Ted O'Brien

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring immediately:

The Member for Fairfax making a statement of no more than 15 minutes in relation to the Select Committee on Nuclear Energy's interim report into the inquiry into nuclear power generation in Australia.

What is it about the Labor Party, when they want to gag debate on nuclear energy—

Milton Dick

Order! The member for Fairfax will resume his seat.

The member for Kingsford Smith is interjecting outside of his seat, so he'll cease interjecting. I call the Leader of the House.

Tony Burke

Thanks, Mr Speaker. When we were on this item earlier, I made it clear, when you asked me, that we would in fact return to it. So we'll be able to return, and there will be a motion to which he'll be able to make whatever speech he wants.

Milton Dick

Does the member wish to proceed under that information provided to the House?

Ted O'Brien

I would like to proceed, if that is alright.

Milton Dick

You may.

Ted O'Brien

I want to proceed with this debate, as Labor MPs leave the chamber—yet again afraid to have a debate about Australia's energy future. If I were Labor, I, too, would be leaving in shame, because every MP in this chamber on the Labor side of the House promised their constituents a $275 reduction in household power bills, including the minister, whose own constituents are now set to pay $1,300 more than he promised them.

This inquiry has been an important one, and there's a reason why this Labor government set up an inquiry that has been a political stitch-up from the very get-go—a political stitch-up by way of the members constituting that committee. In fact, as a very rare occasion in this parliament, we have the crossbench, including the Greens and the teals, supporting the coalition on a motion to bring balance to that committee because it was so poorly skewed in favour of the Labor Party because they wanted to manipulate the process in order to have a go. Also, the terms of reference were narrow so the Labor Party could try to get across its political points.

But, of course, as it transpired during the inquiry, we heard evidence after evidence coming from Australian and international experts which said, 'If you add nuclear to a balanced energy mix, the prices come down.' That has been the evidence right across the world. It is why Australia is now isolated—the only nation in the G20 that is either not using nuclear energy or not moving towards using it in the near future.

The Department of Energy in the United States made it very clear in their own report: there's a 37 per cent reduction in costs compared to a renewables-only scheme if you have nuclear in the mix. The independent report from Frontier Economics here in the Australian context did a similar study, a total system cost analysis, that proved the coalition's plan to get to a 2050 zero emissions grid is actually 44 per cent cheaper than Labor's. But Labor ignores all this. Labor don't want to have a debate, which is why they seek to gag this debate today.

On timing, again we heard evidence after evidence in the committee that the timing put forward by the coalition for introducing zero emissions nuclear energy in Australia was accurate and it was doable. In fact, we had the Albanese government's own advisers on nuclear technology. Their view with respect to small modular reactors is that they have an expected deployment timeframe of around five years from construction start to electricity or heat generation—that's the Albanese government's own advisers. The committee report itself, written by the chair, the member for Hunter, actually ignores that advice. It also ignores the advice of Professor Andrew Whittaker, who has advised the White House in the United States on nuclear energy. He says that, when it comes to timing, it should take five to 10 years to build a plant with two-gigawatt-scale reactors in Australia, taking advantage of the lessons learned. Again, whether it be costs, whether it be timing, the inquiry bore this out. The experts, globally and domestically, basically said the coalition's plan is based on international best practice. But they want to ignore this.

The chair of the inquiry, the member for Hunter, stood up earlier in this parliament, before they gagged the coalition, to claim that the real problem with nuclear is the speed at which coal plants are coming out of the grid. As somebody who has seen him in the coal communities and in this parliament can I remind that member that his constituents have two very different members. When we sat in coal communities across regional Australia, the chair of this inquiry, the member for Hunter, on multiple occasions denied Labor's plan to close coal plants prematurely. It's all in Hansard__. Loy Yang, the latest, goes all the way through into the mid- to late 2040s. He said: 'No, no, no. It will be allowed to proceed, of course, all the way through until the end of its life.' Yet the inquiry report drafted by the chair himself, the member for Hunter, makes clear that all coal plants are closed by 2038.

Under Labor's plan 10.8 gigawatts of coal generation will be exiting the grid over the next 10 years without replacement. That's before the scheduled closure, according to the coal plant owners. The member comes into this place and tries to argue that the coal plants are going to be closed early, but back at home he tells a very different story. Again, you have to look at what Labor's policies really are and what their impacts are, rather than listen to what comes out of the mouths of those opposite depending on different situations. We heard from regional communities—from Muswellbrook, for example. That is a community the member for Hunter should know very well. The former mayor of Muswellbrook, Steven Reynolds, told the inquiry:

… a replacement of a power station here—

referring to nuclear energy—

would see jobs being transferred into a familiar role whilst retaining the permanent well-paying jobs.

The Latrobe City Council Mayor, Dale Harriman, said:

I know I talk regularly to a number of coal power station workers. They're excited by this idea that they're actually going to have a future … The discussion now that nuclear is there and it gives an option to our coal-fired power station workers—that there is a future that pays like-for-like jobs—they're very, very supportive of it. I think, as a community, that's something we've been asking for: those jobs that are like for like.

Keep in mind, of course, that studies by the Department of Energy in the United States have explained that around 77 per cent of coal plant workers can transition to work in a nuclear power plant without any change to their occupation, seamlessly so, which is why these communities which are being shut down—regional economies being hollowed out by the premature closure of coal-fired power stations with no replacement on the way from the Labor Party—are screaming out for a future.

Our proposal, which is a balanced energy mix—a future which will have renewables, gas and, as coal eventually does retire from the system, zero emissions nuclear energy—gives these regional communities the future they deserve. The two I just quoted, the Hunter and La Trobe, are regional powerhouses that have underpinned energy security for generations in this country.

The Labor Party's plan is to hollow them out. They want to turn boilermakers into baristas. That's their plan; that is how shallow their plan is. We don't agree with that. We believe in regional Australia. We believe these communities have a bright future. And that is why we are interested in introducing zero emissions power plants, plants that will be designed to last for 60 to 80 years—maybe, with extensions, up to a hundred years.

We're talking about a plan that allows for regional deals to ensure that transport infrastructure and community infrastructure can be built in these communities. We're talking about integrated economic development zones so we can ensure these communities are rich when it comes to manufacturing, when it comes to mineral processing and when it comes to high technology, because they will have the cheapest, cleanest and most consistent power in the country. But the Labor Party refuse to have a conversation. They gag debate. They're into memes and untruths about this plan because they know there's a reason why our friends and allies around the world are adopting nuclear energy as part of a balanced energy mix. It's because it gets prices down, it is the fastest way to decarbonise an electricity grid, and it guarantees security—all the things that this Labor Party has promised the Australian people and failed on. Today it's no surprise that they have, yet again, sought to gag debate.

Steve Georganas

Is there a seconder for the motion?

Simon Kennedy

I second the motion. Labor's energy plan is off the rails. It's gone woke and it's sending companies broke. I firmly believe Labor's plan to reach net zero is unrealistic. It's a plan for higher prices, rolling blackouts and environmental damage. Labor's plan is just for higher household energy bills, and we see it. We see it in the bills that have gone up to $1,000 since they've entered office, and, with the new plan passed, we will see bills rise a further $300 more next financial year. And why? We now know Labor's plan, which it previously touted at $122 billion, will actually cost $642 billion.

This is a number that the government does not dispute, and there's still north in that figure of $642 billion. It excludes Snowy Hydro, Orana and a whole host of other projects. It excludes consumer energy costs such as batteries and solar. This is why Australians are paying a thousand dollars more and will pay, as I said, up to $300 more next financial year. Yet we watch them high-fiving over that $150 subsidy and talking about the relief they're wreaking for everyday Australians. We watched them high-fiving over these subsidies when we watched Whyalla Steelworks close, because businesses are going broke. And it's not just big businesses like Whyalla Steelworks; it's small and medium manufacturers, small boilermakers, machine workers and shop workers. This plan is not realistic and it's not fit-for-purpose; it's intermittent energy and higher prices.

Let's take onshore wind as an example. Onshore wind will need to increase to five gigawatts a year to meet their 2030 target. Is that realistic? Guess what—we have not produced more than one gigawatt a year to date. Do we think we can increase by 500 per cent the amount of offshore wind to meet their targets? Actually, offshore wind has been decreasing. Yet we're meant to believe this magic pudding plan that, somehow, it will increase by 500 per cent. Labor also assumes hydrogen power will become available in the 2040s. This is despite Origin and Twiggy Forrest walking away from it and no leading country in the world planning on hydrogen to be a significant part of their energy mix. Yet there it is in the AEMO step change and Labor's plan. We're banking on hydrogen. It also says gas should increase by 50 per cent. That's Labor's own plan. Yet they're not approving further gas. We are not approving it. This is why this will send this country broke. It's because we've gone woke.

Labor's plan also predates artificial intelligence. It predates blockchain and all these energy-intensive industries. That is why we've seen Google, Microsoft and Meta all investing in this sector. This is why we've heard evidence from the Minerals Council of Australia that it's negligent. This is why we heard from Dr Chris Greig from Princeton, who worked on Australia's and America's net zero plans and gave evidence. The Daily Telegraph called it 'not even close' in the article 'Leading scientist's scathing review of Australia's net zero progress'. This is someone who actually promotes net zero in both Australia and America.

Further, our continued prohibition stands in stark contrast to the rest of the world. Twenty-five countries in COP28, including the US and UK, pledged to triple global nuclear capacity, but not Australia. Embarrassingly, they actually announced that Australia would be part of this and would be sharing research with the US and UK. But, embarrassingly, our government trotted someone out there to say that we'd be withdrawing from an agreement where they would voluntarily share intel and research with us to help us decarbonise our grid and lower prices. We backed out of it—pathetic. Even the former chief scientist of South Australia gave evidence saying that we should be looking at nuclear, and she had no hope that we could get to a decarbonised grid or lower prices without nuclear. We heard expert after expert over these weeks. I'm new to parliament. I actually thought this would be an inquiry where we got together, we looked at it and we talked about it but, instead, what we had was an inquiry with a majority of Labor members who actually wrote a report. We proposed amendments, none of which were considered, none of which were debated, all of which were rejected in about 10 minutes. Therefore, we had no option left but to put together a dissenting report to try and help Australian businesses, to try and help Australian households, make ends meet. (Time expired)

Steve Georganas

Before the member takes his seat, you need to formally second the motion.

Simon Kennedy

I formally second the motion.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Tony Burke

I move:

That standing order 43(a) be suspended until the conclusion of proceedings on the bill.

That means we complete the bill and then do 90-second statements.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the motion be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Milton Dick

The question now is that the bill as amended be agreed to.

Adam Bandt

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Page 3 (after line 24), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 2 — Capacity Investment Scheme Program

Climate Change Act 2022

1 After Part 4

Add:

Part 4A — Capacity Investment Scheme

15B Simplified outline of this Part

The Capacity Investment Scheme Program must be implemented to achieve at least 23 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity and at least 9 gigawatts of clean dispatchable capacity.

15C Administration of the Capacity Investment Scheme Program

(1) If, at the commencement of this subsection, the Capacity Investment Scheme Program is prescribed by legislative instrument under subsection 33(1) of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986, then:

(a) the Commonwealth must make, vary or administer arrangements in relation to the carrying out of activities by one or more persons under the Capacity Investment Scheme Program; and

(b) those arrangements must result in, by the end of 2030:

(i) at least 23 gigawatts of renewable generation capacity; and

(ii) at least 9 gigawatts of clean dispatchable capacity.

Note: The arrangements referred to in this subsection may include arrangements made, varied or administered before the commencement of this subsection.

(2) If advice of the Climate Change Authority under subsection 14(1) indicates a material risk to the achievement of subsection (1), the Minister's Annual Climate Change Statement under section 12 must provide a response to that advice.

15D Amendment of the Capacity Investment Scheme Program

(1) An instrument made under subsection 33(1) of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 (the amending instrument), that varies or revokes another instrument made under that subsection that prescribes the Capacity Investment Scheme Program, does not come into effect until the amending instrument has been approved by a resolution of each House of the Parliament.

(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply to an instrument made under subsection 33(1) of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 that varies or revokes another instrument made under that subsection if that other instrument does not prescribe the Capacity Investment Scheme Program.

One thing we know for sure is that the Liberals will stop at nothing to attack renewables. We have seen this in the past, where they used every opportunity to try and get rid of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency as well as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Those two agencies have driven huge investment in renewables in this country and given great confidence to the renewables industry, which we know we need to grow if we're to get out of coal and gas—which the scientists are telling us we must do if we are to have any chance of tackling the climate crisis.

We also know that the Leader of the Opposition's dangerous nuclear fantasy is a ploy to extend the life of coal and gas in the system and threaten investment in renewables. We've even heard the Leader of the Opposition say so himself—that, under his dangerous fantasy of a plan, coal and gas will have to stay in the system for longer. In many respects, that is what his agenda is all about. We know that the opposition's energy policies have been written by the coal and gas industries because they know now that renewables are not only the best way of cutting emissions but the cheapest form of electricity.

Milton Dick

Order! I'm reluctant to interrupt the Leader of the Australian Greens, but we are in consideration in detail. He has moved an amendment to schedule 2—Capacity Investment Scheme Program. He will need to confine his remarks to the detailed amendment he's moving. It is not a general debate.

Adam Bandt

I understand that, Speaker, and that is exactly what my amendment goes to.

We are on clear notice now not only historically, having seen the Liberals, when they are in power, do everything they can to attack renewable energy; we are now on notice that this Leader of the Opposition will do everything he can to slow down investment in renewable energy and storage in this country. The amendment I am moving will enshrine the government's Capacity Investment Scheme in law in order to oblige the next two governments to meet the 32-gigawatt-by-2030 renewables and storage target, which is made up of 23 gigawatts of renewable generation and nine gigawatts of clean dispatchable energy.

We know we need these protections in law. Even now, even from opposition, the Leader of the Opposition's announcements are designed to threaten the unstoppable growth of renewables in this country by giving public support to coal and gas. It should be the other way around. Public money should not be going to prop up coal and gas or nuclear. The support that is needed is the support that is going to drive down emissions and also deliver people the cheapest electricity, which is renewables backed by storage.

For a long time the Greens have called for a renewable target and a storage target to be enshrined in law, to give the industry the certainty it needs and to ensure that we make the shift in an orderly and planned way that drives down the cost of electricity and also drives down our emissions. The Capacity Investment Scheme put forward by the government is not necessarily the way that we would have done it, but it is a scheme that is going to assist with that transition—so we have given it our support. What this will do is essentially Dutton-proof that scheme, Leader-of-the-Opposition-proof that scheme.

Milton Dick

Order. The member—

Adam Bandt

I withdraw. It will ensure that scheme is protected in law. We know from history that Liberals will stop at nothing to attack renewables and storage and to try to direct public money into coal, gas and now nuclear. We also know that if there is protection in legislation for good measures, like we saw with ARENA and the CEFC, then they can be protected and industry can be given certainty.

We know what the Leader of the Opposition's plans are for the future and that he is trying, even from opposition—where I hope he stays for a very, very long time—to stop the growth of renewables. These amendments will give the industry support they need by safeguarding and enshrining protection for support for renewables and storage.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the amendment be agreed to.

Michael Sukkar

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring:

(1) government business order of the day No. 5 relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024 being called on immediately; and

(2) all questions required to complete passage of the bill being put without delay.

I won't detain the House for too long, but this should be a very uncontroversial motion here today. Standing orders ought to be suspended so that the House can finally conclude consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives and Integrity) Bill 2024. This bill has been sitting in this House since November last year. Everyone in this place, until yesterday, thought the bill was ready to go to the Senate, but the government on Monday, very abruptly and unusually, postponed debate on the bill in the middle of consideration in detail. No public explanation has been offered by the government as to why this bill has been stalled. And absent any credible explanation from the government, the bill should be passed today. Because the Assistant Treasurer is responsible for the bill, it may not be surprising there has been some stuff-up along the way.

Part of the object of the bill is to obviously legislate the instant asset write-off, which is a proud coalition reform. But sadly 27,000 small businesses have closed under this government, and it beggars belief that in the situation where we have small businesses struggling that this measure would be delayed any further. The instant asset write-off is a proud coalition policy, which was unfortunately adjusted by this government. We are enthusiastically willing to support it, so why don't we do it today and support small businesses? This has been sitting here since November. Let's get moving!

To be clear, the coalition's position, as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in last year's budget in reply, is to extend the value of assets that are eligible for the instant asset write-off to $30,000 and to make this permanent for small businesses. There are small businesses throughout our country who are struggling like never before. They have an increasingly aggressive ATO pursuing tax debts. They have a weak economy and very little consumer confidence, which I know is weighing on small businesses in every single member's electorate. On that basis, one would imagine that government MPs in particular are keen to get this measure through the House, get this measure into the Senate and ultimately deliver the tax relief that small businesses need.

Unfortunately, Labor voted against a series of amendments to achieve this eight times last year. It's pretty clear the government have made a decision that they're going to slow ball this. They're going to filibuster this for as late as possible. But every single day of delay creates uncertainty for small businesses. There's no reason why we can't come together as a parliament today and pass the bill.

This unexplained delay is highly unusual. One can only imagine the sorts of errors that have occurred or are occurring and the busy fix that's going on behind the scenes, but the parliament has not been advised of what that is. The parliament has no explanation as to how the government may have stuffed up this bill, to put it in that ineloquent way, and so on that basis it should be debated immediately. We should conclude this bill today, get it done right now.

Ultimately, if the government truly cared about supporting small businesses, which I'm sure many members opposite do, they would support this motion. End the uncertainty on the instant asset write-off scheme and let's get the bill through the Senate today, without delay. There's absolutely no reason why this cannot be dealt with immediately. This could be a moment where we move swiftly to help small businesses throughout our country, and the opposition is keen to swiftly facilitate that.

Ian Goodenough

Is the motion seconded?

Kevin Hogan

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the motion moved by the Manager of Opposition Business be agreed to.

Milton Dick

In accordance with standing order 133, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved on the second reading of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes) Bill 2025, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. The question is that this bill be read a second time.

Lisa Chesters

In accordance with standing order 113, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today for the suspension of standing and sessional orders moved by the honourable member for Fairfax on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with standing orders. No further debate is allowed.

Milton Dick

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Milton Dick

The question now is that government amendments (1) and (2) on sheet UG105 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Luke Howarth

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "Schedules 1 and 2", substitute "Schedule 1".

(3) Schedule 2, page 5 (lines 1 to 15), omit the Schedule.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the opposition amendments moved by the member for Petrie be agreed to.