Press conference in Sydney, NSW

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, yet again the evidence is in. If we needed any reminding that nuclear is the most expensive form of energy and the slowest form of energy and renewable energy is the cheapest and fastest form of energy, then we got it today from Australia’s premier science agency, the CSIRO, and the people who actually run our energy system, AEMO.

Now, GenCost was started under the previous government. It was a good initiative. It has been charged, for the better part of a decade now, with assessing all the evidence – Australian and international – about the best and cheapest forms of electricity. And they have found consistently that nuclear energy is expensive and slow.

Now, the Liberal Party has been attacking GenCost in recent times and saying that the CSIRO should be having different analysis of the amount of time that nuclear power stations last and how often they operate. CSIRO and AEMO – to their credit – have considered the Liberal Party’s claims, looked at them in great detail and have thoroughly dismissed them. They go through in quite a lot of detail the claims made by Ted O’Brien and scientifically dismantle those claims.

Now, the Liberal Party has had a choice – they could have listened to Australia’s premier science agency and the people who actually run our electricity system or they can attack them, and they’ve chosen the latter. Mr Dutton’s out there today saying – suggesting that somehow I had a hand in writing GenCost. Let me make it very clear: this is an independent report with no role by any member of parliament or minister. In fact, Peter Dutton owes Australia’s premier scientific organisation an apology.

I don’t care what he says me; I couldn’t give two hoots. But it makes my blood boil when he attacks the integrity and independence of the CSIRO, who deserve better from the alternative Prime Minister of Australia to suggest that the government would seek to interfere with the CSIRO is one thing, but to suggest that the CSIRO would let a government of any persuasion interfere with their work is deeply, deeply offensive. I’ve seen 6-year-olds on the soccer field pay more respect to referees than Peter Dutton has shown today. He should apologise to the CSIRO as a matter of urgency.

So, again, we have this report out today. The Liberal Party has been promising their own costings for six months. They’re now saying that we’ll see them this week. Well, these costings that they release will need to be consistent with the work of Australia’s premier scientific organisation, one of the most respected scientific organisations in the world and one of the most respected energy market operators in the world – the CSIRO and Australia’s Energy Market Operator. Yet again, whenever the Liberal Party’s claims are put to the test, they crumbled and they crumbled today in the face of these premier agencies.

I’ll take questions from here in the press conference first and then I’ll go to the phone. I’ll give you a few goes, Peter, and then I’ll go to the phone to be fair to everyone. Peter.

JOURNALIST: So given that the consultation – it’s a draft GenCost today –

CHRIS BOWEN: Yes.

JOURNALIST: – would you invite the Coalition to submit their costings to CSIRO when they get around to releasing them?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, yes, the opposition is welcome to send their costings to the CSIRO. They’re also welcome to send them to the Parliamentary Budget Office. And, in fact, the Parliamentary Budget Office is the preferred coster under the Charter of Budget Honesty. And they should send them to the CSIRO as well. And they should use the CSIRO’s methodology. Anything other than that is a dishonest copout.

JOURNALIST: The report does make various claims. For example, the lower cost of nuclear generation will not be experienced by consumers in the marketplace. So how can nuclear energy lower prices if plants are ever built in Australia?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, it can’t. That’s the point. I mean, Mr Dutton and Mr O’Brien say their answer to high energy prices is more expensive energy in the late 2030s. I mean, it’s 2024. I mean, timings is the other issue in this report. I would agree with Mr O’Brien that Australia needs more electricity today. The difference of approach is that we’ve got policies to do that; he’s got a policy on his own calculations which would bring in more electricity in 2037. We don’t have time for that. And those calculations are wildly optimistic anyway.

One more question, Peter, and I’ll go to the phone and I’ll come back to you afterwards.

JOURNALIST: It does seem that the Coalition is setting up for a – if they win the next election – dropping the 2050 net zero targets. Is this really what it’s all building up for?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, I think you’re right about that. I mean, there’s a rump in the Liberal and National Party who never believed in net zero. And that rump is calling the shots. I mean, you’ve got Barnaby Joyce and Matt Canavan and Alex Antic and Colin Boyce constantly attacking net zero, which is, by the way, the bare minimum of a policy. I mean, net zero by 2050 is not enough, but it’s the bare entry point for conversation. And if you don’t believe in net zero, you are, in reality, a climate denier and delayer. And it underlines the point – Mr Dutton would be a worse prime minister for the climate than Mr Morrison was or Mr Abbott was.

Okay, I’ll give the guys on the phone a chance and I’ll come back to you if you’ve got more, Peter. What wants to go first on the telephone?

MIKE FOLEY: G’day, Minister. Thank you. It’s Mike Foley from the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Just a higher level question, if you will, that I think punters, our audiences, might be wondering about today: could you explain what work that the energy agencies are advising you needs to be done in terms of building out the capacity of the electricity grid in the next 10 to 15 years? Like, how much generation capacity needs to be added? I’m asking that in reference, of course, to the CSIRO findings that there’s a 15-year lead time to build the first nuclear plant in Australia.

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, Mike, for that I’d refer you to the ISP – the other important document – which outlines the least cost pathway forward and does outline the electricity needs of our country. And that’s the basis on which the government is working. Hence, I’m pleased there has been more renewable energy added this year to the electricity grid than any year in Australian history.

Next question on the phone. Mike, do you want another go?

MIKE FOLEY: I’m done, thank you.

CHRIS BOWEN: Okay, Colin?

JOURNALIST: Minister, it’s Colin from The Australian here. I’m wondering if you might be able to expand on that sense of urgency you were talking about. You referenced the policies you have. When are we going to start seeing some acceleration in the progress of the renewable energy rollout? We are seeing some uptick, but it’s nowhere near as fast as we all need if you’re going to deliver the 2030 timetable. When do you expect that to start accelerating?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, Colin, I disagree with your analysis at the end. I disagree with your analysis at the end. We have seen more investment in the last quarter than in all of 2023. And if that investment continues at that speed, then we are well on track for our 2030 targets. And also we have the Capacity Investment Scheme rolling out – more successful than I envisaged it being, and I’ll be saying more about that in coming days.

Now, I also make the point that there has been more renewable energy added to the grid this year than any year in Australian history. I regard that as a good thing. Mr Dutton and Mr O’Brien seem to regard it as a bad thing.

JOURNALIST: Maybe I can ask another question then?

CHRIS BOWEN: Yep.

JOURNALIST: The report does note that for US and Finland it took them 17 to 21 years of lead time to produce their recent large-scale nuclear plants, and these are countries, particularly the US, with a longstanding nuclear industry. So what does that tell us about the chance for a first-of-a-kind, you know, within even two decades?

CHRIS BOWEN: Snowflakes. Snowflake’s chance of the Liberal Party meeting their 2037 deadline. As I said, even if they could it would be too late. You know, the idea that we should just pause renewable investment and wait for the first nuclear reactor to come on in 2037, let alone the rest of them. I mean, all the nuclear reactors by our calculations would add up to 4 per cent of Australia’s energy needs. They’re saying they could get the first one on by 2037, which would be a tiny proportion of Australia’s energy needs. But even that is just completely unrealistic. And, again, I invite Mr Dutton and Mr O’Brien to read GenCost about the time delays.

Okay, back to the phone. Mike, you got anything else?

MIKE FOLEY: Yeah, I’ll have another go, Minister. If you can hear me now, my question was about what advice you are receiving from the nation’s energy agencies about the volume of electricity generation that is needed in the next 10 to 15 years? And of course I’m asking about that because of the GenCost findings today that give a 15-year minimum lead time for the development of the first nuclear plant in Australia.

CHRIS BOWEN: Yeah, well, thanks, Mike, but the answer is the same as before. The advice to me is contained in the ISP. Yes, we need more electricity because we’re electrifying households and transport, because industry is growing. That means we need more electricity as well as making that electricity more renewable and emissions free. And the Liberal Party has no plan to deal with that.

Colin, anything else?

JOURNALIST: Final from me, Minister: the Coalition obviously are not going to dump their nuclear policy, they’re going to continue with nuclear despite their costings. Are you concerned that an alternative policy is gaining support in some regional communities and that threatens to erode social support for renewables? To what degree is that an inhibitor to the rollout of renewables?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, Colin, every opinion poll I see, public and private, shows that renewables are the most popular form of energy in Australia, solar followed by wind followed by gas followed by daylight followed by coal followed by nuclear are the preferred forms of energy. And that’s the case in the cities and in the regions.

Now, as I’ve said many, many times, we all have more work to do on social licence in the regions to ensure real consultation and real community benefit. But as I’ve also pointed out, there is also very strong support in the regions for our renewable rollout because they see the jobs opportunities that goes with it.

Okay, back to Peter.

JOURNALIST: I just note that the report says, “Price increases in recent years are a combination of lack of supply and fuel price volatility.” Explains perhaps why that $275 reduction might not have been achieved. But I’m just wondering, given how steep the falls were in the September quarter for electricity prices – like a third lower than the year before – is it possible that you are getting close to that 275 reduction? Have you done those numbers?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, in relation to the two issues you raised – lack of supply over the last 10 years, 4 gigawatts of dispatchable renewable left the grid; 1 gigawatt came on. Thank you Angus Taylor for your contribution. And in relation to fuel supplies, international circumstances, as you said.

I’m pleased with the progress that we’re making. As I’ve said many, many times, we are not walking away from the policies we took to the election with a view to putting downward pressure on prices because renewables are the cheapest form of energy. That’s what I’ve said many, many times, and I’ll continue to say.

Any other questions on this or any other matters of the day, Peter?

JOURNALIST: Look, last one: we’ve got MYEFO next week. I know you don’t want to pre-empt your colleague the Treasurer’s comments –

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, spotted, yes.

JOURNALIST: – but is it inevitable that there will be some extension of the energy rebate for the coming year? I mean, it would be almost unthinkable for you not to have any –

CHRIS BOWEN: I think, Peter, you’ve answered your question by me saying – by saying I wouldn’t pre-empt the Treasurer, which is the correct supposition for you to make.

Okay, anything else on the phone? We all in, all done? Final call. Okay, I think that’s a wrap. Thank you, everyone.