Transcript of National Press Club Address Q&A

TOM CONNELL: We had a situation previously in Australia where solar panel take up plays success to the sort of excess power. The batteries came along, the subsidised batteries, and was seen to soak that up. If you address this missing middle, batteries, businesses, so on that’s successful, because that’s just focussing on solar problems.

Couldn’t we go back to that imbalance of too much solar? And what would you do about that? CHRIS BOWEN: It’s a fair question, Tom, but I think the conclusion’s not that, two reasons.

I think that would be a fair criticism, if we didn’t have such a big take up of batteries, that the world leading battery take up take up, which will complement the improved and increased solar take up, point number one. Second point, difference between houses and businesses in many instances, not all but many, is that houses generate a lot of power during the middle of the day, and you use a lot of power at night.

That’s the duck curve. That would be flattening. Working with flattening.

There’s a lot of businesses haven’t been generating much power in all day, but use a lot of power. And so, for example, this morning, I was at a very large, great Canberra business, Go Tropo, the fruit wholesalers. They’ve got cold rooms, warm rooms, they are big energy users.

They’ve got 100 kilowatts on their roof. And they have reduced their energy bills by $40,000 but they still use more energy than they generate. Now, they will, obviously, they told me they’ll take up this scheme and they’ll get more solar panels on their roofs.

They’ll be calling less on the grid in the middle of the day. When they’re working, they don’t work at night, so much. Now, it’s not the case for every business, but it’s a case for a lot of businesses, they’re very active in the middle of the day, when we have a lot of power, they’re not so active in the evening, when households are active.

So, actually, they’ll succ-, they’ll pull past balance the grid, and move away, a very big task for a country so relied on solar panels. You’re right about the issue. The duck curve, generating low power in the middle of the day and using it at night.

That’s why wholesale prices at night are traditionally so high. Um, and we’re actually seeing a lot of reductions in wholesale prices that we’re seeing are coming from reducing that nighttime peak. And I think the scheme will help us with that ongoing task.

TOM CONNELL: So is it a watch, though? That surplus— CHRIS BOWEN: Well, again, we’re soaking up more of that surplus through batteries. We got solar sharer offer, which is encouraging people, its early days.

It’s encouraging people where they can, not everyone can, but, you know, quite a lot can, move power use from the nighttime to the middle of the day. You work from home, you’re retired a couple, you’ve got smart apps, you can do that. It’ll take some time for that to roll out properly and people to decide whether they want to take up that option.

It’s all part of the mix. And I think getting more solar panels on those massive rooftops in Australia is part of the solution, not part of the problem. TOM CONNELL: First question from the floor, Elizabeth Pipes, from The Australian.

ELIZABETH PIKE: Thank you very much, Tom, and thank you, Minister Bowen, for your time today. You said household power prices would fall by $275. They didn’t.

You said you would reach the 82% renewable target. That task looks very difficult. Will it be you in Labor fails to meet any more of its climate action KPIs in the next 4 years?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, I mean, as I said, I — thank for the question Elizabeth. And as I said, we are making very good progress on many elements of our transition and others, where we’re facing headwinds, which we’ve always been frank about. We’ve faced the international circumstances of now two global energy shocks, in our four years, which is historically a high proportion.

Australians knew that in 2025. They knew what we’d said in 2022. They knew our record and they asked us to keep going.

And as I said, we accept that mandate. Obviously, if you ask the questions, is it on me? Yes.

That’s my job. I’m not famous for walking away from my responsibilities. I run into them, embrace them and do my best to deliver on them.

ELIZABETH PIKE: Many consumers are still concerned they’re facing higher power bills. What do you say to them? Given that mandate they gave you?

CHRIS BOWEN: They’re right. They’re right to be concerned about how high power bills, power bills are higher than we would like. Higher than Al would like.

The answer to that is to work hard every day to get them down. We’re seeing progress on wholesale prices. Most Australians don’t pay wholesale prices, some do.

You can choose to wholesale prices. Most Australians pay retail prices. We got more work to do, through rule changes, and working with the industry, to ensure that flows through.

But most importantly to ensure it keeps going. Now there’s an alternative approach to stop, to get off, to rely more on the unreliable coal, which sees bills go up, or to somehow, you know, fantasy world bring nuclear into Australia in some realistic timeline, which is the most expensive form of energy available. That is not the answer to high bills.

So, every election’s a contest. The next election will be a contest on energy. I remember, Peter Dutton saying he wanted the last election to be a referendum on the energy.

That was okay with us. If they want the next election to be a referendum on the energy, that’s okay too, because our plan is the ultimately the only one, on offer to the Australian people, that can reduce bills, their plan will make electricity more expensive. ELIZABETH PIKE: Thank you very much TOM CONNELL: Ryan Cropp from the AFR.

RYAN CROPP: Thank you, Minister. You’ve spoken at length today about the government’s plans to require data centres to use renewal energy, to power their operations. Now, you’ve said that you’re going to force noncompliant states to play along with this.

Now, Queensland and the Northern Territory have been very clear that they don’t intend to go along with this. You may, by the time these rules come into place, have a very different Victorian government in place. How do you intend to enforce this?

And you mentioned every — the powers available to the government. What are those powers? Could you provide some more detail on that?

CHRIS BOWEN: Thanks for the question, Ryan. I was not sure I said we’d force them to comply, I said we would proceed. And, you know, the energy ministers voted seven votes to two, to proceed.

I welcome that. But we’re clear, we’ll engage in our leaders. Most — the clearest one, which is obviously commonwealth legislation.

We said we’re going down that road. Constitution is pretty clear about any conflict between Commonwealth legislation and state legislation, and which legislation prevails. Also, we’re sending — we’ll request to the Energy Market Commission.

Any minister, any person can send a rule request to the energy commission. That’s what we’re doing. That doesn’t require unanimity around the states.

The only thing that would require unanimity from the states, and territories is a national energy law change. That’d be great, if we had it. We don’t.

So, we will do it other ways. But as I said, with all due — I much prefer to work with state jurisdictions. I work very well with, for example, Tasmania, who supported our changes.

I worked well with the previous coalition government in New South Wales. I’ll be happy to work with the government that, you know, is helping with the transition. But if a government thinks that they’re going to undermine other states, with some sort of race at the bottom, those states have views and we have views and we won’t let that happen.

And that’s only the best interest of Queensland consumers. Queensland consumers, it’s not their best interest to see data centres come up, with no requirements on them, and see them force-up energy bills. So, we’re on the side of those Queenslanders and Australians who want to see that data centre investment, work for Australia and in our national interest.

RYAN CROPP: The state governments run their own power grids. Are you saying you will write commonwealth legislation to effectively force Queensland to run their power grid in a certain way? CHRIS BOWEN: I’m saying we’ll write Commonwealth legislation for the Commonwealth of Australia, which covers every state and territory.

RYAN CROPP: TOM CONNELL: Thanks. Romy Stephens from the ABC ROMY STEPHENS: Thank you, Minister, for your address today. Australia's struggling to attract the investment needed to reach the 82% renewable energy target by 2030.

This is coming at a time when the government unveils plans to transition to a 30% capital gains tax on foreign investors from 2030. Are those tax changes sending a signal that global investors should think twice before coming to Australia? And has there been any modelling done on what impact this will have on Australia's renewable energy targets?

CHRIS BOWEN: Thanks Romy. As I said in my speech there are some large scale investments which are finding it difficult to get to final investment decision, most particularly wind, I mean, utility solar, and batteries is going very well. It's reaching — they’re reaching final investment decision.

A combination of factors is making it harder for wind. The fact that wholesale prices are falling means the return on investment is lower. I see that as a good thing.

But it's still something which has to be worked through and the costs of producing wind have not fallen like the cost of solar and batteries has. So I would say there are some areas where it is the case that we need to work harder to get more investment, there's other areas where it's going very well. Um, In relation to your specific question about capital gains tax, that was announced in various budgets.

The Treasurer has been consulting with the renewable energy sector I know he'll continue to. He continues to consult with me, I welcome that. Obviously, he's indicated he wants to continue to have a sensible conversation.

The renewable energy sector in turn, has recognised that change does need to happen and those conversations will continue. ROMY STEPHENS: Is there any scope to push that deadline out to 2050 to better align with the renewable energy transition? Would that have too big of an impact on the budget?

CHRIS BOWEN: I don't think we're going to start, you know, the conversation with the renewable sector here at this podium between you and I. I think the Treasurer's been pretty clear about what the government's trying to do. Renewable Energy Sector, to their credit, has responded with positive conversations, and those conversations will continue.

TOM CONNELL: Will you get to 82%? CHRIS BOWEN: I think can. I think we can.

You know — TOM CONNELL: Can rather than will? CHRIS BOWEN: Well I think we can and whether we will or not depends on whether we keep our foot on the accelerator, and we keep finding new things to do. Like the changes that I've announced today.

Um, You know, I believe we can get to 82% if we keep going. And I believe that's a good thing. I believe if we get very close to 82%, you know, if we get to 82% in 2031 and not 2030, that's still a very good thing.

We are, to be clear, aiming and working to get to 82% by 2030. That's our intention. That's what we're working towards.

Are there challenges and headwinds? Sure. Are there some things that are going spectacularly well that people didn't predict?

Even 18 months ago nobody would have predicted. And I wouldn't have been brave enough to assert that we could get... more home battery capacity in Australia in a year than the United States has installed in history. I would not have come here and made that prediction or claim.

But we've managed it. And those are the sorts of things that we can keep doing and give Australia the best possible chance, not only of meeting those targets, which is for emissions. But also delivers the most reliable and the lowest cost energy system that we could possibly have in 2030.

TOM CONNELL: ROMY STEPHENS: TOM CONNELL: Next question, Reuben Spargo from News 24. REUBEN SPARGO: Okay. Minister, thank you.

Gina Rinehart and yourself differ on a... You nearly, they spat your water out. CHRIS BOWEN: REUBEN SPARGO: Gina Rinehart and yourself differ on a...

CHRIS BOWEN: You're going very well so far, yes. REUBEN SPARGO: You differ on a range of issues, including net zero, which she opposes. You've had issues with her dating back to Roy Hill in 2012.

I'm wondering what you make of the national broadcaster's video depicting violence against her. Should it be removed from iView? and is an apology worthwhile? CHRIS BOWEN : So, you're right, I have very different, very strong differences of views with Mrs Rinehart about many things, most particularly climate change.

I believe in it. I believe it's real. That's a key difference, and I believe we should do something about it.

I haven't seen the clip that you're referring to. It's not a show that not a show that I watch. But I've read the reports, and if the reports I've read are right, which I assume they are, then it is not appropriate.

It should not have aired. And the ABC should take appropriate action. But, you know, no Australian, even an Australian I profoundly disagree with, like Mrs Rinehart, should be subject to that sort of commentary.

REUBEN SPARGO: Should the ABC apologise? CHRIS BOWEN: Well, again, they should take appropriate action up to and including considering the message they should send to Mrs Rinehart. Now I'm not on the board of the ABC the Minister of Communications isn't even on the board of the ABC but we're a, you know, I believe in decent respectful debate and civil discourse and that was not that and if the clip was as I read it is then yes, I would expect an apology.

REUBEN SPARGO: TOM CONNELL: Andrew Probyn from the Nine Network. ANDREW PROBYN: Minister, my question is about targets, but on a slightly different subject. You still have the scars and bruises of a former immigration minister.

Tony Burke was meant to arrive here tomorrow. Sounds like he had a cracking Cabinet meeting on Monday. I'm wondering, why is it...

CHRIS BOWEN: Every Cabinet meeting is cracking. ANDREW PROBYN: Yep, sure. This one was particularly good, I hear.

Why is it that the government has consistently failed to hit your targets of 225,000 a year? CHRIS BOWEN: Look, Andrew, firstly, I'm not going to reveal, no journalist in this room or in this country has ever successfully got me to talk about a Cabinet meeting and I'm not about to start now. ANDREW PROBYN: I'm not asking that.

CHRIS BOWEN: No, but I just put that, you know, clearly on the record. Secondly, what Minister Burke is dealing with, and you're right, I have some experience in this matter, ministers for immigration don't always have direct levers. I mean, some of our, quite a lot of our immigration programme is demand-driven.

If a business needs a temporary skilled worker, is something which automatically happens. And there's things in the total net migration figures to Australia like Australian residents returning home, as they're perfectly entitled to do. So, Tony's all across this.

He’s making good progress. He will have more to say when he’s worked those issues through. He’s doing a fantastic job against the face of, you know, quite remarkable populist statements from the opposition who know the truth and choose not to engage in the truth.

ANDREW PROBYN: Do you think there’s been abuse in the system on family reunion and so on? CHRIS BOWEN: Well, as also an MP from Western Sydney, with a deeply successful multicultural community, I know that family reunion is also very important for our country, bringing parents to Australia, for example. Bringing loved ones who then go on and contribute huge amounts.

Now, every program will have elements where you need to ensure compliance, of course. But the family reunion program is a very important one and a very successful one. TOM CONNELL: Ellen Ransley from the Courier Mail.

ELLEN RANSLEY: Thanks, Minister, another policy in your portfolio you’re facing pushback from, from the Queensland Government is the gas reservation policy. In their submission last month, they called for the policy to be reworked. They say that Queensland stands to lose because of the impact it will have to the royalty program.

What are you doing to address Queensland’s concerns? Would something like a GST sweetener, for example, be on the cards as Queensland has called for? CHRIS BOWEN: Well, as I said, thanks for the question, Ellen.

In one sense, this is a complicated policy area, because it’s legal technical. And also, frankly, this would have been better done 20 years ago. The 2nd best time is now.

So, what we’re doing is retrofitting a policy that should happened 20 years ago. But it has to happen now. As I said, I think Australian people scratch their head and say, how could we be one of the world’s largest gas producers and have these regular gas shortages forecast?

And they’re right. And we’ll fix that. And, you know, governments of both persuasions have had to come along with ad hoc measures to try and get through in the short term.

Well, Madeleine King, working with Tim Ayres, have tried to do is get rid of all that and have a consistent policy which applies across decades. Now, with all due respect, to Queensland, again, I’m very happy to work constructively with state governments, but their royalty regime is not the number one, two or three issue that the government is trying to fix here.

The government is trying to fix the situation where Australian heavy industry doesn’t have access, or has forecast gas shortages. That’s not okay. And maybe we’re more concerned about that than Queensland Government is.

But we are concerned about. TOM CONNELL: James Mayger from Bloomberg. JAMES MAYGER: I have 2 questions, but I promise I won’t follow up, so if that’s okay.

The 1st question is, on the role of gas in powering data centres, the Northern Territory Government announced that they were looking at the, you know, massive, data centre power by the gas in the Beetaloo Basin. What is the role of gas in providing power for future data centres, or current data centres, and will it be part of their requirements? Can they use gas as part of their requirements to provide firming power?

The second question is, Australian consumers, as you say, are responding to higher gas prices, petrol for prices by reducing petrol purchases. Purchases are down, you know, every year of regular petrol. They were very low through May this year.

But diesel is still rising, and I think diesel sales through May were the 2nd highest in volume, in history. Does more need to be done to encourage farmers, businesses, you know, trucking companies, mining companies, to reduce diesel usage in the way that consumers are reducing petrol usage? CHRIS BOWEN: Okay.

Thanks for your question. Firstly, in relation to gas and data centres. My approach here is, I think, If could say, sensible and centrist, like my approach to gas generally.

Gas has got a role to play, it’s not the answer to all our problems. It’s got to role to play nor is it, nor can it be gotten rid of immediately or suddenly? It supports renewables.

You know, properly designed system. That’s my view generally. You know, gas-fired power stations, I hope, are not turned on very often.

But when they’re turned on, you need them. And that’s a virtue of gas. Very flexible in our energy system.

So yes, our requirements are very clear that data centres must bring their own additional renewables. If they have sensible firming arrangements, with gas as part of that. That’s fine.

I don’t envisage it being needed very often. That’s the good news. But it’ll be important when it is needed.

So I think that’s particularly common-sense approach that gas can be included but must support a clear commitment to new additional 100% renewables. In relation to your question about diesel, um, Australians are, you know, reducing their liquid fuel use. Absolutely.

We’re seeing some of that starting to play out. It’s early days. And even with a very big increase in EV sales that we’re experiencing, it will take quite a while before that to flow through to petrol and diesel use in Australia in a huge way because there’s a difference between stock and flow.

You know, the flow of new EVs is very high, but it’ll take quite a while until the percentages of the total fleet increases. But in relation to heavy industry, yes, we do need to encourage people to continue their decarbonisation efforts. And our safeguard reforms are expected to save 18 billion litres of diesel between now and 2035. 18 billion litres.

And that’s over 190 days of diesel supply. So I would argue we are doing that and we’ll keep doing it. TOM CONNELL: Is the diesel rebate still fit for purpose?

CHRIS BOWEN: Are we have no plans to change it. TOM CONNELL: We’ve heard no plans before. CHRIS BOWEN: Well, that’s a good phrase.

Because that’s, because that is the situation. TOM CONNELL: Peter Hobson from Reuters. PETER HOBSON: I want to ask also about these proposed data centres in the Northern Territory that the developers want to use gas as a source of their electricity.

Are you saying that they’re essentially dead in the water as proposed? You will make sure that they do not happen. That’s question one.

And then is there a kind of minimum level of renewables that you would insist upon? You’ve just acknowledged that gas might have a role in powering a data centre? Is there a maximum that gas could account for, you know, 5%, 10%, a minimum that renewables would?

CHRIS BOWEN: Let me put it this way because I don’t want to be sort of— appear as too antagonistic toward the Northern Territory Government, but I just state factual statement. If a data centre is proposed to only use gas, it will not meet the minimum national standards and it won’t be allowed to register, and it will not be able to proceed. So it’s a statement of facts.

That’s what, that’s what the majority of Australian jurisdictions think should happen. Minus two. It’s what the Commonwealth thinks should happen.

And that’s what our legislation will ensure. And will apply across the country. PETER HOBSON: Even if new legislation is required to make that happen?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, we think it is required, and we will do it. I think that’s the message. You know, Prime Minister announced legislation some weeks ago.

And I provided a bit more detail around that today, about what it will entail. Now in relation to gas, as I said, we require that new data centres to be powered by renewals, and new renewables, not renewables that was going to be built anyway. New renewables.

We do recognise a role for gas in the backup, in the firming options. I think that’s pretty sensible. Again, I don’t think it’ll be called on very often.

And the beauty of a gas-fired power station is that when it’s turned off, it’s 0 emissions. And they can be turned off for a long time. I mean, there are gas-fired power stations in Australia that are only turned on a couple of days a year.

You can’t do that with coal. Can’t do that with nuclear. You can do that with gas.

And that’s why it’s appropriate form for firming and peaking and back up. PETER HOBSON: So any data centre that says, “Hey, we’re going to use 10% coal fired, gas fired – CHRIS BOWEN: The requirement are renewable energy and then sensible firming arrangements. TOM CONNELL: Caitlyn Rintoul from the West Australian.

CAITLYN RINTOUL: Thanks for your address, Minister. Back in March, you appointed the fuel supply coordinator Anthea Harris. It’s a gig that came with a $16,000 a week paycheque.

Um, how much total compensation has been paid for that position? How long has the contract extended for? And are you satisfied with the approach we took?

How can we prevent and do you have confidence in preventing fuel distribution bottlenecks in the future, particularly in industries like mining, transport, and agriculture? CHRIS BOWEN: Well, let me work back in the question. Firstly, I do have confidence because we’ve done a lot as a country over the last few months.

And I’m not going to pretend that it hasn’t been — it’s been easy. I mean, this is a, this is a serious fuel crisis internationally, which came our way, like, I had the view that a calm, sensible, rational approach would see the country through. When, you know, politicians were demanding rationing, when experts, I read the newspapers, were saying rationing was inevitable.

I remember reading that rationing was inevitable after Easter. It’s after Easter. They haven’t needed rationing.

Why? Because industry and government have worked together. And the chief Executive of Vivia is here today.

I mean he and I have been, have got to know each other very, very well over the last few months. Daily phone calls are often, because we’re working as one in a team Australia moment. And, you know, I see some criticism of the government today saying we had too much fuel in Australia because of our policies.

I would take that criticism. I will own that criticism in the light of what we were dealing with in the last few months. You know, if you said to me on the 28th of February, you know, a few months time, you’ll be criticised for bringing too much fuel into Australia.

I’ll go, that’s okay. Because the policies have worked. And that’s not been easy.

It’s been governments and industry working together. In relation to Ms Harris, she’s actually employed by the Prime Minister’s department. So I’m not a position to answer those questions.

I welcomed her appointment. It was of assistance in working particularly with the states on, you know, some of the detailed matters, particularly as we were preparing for any number of eventualities. And states have lots of levers and a lot of that works through at the officials’ level.

Again, I, particularly at the height of the crisis, was talking to state ministers every day, often several times a day. But at the officials' level, it was useful to have clear lines of communication between the central agency of government, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and her equivalents at the state level. And it played a role, just along with everything else we did, ensuring that Australia could get through this crisis.

TOM CONNELL: Next question, Anna Henderson from SBS. ANNA HENDERSON: Thanks for your time, Minister. Anna Henderson from SBS World News.

Pre-COP has been shaped as sort of agenda setting for Cop31, strengthening Australia's clout as president of negotiations come November in Turkey. But how much is COP and its ultimate outcomes for the Pacific being set up to fail if there are next to no world leaders attending? And in hindsight, do you regret agreeing to support such a high-stakes meeting in such a geographically difficult location?

CHRIS BOWEN: No. Firstly, I talked about the issue, the seriousness and importance of COP for the Pacific, for our Pacific family, which is so important for this government and so important for the country. We've turned around the relationship with the Pacific compared to what we inherited.

And no small part of that has been climate change generally and the COP bid and the COP negotiations president specifically. I’ve hosted Pacific Islands climate meetings in Australia on several occasions. Sometimes I've been criticised for that.

I make no apologies. It's the right thing to do in our area to work so closely with our friends and colleagues. On pre COP in particular, there's three important waypoints in the lead-up to COP31 in Antalya.

There's Palau, the PIF leaders' summit, which will have a leaders' component, that's important. There's the pre-cop, which is important, and there's a segment in Tuvalu, which is the segment you refer to. Here's the thing.

Tuvalu is the least visited country in the world. Of all the nations in the world, the fewest people go to Tuvalu. I'll go on a limb and say I'm probably one of, if not the only person in this room who's been to Tuvalu.

I've stood at the most narrow point of Tuvalu and seen the impact of rising seas. Some people deny it. We know it's real. and the very existence of these countries is at stake.

So, if we can bring an element of the COP process to the Pacific and to Tuvalu, with some element of senior representation, which we'll then use to highlight the issues of countries, low-lying Atoll countries like Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands and others, to the world's stage, that's a good thing. Now, we haven't announced who's coming. ANNA HENDERSON: Are any world leaders coming?

CHRIS BOWEN: Well, we haven't announced who's coming. But a pre-cop is generally not a world leader event. We've indicated we want to lift profile.

We want to get more senior people there. That's 100% true. It's generally not an event that sometimes even ministers go to.

But we want to use it to elevate the Pacific's issues. And regardless of the guest list, which we'll have more to say about closer. I believe we'll be successful in doing so, and that's very important.

ANNA HENDERSON: Just to be clear, you said in November on the PM programme on ABC it would enable you to invite world leaders to make sure the issues were front and centre. So are you disappointed you're not getting the RSVPs? CHRIS BOWEN: Well, I understand your question and I appreciate it.

There's someway to go between October. I can assure you, pre-COP, including the Tuvalu section, will be very important to elevating the issues of the Pacific. This is something that took care in Australia working closely.

My friend and colleague, Minister Kurum, is coming to Fiji and to Tuvalu. That will be very important to have both myself as President of COP negotiations and Murat, as President of COP31, there. We'll have other senior representation.

It'll be important. It'll be key, an unparalleled opportunity to raise the issues of the Pacific. I've been to several COPs.

The issues of the Pacific have not been front and centre. That's the unvarnished truth. We think at least at this COP they should be and they will be.

ANNA HENDERSON: TOM CONNELL: Next question, Josh Butler from The Guardian. JOSH BUTLER: Thanks. Minister for your address, oops stood on the microphone there.

Thanks for your address. I also want to ask about the data centres. Your Queensland colleague, after the last Energy Ministers meeting, said, we will not support underdeveloped ideas that hand increased power to Canberra at the expense of Queenslanders on that renewables issue.

How do you think your colleagues in Queensland and the NT will react when you put through this legislation that would essentially override what their state's position is? And I guess more broadly, data centre industry is saying they need certainty for this investment. You know, you've got states, some states, like you say, two, state and territory’s saying one thing, federal government, other states saying another thing.

This legislation might not be through until early, mid next year. Is that, are you concerned that's a disincentive for some of this large investment? CHRIS BOWEN: No, I think they'll disagree.

You asked me what I think their reaction will be. I think they'll disagree. They've already disagreed with us.

Not every minister is going to agree about everything all the time. We have a difference of view. We think the data centre investment in Australia, which we welcome, must be in our national interest, in the interest of bill payers and consumers.

I think most Queenslanders would agree with that. I think most Queenslanders would say, if there's some data centre investment in Australia, that's not a bad thing, but make sure it works in our national interest. Now, so far, most of the pipeline is not in Queensland.

So far, most of the pipeline is in Sydney and Melbourne, to be frank. But we want Queensland to be part of it, I've been very clear. We will legislate as a Commonwealth.

The Constitution is clear about the power of Commonwealth legislation. I respectfully disagree with Queensland and the Northern Territory, and I think bill payers would agree with the Commonwealth. And to your question about certainty, the best way of ensuring certainty is clear, consistent Commonwealth legislation.

TOM CONNELL: Melissa Coade from The Mandarin. MELISSA COADE: Hi Minister, Melissa Coade from The Mandarin. Building and running an energy system is fundamentally different to administering a market surrounding one.

At the recent conference, Labor endorsed a larger role for public construction and ownership of energy assets. What does the Commonwealth need to do to rebuild capacity to deliver on this policy direction? CHRIS BOWEN: Well, firstly, yes, the National Conference reinforced the role of what we see as a public sector.

I think there's other parts of that resolution which made clear it wouldn’t crowd out private sector investment but would be calibrated to crowd in more investment as I think you know it's happening at various state levels it's happening at the Commonwealth level with the CEFC and Snowy our two primary investment mechanisms in new renewal generation and they'll continue in that and we'll always look for opportunities for Snowy and CEFC in particular alongside our other important agencies to help crowd in investment.

To your question about capability well I mean I’ve got to say in my four years as Minister, I've been extraordinarily well served by a first-class department, created from scratch, as you know you don't create a new department of state every day as I understand it's happened twice uh in recent decades and both times has been a department of climate change and energy uh we just we created a new department of state you know there are MOG changes, machinery of government changes after every election but actually a brand new department of state from scratch is pretty rare.

We've done that and under secretaries Fredericks and Kaiser that capability has been lifted and they had played an important role. Together with our other expert agencies, I mean, the CEFC and ARENA are world-class agencies. They're internationally respected.

AEMO is regarded as one of, if not the best market operator in the world. Snowy is doing a very difficult job and doing it well. So, I think we are well served as a country.

Can we always invest more in capabilities? Sure. But I wouldn't let this opportunity go without shouting out the fact that the progress the country's made over the last policy, you'd expect to say, very important.

But a government alone, a minister alone, can't do it all. We've been particularly well served, the country has, by our expertise in the Commonwealth Government. TOM CONNELL: Next question, Michael de Percy from The Spectator Australia.

MICHAEL DE PERCY: Thanks Tom. Thank you, Mr. Bowen.

You wrote on Facebook that wholesale electricity prices have fallen 47% in the last 12 months. Yet in many cases, retail supply charges have actually increased, and time of use windows have changed, making any consumer price changes minimal and less transparent. Minister, who is actually benefiting from the halving of wholesale electricity prices?

CHRIS BOWEN: It'll take time for those wholesale price falls to fully pass through the Australian people and we need to keep them going. And yes, you know, some companies have increased their fixed charges as they reduce their kilowatt hour charge now, for many consumers, still see reductions because their energy use is higher than their fixed charge, but not for all.

As you know, I wrote to the Australian Energy Regulator and the ACCC to ensure that the rules were properly being followed. And, you know, those investigations, I'm sure, have been very important. We are seeing more Australians benefit, some through the solar share offer, some through cheaper home batteries, and wholesale prices falling.

Now, if you're asking me, you know, is wholesale prices enough? No, it's not. But a wholesale price falls the absolute essential starting point.

Absolutely. I mean, tell me how we're going to see retail prices come down if wholesale prices aren't coming down. They're not.

Our policies see wholesale prices coming down. The alternative would see them going up because they'd have less of the cheapest form of energy, renewable, more of the most expensive form of energy and most unreliable in Australia at the moment, coal, with some sort of fantasy plan for nuclear, which is the most expensive form of energy available in the world and the slowest to roll out.

That is not the answer. The answer is to keep on going with the policies that have had some success in reducing wholesale prices, more to to do to see it flow through to Australians? You betcha.

And we'll do that. MICHAEL DE PERCY: But given the amount of investment, public investment in the energy infrastructure, at what point would you consider regulating for return of investment, like under the old state models? CHRIS BOWEN: Well, there are regulations that applies to some of the players in our energy system, the regulated monopolies.

That's quite appropriate. Am I planning to extend that? No.

Have we worked to ensure that the rules operate much more in the interest of consumers by abolishing price rises and ensuring the most vulnerable customers in particular are put on the cheapest rates. Yes. Will we continue to do those sorts of things?

Sure. Absolutely. MICHAEL DE PERCY: TOM CONNELL: Do you see a fundamental unfairness that someone with solar panels pays less for the service charges than someone without, even though they both need the poles and wires and so on sitting there?

CHRIS BOWEN: Look, I mean, those people who've invested in their own consumer energy resources have also invested, you know, off their own account. So they're helping the grid as well by this. By the same token, they're reducing the prices for everyone else as well.

So I think you've got to see it as a holistic question. TOM CONNELL: Joseph Olbrycht-Palmer from News Corp. JOSEPH OLBRYCHT-PALMER: Thanks, Minister, for your address.

Just on pre-Cop, diplomats have told me that really the reason they're not looking to send leaders is because communication about what's actually on the agenda hasn't really been communicated to clearly. They're basically worried that it won't be a summit of substance. You identify just how important climate is for our Pacific neighbours who are on the front lines of the crisis.

If COP is, if this pre-COP is just a show, will it really advance our diplomatic goals in the region? CHRIS BOWEN: Well, it's not just a show. That's the answer.

It's a, in all seriousness, we will ensure, working with Türkiye, and we're utterly on the same page. This is a COP of substantial outcomes. Now, not the answer to all the world's problems, but a substantial step forward.

Now, in relation to the Pacific, you know, as I said, we've hosted the Pacific ministers as recently as, I think, two weeks ago in Sydney. Talked about the pre-COP agenda and what we'll do to make progress on the issues of access to finance for them. There's now quite a lot of climate finance available and adaptation finance available around the world, but small island developing states struggle to get it.

So we're going to see progress there. We want to see the issue of oceans more deeply integrated into the COP process. That's of vital importance to the Pacific.

So these are the sorts of issues that without the approach we're taking, Australia, Türkiye and the Pacific working together, which in my time in COPs have not been at the top of the agenda. Far from it. And I understand why, because every COP presidency has its own priorities.

And these have not been the priorities of those COP presidencies that have come before us, before Türkiye and Australia. This has been very important for our diplomatic relations across the Pacific already. The bid and having such deep, engagement with the Pacific countries on the COP process, the fact that, you know, I've hosted the Pacific climate ministers in Australia so often.

We have a Pacific climate minister's WhatsApp group, which is very active. This didn't happen under the previous government. And, you know, when you add that to the progress we've made in our treaties and unions, in alliances, PNG, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, Fiji.

This doesn't happen by accident. And it's all part of the same journey and the same national mission. And if you think the Australian government would say, listen, we'd like to have these alliances and treaties with you and we don't want you to do them with other countries, but by the way, we don't care about your most existential issue.

We're not going to do more on climate change. That is not going to be a successful conversation. And I don't think our political opponents have quite thought that through.

That's the approach they tried for 10 years and it didn't work. They didn't get sorts of alliances, treaties and arrangements we've successfully negotiated with so many Pacific countries for a reason. You can't ignore the Pacific on such a fundamental issue as climate change and expect to be their diplomatic partner of choice.

JOSEPH OLBRYCHT-PALMER : Are you not concerned that lack of leaders attending? CHRIS BOWEN: Well, as I said, the pre-COP is in October. It'll be a successful pre-COP.

It's not successful just because the invitation list, who's there, is important, but the agenda is also important. How we use it to elevate issues of the Pacific to the world stage is vital as well. JOSEPH O’BROCK-PALMER: TOM CONNELL : Squeeze in Noah Secomb from AAP.

NOAH SECOMB: Thank you. Hopefully it's quick and good. One of the announcements...

CHRIS BOWEN: That's up to you, mate. NOAH SECOMB: One of the announcements we've seen in recent days was a $30 million grant programme for grid sustainability into the future. And looking at innovations in Australia, talking about batteries on...

CHRIS BOWEN: We're talking about the Grid Enhancing Technologies programme. CHRIS BOWEN: Yes. Looking at this funding and what they're aiming to achieve, has this come in time to actually combat to reach the emissions targets of 2035?

Or are these for long-term 2050 targets? Well, I think some of the things in there could well play a role over the next decade. Some of them, you know, they need support because they're early-stage technologies.

I will say this, Noah, that programme took longer to roll out than I would of liked, only because it was so massively oversubscribed. We had so many more applications for that programme of great technologies, most of which could have been successfully funded, you know, would have been worthy, but of course that's not how a budgeted programme works. You've got to find the most worthy, and that took us some time.

But I see that as a sign of strength, that there's so much good innovation and thinking and entrepreneurship going on about how we use the grid better and smarter, in Australia. And some of it might avoid future transmission or distribution lines being necessary if you use the existing grid smarter. If you take the revolution in EVs to its maximum potential, you know, every EV is a battery on wheels.

And many Australians want to turn that battery on wheels into something which will help them power their homes and the grid. And we're making some progress on that. You know, our vehicle-to-grid programme is hugely popular with households.

It's small, early days, but hugely popular. That shows, again, to the substance of my speech, that Australian households are on this journey. They are enthusiastically embracing it.

Despite all the the noise and the denial, they're just getting on with it. And the sorts of programmes that are funded under the Grid Enhancing Technologies Program yeah, I hope and expect some of them will play a role in helping us by 2035. NOAH SECOMB: TOM CONNELL: A nod to the people you mentioned in Tarneit, Werribee, Kellyville, you say they're taking up schemes including EVs.

Plenty in those areas are still driving around internal combustion engines, and they'd be saying, we're paying the full excise again now, EV users are not paying for roads. We've heard Jim Chalmers say it's an idea whose time has come, a road user charge. It was expected perhaps it would be in the last budget.

Will it be in place by the next budget? CHRIS BOWEN: Well, Tom, my view about a road user charge has been consistent all the way through, same as my public comments. I think a road user charge, is something that Australia should be working towards.

It's got to be done right. It's got to be done carefully. That includes timing.

It's a very big undertaking. It should not be rushed. unnecessarily. The Treasurer and I are of one mind on that.

That's why it wasn't in the budget, wasn't in the budget because it needs more work. It's a conversation that we'll continue to have. I haven't found anyone who really disagrees with that.

No one in the EV industry says we oppose a road user charge ever. They say do it right, plan it well, get all the designs right and when the time is right it'll be an important part of ensuring that the transport revolution in Australia which is you know, it can't be turned back, despite the best wishes of some in Canberra, in Parliament House. It can't be turned back because Australian people are well on the journey.

We've got to make sure it works. And part of that is a sensible, longer-term discussion about the impacts on government revenue, state and federal, including the road user charge. It's important it happens, but it's important it be done right.

It's important it's not rushed in a way which threatens getting it right. TOM CONNELL: We've gone a little over. I went for forgiveness rather than permission on that.

But thank you for extending the questions to the press pack. Ladies and gentlemen, please thank the Minister, Chris Bowen. We acknowledge the Traditional Owners of country throughout Australia and recognise their continuing connection to land, waters and culture.

We pay our respects to their Elders past, present and emerging.