MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Dr MULINO (Fraser—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services) (15:24): The last election offered a stark choice in a range of areas: health, economic management, infrastructure. But nowhere was that choice more clear and more stark than when it came to energy and climate change. The two offerings at the last election saw one side offering a commitment to net zero, to a medium-term target and to a range of policies to help our economy move towards lower emissions with a range of price signals and investments, and with compensation—rebates for households and small businesses doing it tough.

The other side offered an ill-defined and poorly researched nuclear policy, all on the government's book—$600 billion, all publicly funded—very unclear and speculative as to technology, very unclear as to sites and with no compensation. So the choice was clear. What's remarkable is that, since the election, the choice has become even more stark.

Since the election, it seems that those opposite now even question a commitment to net zero, or they're unsure about it. Since the election, we've seen people go from the front bench to the back bench over this issue. Since the election, we've seen a former deputy prime minister, indeed, threatening to leave one of the coalition parties over this issue.

So, since the election, I would say, the choice is even more stark. Well, let's get to the nub of this motion. Let's get to the nub of the issue: when it comes to households and small businesses, who is better placed to manage electricity prices and the pressure they place on households and business, and who is better placed to manage the transition of those prices?

Let's look at the modelling by Treasury, by the AEMC, by business—right across the board. Let's look at the fact that all the modelling says that what is better for prices is policies that provide certainty for business to make the investment we need for the transition. What is crystal clear is that the modelling shows that it is better to have an orderly transition than a disorderly transition.

What is crystal clear is that it is better to have policies that enable a transition right across the economy rather than a rushed transition done in an ad hoc way. Now, let me be very specific about some modelling which was released very recently which makes this contrast particularly stark. It was Treasury modelling which looked at two orderly transitions and one disorderly transition.

I want to be clear about that term 'disorderly'. It doesn't mean a transition by a disorderly opposition. It's a disorderly transition, but, in effect, it's the same thing.

It's a transition which doesn't have an end point and doesn't have a clear path along the way. Firstly, let's look at the modelling and what it says about an orderly transition. The modelling says that with an orderly transition, where you're sending price signals and where you have investment, wages go up, jobs go up and living standards go up.

Australia is the beneficiary of the transition we need to have to reach net zero by 2050. Along the way, we see Australia benefit from cheaper and cleaner energy. There is a clear, credible path.

Critically, when you have that clear, credible path—you have investment signals being sent by policies that have a long-run horizon—you get business investing. Businesses have said right throughout the last decade as this issue has been debated across this chamber that one thing they need for investment decisions is certainty. They need long-term certainty in order to be able to make those investment decisions with confidence.

So that's what the modelling says in relation to an orderly transition. What about a disorderly transition? What does a disorderly transition mean?

A disorderly transition means that you don't set a medium-term target, you don't take action in a timely way and you don't adopt the kinds of policies that this government has adopted, such as a capacity investment scheme, the safeguard mechanism, sending messages to business and investing in home batteries and electric vehicles. Tick all of those for the opposition.

We are very much in disorderly transition territory when it comes to what the opposition is offering the Australian community. What we see with a disorderly transition is that, not surprisingly, energy prices spike in the 2040s as the Australian nation, economy and society suffer from inaction. This is exactly what we saw, by the way, during the decade they were in power—almost a decade of inaction, almost a decade of no coherent framework when it came to dealing with this very difficult and complex issue.

So let's look at the modelling and what it says about a disorderly transition, which is what those opposite are offering, versus the renewables export upside scenario, which was one of the two orderly transitions: an economy which by 2050 is $2 trillion smaller, where wholesale electricity prices are 50 per cent higher in the 2040s because we are taking action late and in an uncoordinated way, and where GPD per capita is $4,500 less.

That is the choice being offered between the government and the opposition. So, if those opposite want to have a debate about prices, they need to make clear to the Australian people why it is that a disorderly transition is in their interests. They need to make clear why it is that waiting till the last minute makes sense for the Australian public, when clearly it doesn't and all of the modelling says that.

But, in fact, we might be in a situation where those opposite are offering something even worse than a disorderly transition. The other scenario—which the Treasury modelling pointed to but didn't explicitly model—was abandoning net zero, and that seems to be something which a number of those opposite want to have on the agenda. That seems to be something which is all too often featuring in leaks that we read about in the papers or comments from those disgruntled about what they saw from the election.

Abandoning net zero, not surprisingly, would lead to even worse outcomes than the disorderly transition. It would lead to fewer jobs, less growth and higher electricity prices. But, of course, what abandoning net zero also means is even worse outcomes for the environment.

It means even worse outcomes for our planet and for our society. This is the choice that is being offered. Those opposite want to talk about prices, but all of the modelling is very clear that the best way to manage prices along the transition to net zero is to be as clear as possible about the end point—and we legislated that; those opposite fought all along the way, but we legislated that—to have clear medium-term targets along the way and to have a raft of policies that gets you there.

As I've alluded to, we have clear end points. We have a range of policies that help the economy transition, including the Capacity Investment Scheme, which will lead to significant uptake in generation across a range of renewable technologies. We have the safeguard mechanism, which sends clear market signals across the economy so that abatement is achieved in a way that is spread widely across industries.

It sends price signals so that abatement occurs in least-cost ways. We also have a range of areas where the government is leaning into particular sectors—for example, home batteries, which have been taken up by so many thousands of households. From 1 July, the Commonwealth's Cheaper Home Batteries Program came into effect, providing an upfront discount of 30 per cent on the cost of batteries.

We've already seen tens of thousands of houses take advantage of this, which clearly complements a range of other renewables measures such as solar energy. Then there's compensation, another clear area of difference between our parties. We went to the last election with a policy of a $150 rebate, an important measure for households.

Over 10 million households and around one million small businesses will receive an additional $150 rebate on their bills from July 2025. This adds to rebate measures which our government put into place last term and which those opposite fought tooth and nail every step of the way—and then they raised questions about the inadequacy of our dealing with cost-of-living pressures.

In this matter of public importance today, what we find is an opposition that is raising an important, complex issue in, frankly, a disingenuous way. Those opposite are offering the Australian people something they claim is simple—and maybe it is simple—but clearly won't work. All of the modelling says that—the modelling by Treasury, by the independent regulators and by business.

We need to have clear targets, clear signals and a transition that works for abatement and for our economy.