’s future.

I’ll take questions from the room first and then go to the phone. Peter.

JOURNALIST: So, Minister, there does seem to be some assumptions, for example, the first nuclear power plant, it’ll run with any others until, like, at least 2039. So one gigawatt of capacity added by 2039. So how can these coal plants that are expected to last, two-thirds of them, continuing beyond 2034 when AEMO said 90 per cent are actually going? How do these numbers stack up?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, I think that’s a very good question, Peter, but one better put to Mr Dutton than me, because it’s his plan. He wants to keep coal running longer. That’s true. Now, that’s terrible for emissions, we know that. But it’s also terrible for reliability. The biggest risk to the reliability of our energy system now is coal-fired power. We’re dealing with – including today – outages and breakdowns in our coal-fired power stations all the time. And Mr Dutton says, “I’m going to keep those old coal-fired power stations for longer as they get older.” And he wants us to believe somehow they’ll get more reliable as they get older. It doesn’t stack up. The short answer to your question, Peter, is it doesn’t stack up.

JOURNALIST: And also –

CHRIS BOWEN: One more for Peter and then someone else.

JOURNALIST: From the motorists, if they don’t switch to EVs so that electricity demand is less, which seems to be part of the assumption in this, presumably there’s more demand and more emissions from the transport sector, which would suggest getting to net zero by 2050 is harder under this plan. Do you think this is leading towards a Coalition ditching net zero by 2050?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, they don’t – I guess there’s a couple of answers to that, Peter. They don’t really believe in 2050. We’ve heard from Barnaby Joyce on radio this morning. It was the least convincing performance I’ve heard for some time when he said he was committed to net zero by 2050. The people who call the shots in the Liberal Party, or the LNP, which is the National Party – your Barnaby Joyces, your Alex Antics, your Matt Canavans, your Ken O’Dowds – your Colin Boyces, I should say – these are people who don’t believe in net zero.

Just on EVs, I’d just make this point, car manufacturers are making the choice about cars of the future. I mean, they have announced plans about stopping making internal combustion engines – petrol cars and diesel cars. Somehow the Liberal Party want us to believe that we’ll be able to buy petrol cars and diesel cars when manufacturers have stopped making them. They have some questions to answer about that.

I’ll come back to you, Peter. We’ll give some other people a go. Yep?

JOURNALIST: The Coalition’s costings have gas at a lower percentage of the future mix than the current government projections. Does this not suggest nuclear is a faster way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, again, it doesn’t add up. You know, you’ve got Peter – you’ve got Ted O’Brien as late as his debate with me on 7.30 Report last Monday saying we need to pour more gas into the system. That’s what they’ve been saying this week. Now, they need to explain how that matches this policy they’ve announced today.

Now, our position on gas is reflected in the ISP – that you need increased gas capacity but less gas dispatch as you have more renewables. That’s a very sensible plan. When Mr Dutton says our plan is renewables only, he’s lying; it is a lie. Our plan clearly has gas as a peaking and firming backup to renewables.

JOURNALIST: What do you make of the target to have 38 percent of the grid powered by nuclear by 2050, which would put Australia in the top 10 globally from a standing start?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, that’s right. This 38 percent nuclear, which would see more nuclear in the Australian grid than many, many other countries, it would put us as one of the world’s biggest nuclear producers from nothing, from zero. I mean, it’s just totally unrealistic. Like, the entire plan is just a complete farce.

I might go to the phone. I know we’ve got Mike.

JOURNALIST: Yes, thanks, Minister. Can you hear me okay?

CHRIS BOWEN: I’ve got you.

JOURNALIST: I had hopefully a simple question about the government’s plans. As you detailed there, the Opposition has backed in effectively, let’s say, AEMO’s forecasted progressive change scenario – without getting too technical, less electricity demand in the grid by 2050. Could I just clarify that the government broadly agrees with the scenario outlined by AEMO under its step change scenario with high uptake, 97 percent uptake of electric vehicles and growth in green hydrogen production?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, Mike, AEMO outlines that as the most likely scenario. And whether it is through electrification or whether it is through data centres and AI or whether it’s through economic growth, we think it’s prudent to plan to give Australians as much electricity as is projected they need. Peter Dutton thinks it’s prudent to give Australians less electricity than it’s predicted they need. That’s a key difference – which has emerged today. This is the first time we’ve heard from the Liberal Party they’re actually planning to produce less electricity. It’s quite a revelation, and it’s how they’ve cooked the books. They’ve cooked the books by saying it will cost less because we’ll make less. I mean, well done. You don’t need to be a professor to work out if you make less it will cost less. Well done, guys. This is what they’ve been working on for the best part of 12 months? This is what’s taken so long – a magic assumption we’ll need less electricity? I mean, this is a disaster. It has – it is – these costings are dead on arrival.

I just want to give our late arrival –

JOURNALIST: If I may, indulge me –

CHRIS BOWEN: One quick follow-up, Mike. You know I’m very fair. You get one quick follow-up.

JOURNALIST: Is it fair to say that your plan is to build a larger economy with a larger electricity grid compared to the Opposition?

CHRIS BOWEN: That is a fair assumption, yes. We believe in economic growth. We believe in giving Australians the options of using more electricity, not less.

I’m going to go back to the room here. Yeah.

JOURNALIST: Under the Coalition plan, they’re saying that renewables would supply 53 percent of the grid by 2050. Would that mean that projects committed to by Labor would have to be scrapped?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, I mean, yes. They have to answer the questions about what they would scrap, what sovereign risks they would create, what approvals they would decline. They have to answer that, but the short answer is yes, less renewables.

Okay, Peter. We’ll do another round in the room.

JOURNALIST: So the assumptions also imply that the nuclear is always on.

CHRIS BOWEN: Yes.

JOURNALIST: And presumably that means sometimes renewables are going to be turned off in various places.

CHRIS BOWEN: Yes.

JOURNALIST: Plus, transmission lines are jammed. Is that likely to discourage renewable investors between now and the future?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, the short answer, Peter, is yes, I think. But also, it will discourage those who’ve already invested, like the millions of Australians with solar on their roofs who’ve invested in solar, and Peter Dutton is saying he will switch it off more often. I mean, he’s saying that we’ll have nuclear running the whole time, whether we need it or not. That can only lead to one conclusion. The – we’ve had 4 million solar installations in Australia, and those millions of people who feed into the grid will be turned off more often. I’ll be saying more about that in coming days and weeks, but yes.

JOURNALIST: Car manufactures are making their own decisions when it comes to manufacturing EVs. Why not – using that same logic, if you’re confident that nuclear power is not viable, why not lift the ban on nuclear and see whether private companies are willing to invest?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, see, this is a key point. And thank you for reminding me of it. That’s not an option available here in the two choices. Of these costs, this great free market party, this great free enterprise bastion, the Liberal Party of Australia, is saying the taxpayers will pay it all. No private sector investment. Not a dollar. Under the plan they’ve released today, not one dollar of private sector investment. They know this is a dog. They know no-one will invest in it. So hence you’ve got to create a taxpayer-funded bureaucracy and throw hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ dollars into it.

Now, is that going to – are they going to cut to pay for that? What impact will it have on the books in coming decades? Well, they’ve got questions to answer about that. Again, there’ll be more to say about that. But this is the point: they are not proposing just to lift the moratorium and let the private sector do its thing. This great party of free enterprise is saying, “No, we want to stop all this free enterprise, this free investment, this private sector investment in renewable energy which is happening in Australia today and we want to replace it with government investment, taxpayer investment. We want to have taxpayer subsidies to nuclear because it doesn’t stack up.” That’s the choice before the Australian people.

Yes, mate.

JOURNALIST: After Labor failed to deliver on its promise to lower household bills by $275, will Labor update that promise or will it, like the Coalition today, not spell out exactly how much bills will cost?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, we’ll be outlining not only what we’ve managed to do over the time when we go to the people, but what our forward plans are as well. But today is Mr Dutton’s day, and it’s a day that he’s failed.

Peter.

JOURNALIST: Yeah, most of the coal¬fired power stations are owned privately in Eastern Australia and the plan assumes, this nuclear plan, assumes those plants are going to be extended. What if the owners, A, don’t want to do that, and secondly, if they don’t want to give up their sites, does this imply effectively it’s got to be nationalised?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, fair question, well asked. And the correct conclusion to that is yes. You know, they’ve identified seven plants – seven sites. At least six of the owners have said they’re not interested in nuclear for those sites. So that implies compulsory acquisition and government coming in over the top of the owners of those sites. I mean, Robert Menzies would be rolling in his grave at this stuff. I mean, this is – if the Labor Party tried this stuff, the Liberal Party would say it’s Venezuelan-style socialism. Well, this is Peter Dutton’s style of intervention, and one where the Australian people lose.

Okay, yes?

JOURNALIST: You touched on this a little bit, but I wanted to ask: what would this plan do to our emissions targets and in terms of reaching that net zero target by 2050?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, there is some modelling in the Frontier report about the impact of keeping coal for longer. Now, we haven’t had the opportunity to analyse that as to whether it’s accurate or not, but, clearly, if you keep coal in the system for longer, it means more emissions.

Okay? One more?

JOURNALIST: Labor has criticised the Coalition’s modelling for its ambitious scenarios. Is the government also being ambitious about the role of green hydrogen and EV take-up?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, there’s nothing wrong with being ambitious and achievable. But, again, my point about EVs is actually Australia – our government doesn’t have an EV target, despite the lies of Mr O’Brien who says there is one. What we do have is a plan to give Australians more choices, you know, to get more affordable EVs into Australia, so young people in particular, but everyone can have the choice of more EVs. And that’s already having an impact. It hasn’t even come into force yet; it come into force on the 1st of January. And, two, a recognition that car companies have announced their schedule to stop making petrol and diesel cars. Ted O’Brien said today, “We think Australians will still be buying petrol and diesel cars in 2050.” From whom? From whom? Because no one’s going to be making them.

Peter, last one, I think.

JOURNALIST: So, Minister, you have asked – or you’ve invited the Opposition to submit their costings to PBO analysis –

CHRIS BOWEN: And if I’m not – yes, that’s right. Yes.

JOURNALIST: Well, are you renewing that invitation? And will you be willing to submit Labor’s equivalent policy?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, we get our policies costed by the Treasury. The Treasury and the PBO are equal-status costers. I said that in opposition; I’ll say it in government. The Treasury and PBO are equal-status costers. Who are not an equal-status coster is whom the Opposition has used. If the Opposition believes in the Charter of Budget Honesty, they can use the Parliamentary Budget Office.

Yes?

JOURNALIST: In 12 months times, will power bills be lower under Labor or the Coalition?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, not even Mr Dutton is claiming that power bills will be lower under him. I mean, he hasn’t even bothered to make that claim today, which I think tells you a lot.

All right, that’s a wrap. Thanks guys.