Panel discussion at the Energy Nation Forum

ROSIE LEWIS, JOURNALIST: Welcome, all three of you, to Energy Nation. Thanks for being here. Let's kick off with the story of the day, which is nuclear, and we'll be brief because we've spoken a lot about nuclear so far. David Littleproud, is Darren Chester on board?

DAVID LITTLEPROUD, MEMBER FOR MARANOA: Yes. We're taking a bold plan in modernising our energy system that protects regional Australia, but actually protects Australia and particularly our manufacturing, in giving it what needs to underpin it, to keep it going in this country. You just can't keep subsidising manufacturing, keep it going in this country. Ultimately, Australian taxpayers money runs. So, what we've announced today is the first stage of further announcements. But this is about saying there's a different way, there's a better way, in that we're going to own some of this for the first time in a long time. We're not going to hand this over to multinationals from overseas. Australian taxpayers are going to own it. And I think that's a forward step and it gives confidence to regional Australia about what they've been asked to bare for some time.

LEWIS: And he said to you he'd be willing to host a power station, a nuclear power station in his electorate?

LITTLEPROUD: Well, everybody that has of those seven locations have been consulted widely. We've also polled widely about making sure that this is a start of a two-and-a-half-year journey about proper consultation in understanding the opportunities and how this will change their regions. In taking away a future of poles, wind turbines and solar panels to working on the footprint that's there now with new technology, where about 77% of the jobs that are in a coal fired power station can be transitioned across. That's common sense. That protects my people, that gives us a future, but that gives Australia a future. That's the difference. That's what we're prepared to put forward. That's the courage of Peter Dutton's commitment, and mine as well.

LEWIS: Jenny McAllister, can you envisage a scenario where the Labor party would ever support overturning the moratorium on nuclear?

SENATOR JENNY MCALLISTER, ASSISTANT MINISTER FOR CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY: We simply don't see nuclear as a viable technology for our context. We have a continent that has significant tracts of land, abundant renewable resources. It's a terrific investment environment, it's stable and well understood and skillful people. All of those things set us up to be a really important participant in a global economy that is moving towards net zero. But that move is happening now. It's not happening in 2035 or 2037 or 2040. It's happening now. And the steps that we need to take to be part of that economic opportunity need to happen now. We can't wait for a technology which, even by their own admission, the Coalition tells us will be ready perhaps in 2037.

LEWIS: Would Labor respect a Coalition mandate if it was to win the election for nuclear?

MCALLISTER: We're not really speculating about the Coalition winning an election and implementing this policy. I heard Chris Bowen make the point that it's a bit of a stretch to call it a policy at this point. We actually just have a list of electorates, and to that extent, I would make the point that it's actually quite a political approach and an electorally driven approach to bringing forward an energy policy. What's actually required is a contemplation of the national interest. Where do our economic interests lie? What is possible? What is in the best interests of the communities that all of us seek to serve, including the rural and regional communities that David likes to talk about? None of that information is on the table this morning and it's unclear when it will be forthcoming.

LEWIS: Allegra Spender, I'm interested. If you win your seat, you're running again at the next election, and if the Coalition was to win, they would obviously need to repeal the legislation for a nuclear ban. Would you support repealing that?

ALLEGRA SPENDER, MEMBER FOR WENTWORTH: So, you know, I've never had a problem with nuclear per se, but the problem I have with it in Australia and in this context is it's too expensive and too slow. And I take issue with what David just said, “this is good for Australian manufacturing”. I can't understand how a policy that is the most expensive form of energy around can be something that's good for Australian manufacturing or, frankly, good for Australian taxpayers, given we're going to have to fit the bill. And honestly, I was looking at, there's this great book which called “How do big things get done?” They've got the biggest database of megaprojects out there. 16,000 megaprojects across the world, looking at how much they cost and when they overrun. And the three biggest, most cost overrun kind of technologies are nuclear storage, nuclear power and Olympic Games. The three cheapest and the ones that don't overrun are wind, solar and transmission. So, if we're worried about, you know, can we deliver it? Can we deliver it on time and can we deliver this in a way that, you know, is going to be on budget, you know, I don't buy where the government – sorry where the Coalition is going on this. That said, I've always said I will talk to my community, but it is not a piece of paper, honestly, the moratorium that is holding this country back from nuclear, it is the economics and it is also the timeframe, because it makes no sense when we know that the next ten years really counts from a climate point of view, you know, to put all our eggs in a basket that we don't even know when it's going to be on board, and we know it could well be absolutely blow out or be 14 years late, like the Hinkley power nuclear reactor in the UK. So, it just doesn't make sense to me.

LEWIS: Sounds like a firm No.

SPENDER: It's not about the piece of paper. The economics don't stack up and the science don't stack up. So, it just doesn't make sense.

LITTLEPROUD: Can I just?

LEWIS: Go for it.

LITTLEPROUD: I mean, we're talking about energy eggs in one basket. An all renewables approach is doing exactly that. That won't underpin manufacturing in this country. Wind turbines and solar panels and batteries will not keep Tomago going. You need to have baseload power and you need to spread your risk. Now, I learned at good old Chinchilla State High in grade eight around concentration risk, that you should spread your risk. You shouldn't put all your energy eggs in one basket, you should spread them and around costs, I respect CSIRO, but just understand that they made their calculations predicated on a 30-year return. A wind turbine and a solar panel, at best, 15 to 19 years. A nuclear power plan is somewhere between 80 and 90 years. So, there is a 50 to 60 year dividend of Australians owning this asset that will continue to be paid back. That wasn't put into those numbers. CSIRO did not also understand and know, because we haven't released, what our total mix will be about, the capacity of which those plants will be running at. Now, it was somewhere between 50 and 80 odd percent capacity. Everyone knows you need to run it above 90%. And so when you have our mix, you will see we'll be running these facilities at above 90% to make sure that it runs in comparison to what's happening in Ontario at the moment and other parts of the world. This is technology, the next technology that's being used in other parts of the world. This is not a pipe dream. This is not like hydrogen and green hydrogen, where we're lining the pockets of a couple of billionaires. This is lining the pockets of a legacy for Australian taxpayers, for my kids and for my grandkids to have something that they own, that’ll actually underpin manufacturing, underpinning this country. And I can tell. I'll give you a perfect example, Bathurst, where the skins around your sausages, they make collagen out of beef. They are currently at the moment unable to, to have a reliable energy source that they don't get the brownouts, that they're down for over 2 hours because they have to restart their lines and they have people sitting around for over 2 hours, 200 people sitting around for over 2 hours. The German company that owns it has lost trust in us because we're not giving them baseload affordable power. And we have to be honest and we are, we're making a transition. We're saying we're going to live up to international commitment, but you've got to live up to the principles of what drives this economy. And you have baseload power and the coal will transition. We'll have gas and we'll have renewables. We're taking an agnostic approach, not an all energy eggs in one basket approach. That's common sense. That's what they taught me in Western Queensland and that's what I'm going to stand by.

LEWIS: Just on that agnostic approach. You did this week say that you pursue alternatives so you don't have to pursue large scale renewables. Isn't that hypocritical?

LITTLEPROUD: No, it's about saying you're putting it all in the mix and I think –

LEWIS: But will large scale renewables be in the mix under a Coalition Government?

LITTLEPROUD: Well, there will be. What we've announced today means there'll be less of it, which is exactly what I was saying was so important to us, because -

LEWIS: Is that a good idea? Jenny McAllister?

LITTLEPROUD: Well, can I just explain that? Because I think it is important. But what we've also said, and if you go on from what I actually made in that statement, is that there's an opportunity for energy independence where the concentration of population, the concentration of power is for businesses and households, where for us to partner with state governments with some of the subsidies they're providing for panels to look at batteries to give that energy independence and take the pressure off us and your food security and the actual thing you're trying to protect, the actual native vegetation that you're destroying every day out of my part. That's not hypocritical, that's responsible.

LEWIS: Less large-scale renewables, is that good for Australia's future?

McALLISTER: Two things, Rosie. I mean, if nuclear was the solution, the question has to be asked why David and his colleague Mr. Taylor, didn't pursue that in the near decade that they had in office. Because when they were in office, the transition that they envisaged was one that involved renewables. A very slow rollout of renewables, to be sure. And the problem with the approach that was taken by the last government was that during the period they were there, four gigawatts of dispatchable energy exited the system, only one came on. 24 coal fired power plants announced their closure dates, but there was no policy to replace that baseload capacity. And so we're having to work hard and fast now to actually bring on the technologies, and the plants, and the generation capacity that will replace those coal fired power stations that are coming to the end of their life. But we need to move faster on that, not slower. And so, plans that involve pausing or delaying or even halting altogether large-scale renewables are really risky. What is the plan to replace all of that coal fired generation that is scheduled to come off between now and 2035? It's a very risky proposition, and an answer that doesn't commence until at the earliest, 2035/37, is no answer to the problem that confronts us right now.

LEWIS: Does Labor need to do a better job, though, of bringing the community on board with some of these large renewable projects? We now know that the Coalition will oppose the Illawarra offshore wind zone, and they're really seizing on that community anger. Do you can see that Labor needs to do a much better job of talking to locals who might host these big renewables projects?

McALLISTER: This is a really big change for the country, and there are plenty of communities in rural areas, in regional areas, that have been historically really significant for energy generation and manufacture - that are facing up to some quite big changes in the underlying economics of their area. We have to bring them with us. This is another area where a lot of work could have been done under the previous government and wasn't. And it's why we asked Andrew Dyer, the wind farm commissioner, and now subsequently, the infrastructure commissioner, to do a lot of work for us and say, what is it that we would need to do to bring communities through? You heard the Treasurer this morning talking about principles of community benefit. There's very significant opportunities for jobs, for secure energy that will drive manufacturing through a renewed national electricity grid and market. But we have to make sure that we do deliver for regional communities, for rural communities. And it's a very genuine focus for us in the work that we're doing on a Future Made in Australia and also in the reforms we're bringing through in terms of renewable project assessment.

LEWIS: Allegra Spender, you can hear between David and Jenny, obviously there's a lot of partisanship. We know the climate walls are alive and kicking this close to an election. In the event of a hung parliament, are you more inclined to support a Labor or a Coalition government based on their climate policies?

SPENDER: Look, there's I think there's the climate policies of, you know, to be honest with neither parties, I think are frankly good enough. Though I'd say that the Coalition's policy at the moment is extremely problematic because I think it's not going to deliver on the science and what we need to do from, you know, actually trying to avoid, you know, the natural disasters and the impact on our, on our kids that climate change really, the threat that it is. And secondly, it's not going to do the right thing on the economy. So, I think the Coalition is obviously the area of a bigger gap. But for me this is about negotiation, if it ever comes to that, because that's what my community is interested in is. They're pretty business focused and they're very environmentally focused. They say, you know what? We have to deliver on the science, we have to deliver on the economy. And frankly, we need to do this with the whole country. You know, we need to make sure, you know, the Bathurst, you know, company that you just spoke about, David, you know, I don't, I think they should have reliable energy and it is a problem if they don't. And this is an area that we need to get right. But I don't believe that nuclear in, you know, 15 plus years time is going to deliver that. And so, this is how I approach it as a negotiation.

LEWIS: And I'm interested because the Teals almost unanimously, perhaps unanimously, came out to support an ambitious 2035 target. You put 75% as that number. Can you explain how you got to that number? Was there modelling that convinced you, was there costings that convinced you that Australia could reach 75%? Or was it plucked out of thin air, as the Coalition often says of the government?

SPENDER: Look, the Climate Change Authority has just come out saying that it is 65% to 75%, you know, is the band of ambitious but achievable. And that is where I believe we need to play. We need to be informed by the science. You know, we need to be informed also by the, by the economics as well. You know, when I came to the last election, it was the Business Council of Australia that was saying that our target should be between 46% and 50% for 2030. And that would be in our economic interests as well as in our, in the interest for climate change. So, you know, I rely on those sorts of experts to inform the positions that I take.

LEWIS: Okay, but you haven't seen modelling, you couldn't actually lay out a path of how we get to 75%?

SPENDER: That's the role for the people, like the Climate Change authority. And those are the conversations I'm having right now in terms of, you know, how do we get there and what are the best – and most effective and frankly, economically cheapest ways forward.

LEWIS: And to all three of you, obviously, we've got an election around the corner, probably sooner rather than later. Is it your judgement that voters will put their hip pocket number one and climate and energy ambition number two, or lower?

LITTLEPROUD: Any polling will tell you cost of living is one, two and three. And what drives people's anger is, firstly, their food bills. Because someone from a household is going to a supermarket once or twice a week, they walk out and they feel as though they haven't got a lot for what they paid for. And energy plays directly into that, because most of our food grocers are paying somewhere between three and four times more what they were two years ago. Then it's their rents and that's about the fact of a migration policy, of bringing 1.67 million people into this country without the skills to give us a home to put them under. And then thirdly, it's their energy bill and there was a lot of promises made about the reduction in that. And so, our energy policy will be about putting Australians first, living up to our international commitments, but not a linear pathway. And if we were serious about the urgency of this, in fact, the government probably missed an opportunity only in the last couple of days. They had the Chinese Premier here. If you actually really want urgent action on climate change, then we should have global diplomatic moves towards talking to China about a more ambitious target of 2060. But I want to make sure that our commitment that we live up to is one that doesn't destroy Australia on that journey. And that means a linear pathway is not one that we'd accept, it's one that will use common sense and use the sovereignty of our resources in a sensible way, that leaves a legacy that underpins our economy for the future. And that's the common sense that Peter Dutton and David Litteproud will take the next election.

LEWIS: And Jenny McAllister, how will Labor convince voters that you've got their hip pocket in mind when there is a large focus on the level of ambition the Albanese government is pursuing on climate.

McALLISTER: Well, Rosie, I think we wouldn't see that there is a distinction or that voters will have to choose between their hip pocket and the path that we are laying out for the energy system, because our approach is underpinned by the advice we receive about the most economically effective way to replace all of that existing coal fired energy that is coming to the end of its life. And all of the advice is that the most reliable configuration of new assets is renewables, batteries, firmed by pumped hydro and gas. And that's the path that we're pursuing. The advice we have is that that will produce the cheapest options for electricity supply for Australians. And it happens that it will also connect us to the opportunities that are coming online now to be part of a global economy where demand for green metals, green hydrogen, green ammonia, and a whole lot of other inputs to the manufacturing activities that will drive the path to net zero. We have the opportunity to meet those, and meeting that opportunity will provide good jobs, secure jobs, well paid jobs, and they will mostly be in regional Australia.

LEWIS: And Allegra Spender, what do you think in terms of the major party’s approach is one sort of more amenable to cost of living relief than the other?

SPENDER: I think Australians across the country are hurting right now, and I think the biggest pain point is housing. Now, that has been a 20-year car crash. At federal, state and local government, where we have not built the houses that we need. We do not have the tax policies and incentives that make sense. And, you know, we are not. We are letting a generation of young people, you know, really down because, frankly, over the last 20 years, house prices have gone up by about 193% and wages have gone up by 82%. And you see younger people being locked out of housing because of poor policies for the last 20 years. And that's on, you know, pox on both your houses in relation to housing policy over a long period of time. So, that, you know, is the major, I think, issue facing most young people and certainly facing, you know, many Australians around, you know, around the country. And then secondly, you know, absolutely, energy bills, you know, play into the cost-of-living concerns, you know, and this is why I've been really pushing the government to say, look, how can we do more for those Australians, you know, to get on the clean energy journey? Because, frankly, if you've got a, you know solar on your roof and battery in your garage. you actually have energy security and you actually have cheap, affordable energy. But we have households, renters, apartment dwellers, a lot of families who are currently locked out of that. And that has to be, I think, an area where we can give people long term solutions, not just sort of short-term quick fix, $300.

McALLISTER: That's right, Rosie and Allegra has been a good interlocutor on these questions in the parliament. We went to the 2023 October Budget, bringing through, my apologies in May in 2023, bringing through a $1.7 billion package to increase access to the technologies that will improve energy performance in homes and in businesses. Because there are lots of things that can be done at the household scale, whether it's batteries or solar or double glazing on your windows, that can actually produce a very significant improvement in your exposure to energy demand overall. It often involves an upfront cost, and a big part of the package we bought through was low interest loans to support households who want to make these investments and are looking for a little bit of support and a connection to some good technology to get there.

SPENDER: But I'll say the policy is great, but it's not moving fast enough. The truth is that many of those policies that were announced in the May budget back in 2023 are not yet really flowing through to our families. And that's the push. And I'll continue to push that because I think that really important on the electrification.

LEWIS: We've only got a couple of minutes left now, but we haven't spoken about electric vehicles. Now, I think, Allegra Spender, you've got quite an ambitious policy for EVs. It might be 75% new car sales being EVs by 2030, is that right?

SPENDER: I think this is news to me, but, yeah, I think it was probably in the – I mean, I'm a big supporter of electric vehicles, but I think that the fuel efficiency standards that just went through at the last, you know, just in the recent parliament are a great first start, but you also need to get the infrastructure right. And, you know, luckily, in my area, we've just got about 200 new chargers coming in, which you really need in a place like mine, where you've got 60% of people living in apartments.

LEWIS: I have written it from your website, so I hope it's right. But Jenny McAllister, we're less than 10% of new car sales being EVs right now, isn't it a fact that the government will have to subsidise, will have to give taxpayers incentives to purchase EVs, which they're not doing at the moment?

McALLISTER: Look, we're coming off a very low base, and we've seen a very significant increase in just the last few years in the proportion of electric vehicles that are purchased as part of new vehicle purchases. Our focus has been on the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard and giving consumers a greater range of choices, whether that is access to electric vehicles or actually simply access to more fuel-efficient petrol vehicles. We know that if we can start making, seeing consumers make those choices now, they have a really long tail because these vehicles will stay on our roads for a very long time. We don't have plans for the subsidies that you described, but we do have plans for infrastructure. It's important that people are able to be certain they can be confident that they can access charging infrastructure. And there's a very significant program making sure that that charging infrastructure is available up and down the major highways right across the country.

LITTLEPROUD: And look, the government doesn't have a plan to subsidise because they're going to tax you. They're going to tax on the vehicle emissions standards. A Rav4, nearly $10,000 extra to buy a Rav4. Now that's a tool of trade for a family to put a pram in the back, to put a car seat in the back, to take the kids around Sydney, not just for out me in the bush, for a Landcruiser wagon, which is about $25,000 extra, and Everest Ford is an extra $10,000 in a tax. So we just believe that you need to let technology, you need to give it the time to catch up and you can solve these problems. And this race to do it all by 2030 has an economic impact. And that's what Australians are feeling, being bled out of their wallets, whether it be their energy bill that they receive or whether it be this as a new tax on the purchase of a new car. We're all for achieving this, but we should do this a uniquely Australian way, with common sense that doesn't tear our economy apart and leaves a legacy. That's the Australian way that I was brought up under. I'm not against EVs. They're not much use to us and out in my part of the world, but I get they are here. But we've got to understand, ultimately, it always comes back to this one simple principle in life. Someone always has to pay, and ultimately, it's you.

LEWIS: Okay, we better wrap up. But just finally, do you all support road user charges on EVs, a fairer road system?

LITTLEPROUD: Yeah. I think we've got to be constructed together in working through that solution after that High Court decision, I think it's beholden on state and federal governments of all persuasion to get that sorted. There's a significant investment needed, and I think that's a bipartisan one I hope that we can sort out.

LEWIS: What do you think, Jenny McAllister?

McALLISTER: I think the Treasurer has indicated that it's not a near term proposition, but it is something that we'll need to work through because there are tax implications.

LEWIS: Allegra Spender?

SPENDER: Absolutely. You need to have a consistent model of how you charge for the roads.

LEWIS: So, maybe for the next parliament. Thanks for your time.