QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Mr BOWEN (McMahon—Minister for Climate Change and Energy) (14:31): I thank the honourable member for his question, but I disagree with the premise, just as I disagree with him that climate change isn't primarily caused by human activity. I disagree on a number of fronts with the member for Flynn. He has mischaracterised the government's approach to energy policy, because our energy policy does support renewable energy, backed by storage and backed by transmission.
There is a certain irony to the opposition asking about the future of industry under this government's energy policy, because it wasn't that long ago that those opposite went to the election—they went to the Australian people—with an alternative energy plan that involved a heavy reliance on nuclear energy. The opposition, under the stewardship of the now shadow treasurer, told the Australian people that their plan was 44 per cent cheaper.
When you looked at their plan, it was 44 per cent cheaper only because it assumed 40 per cent less energy use across Australia. How would you possibly get to 40 per cent less energy use in Australia? There's only one way, and that is to assume there is no heavy industry in Australia, because that is a big part of our industrial use.
Their modelling, which the member for Fairfax masterminded— The SPEAKER: I'd like to hear from the member for Wannon on a point of order. Mr Tehan: It was an incredibly important question about jobs, and I would ask the minister to be relevant to the question. The SPEAKER: The minister wasn't asked about anything the opposition had done.
He can compare and contrast, and he's done that. So the remainder of his answer won't be about what the opposition or the former shadow minister has done, because he wasn't asked about that. He will need to be directly relevant.
If he's talking about opposition policies, he'll need to make that directly relevant to the question he was asked, which was about the jobs in the member's electorate. Mr BOWEN: It is clear and it is true that there is an alternative before the Australian people. Under this government, I can guarantee that we will ensure that energy policy is designed to ensure the supply of cheap and reliable energy not only for Australia's households, which I'll get to later in question time perhaps, but for Australia's heavy industry.
When we went to the election, we did not promise or assume that our energy use in Australia would halve from 45.9 terawatt hours to 23.3 terawatt hours. We did not assume that that halving of energy use in heavy industry would occur. The Tomago smelter uses 8.3 terawatt hours of electricity.
The only way you could achieve the outcomes promised by those opposite would be to assume the closure of the Tomago smelter and the aluminium industry in the electorate of Flynn. That's the only way they could make their sums add up. That is not our approach.
We will ensure a future for Australian industry, while those opposite assume it will disappear to justify their policy fantasies.