Coalition won’t abandon nuclear policy if it loses
What would the Coalition do on its nuclear policy if it loses the next election?
O’Brien is asked if the Coalition would take a rejection at the polls as a rejection of its nuclear policy, but he says that’s a “wild hypothetical”. He backs the policy in and says there’s “no intention” of changing tack – even if it’s an additional three years before they get to make a move on it.
We have no intention of changing our view on that. We’ll have to focus always on what is right for Australia.
Australia is already behind the eight ball when it comes to zero emissions nuclear energy. The sooner we get going the better … we can’t delay, we need to get on with it and remember it’s not just about nuclear, it’s working and just working as a balanced mix.
Key events
Littleproud calls fears Coalition regional future fund could be used for rorts ‘puerile’
The Nationals leader, David Littleproud, says accusations the Coalition’s would spend all the money in the regional future fund and that it would be a recipe for rorts is “puerile”.
Littleproud is on the wombat trail (it’s what we call the election trail for the Nationals party who travel across the regions), and he stood up a short time ago with Bridget McKenzie.
Littleproud got defensive when asked a similar question by Sabra Lane on ABC AM, because he said this future fund would operate in a similar way to the building better regions fund that operated under the previous government. The auditor general found some serious issues in the way that fund was administered.
Now, he goes on the attack, blaming the treasurer, Jim Chalmers.
They’re [the accusations are] puerile. Jim [Chalmers] is not the most economically literate bloke I have met.
What I will spend is the return. So, Jim, what happens is, you set this money aside. You make that return, the 7.68% that allows you to spend that, Jim. We you’re not going in to spend $20bn.
Energy debate ends as Bowen urges voters to ‘stay the course’ of renewable energy transition
The debate ends in a similar way to how it started: Bowen says in his closing argument that Labor has put more renewables into the grid than the former Liberal governments did in a decade.
He implores voters to “stay the course” with the renewable energy transition, which will be firmed by gas power.
I’m pleased with what we have done, but not satisfied. We have a lot more to do… under the last government 24 coal-fired power plants announce their closure dates but the LNP failed to plan for the future, they failed any replacement electricity… We need to stay the course, listen to the experts and that is what we would do if we get a second term.
O’Brien again attacks Labor for having a renewables only policy, and putting “all [their] eggs in one basket”.
He says the Coalition’s policy will be mean “cheaper, cleaner and consistent 24/7 power so that not just cost of living is eased, but our future is one that is rich and not poor”.
Bowen says national emissions targets do not take into account state targets but rather ‘the specific policies’ instead
Bowen is asked whether the Queensland government’s plan to review its emissions targets will have an impact on Australia’s national plan. He says national targets don’t take into account state targets, but they do consider the specific policies within those targets.
We don’t take into account those targets because it is not simply a matter of adding them up and coming up with a national target. What we do is look through the targets and consider the impact of policies at the state level and local level for that matter. And that feeds into the national target and we do that very carefully.
He says the government will look at the implications of any new policies, but that will be done in “the normal course of events”.
O’Brien won’t say if the Coalition would stay in or leave the Paris Agreement
Our colleague Dan Jervis-Bardy asks if the Coalition’s analysis of emissions targets (if they win government) comes back and says Australia won’t get to 43%: will the Coalition walk away from the Paris agreement?
O’Brien says a Coalition would focus on three things when coming up with their targets – the trajectory of emissions, state of the economy and their suite of policies. He leaves the door open to the Coalition walking away from the Paris agreement.
Once we have done that analysis, then we will be making decisions along the lines of that you pose, though I won’t be preempting that hypothetical today with all due respect … I can commit [that] we will always act in the national interest.
Bowen says he’s “disappointed” that O’Brien has left that door open:
I am disappointed to hear Ted’s answer because, in effect, he couldn’t confirm staying in Paris or leaving because [if you] change the 43% target you are leaving Paris.
Coalition won’t abandon nuclear policy if it loses
What would the Coalition do on its nuclear policy if it loses the next election?
O’Brien is asked if the Coalition would take a rejection at the polls as a rejection of its nuclear policy, but he says that’s a “wild hypothetical”. He backs the policy in and says there’s “no intention” of changing tack – even if it’s an additional three years before they get to make a move on it.
We have no intention of changing our view on that. We’ll have to focus always on what is right for Australia.
Australia is already behind the eight ball when it comes to zero emissions nuclear energy. The sooner we get going the better … we can’t delay, we need to get on with it and remember it’s not just about nuclear, it’s working and just working as a balanced mix.
The energy minister’s debate, through the lens
While the debate at the National Press Club rages on, why not take a look at how it’s playing out for the cameras?
Ministers spar over cost predictions
Bowen and O’Brien continue to spar over what cost impacts their policies will have. Bowen says that the Coalition’s modelling is cheaper because it anticipates 44% less demand in the system:
Only because it is 44% smaller. You could print a cheaper education system with 44% less students in 2050. It would not be accurate but you could do that and that is what you have done.
While O’Brien says there’s evidence of nuclear lowering power prices in other countries and jurisdictions.
When I sat down with a Japanese department, looking at their details, they say nuclear in the mix brings prices down. Ontario Canada brings prices down. What is it that Anthony Albanese and you know that the United States doesn’t know, Canada doesn’t know, Japan doesn’t know … ?
The next question goes to 2030 emissions targets
Bowen is asked whether, following his concession that their previous modelling by Reputex is no longer relevant, sticking to the 43% emissions reduction target is still appropriate.
Bowen says the government is still on track to meet the target, and the latest estimate – done independently – shows Australia will get to 42%.
43% is an appropriate level and there have been many people including friends outside who would say it should be higher. It is substantially higher than what could be achieved by the Coalition and I am proud of the fact that we have back on track to achieve that.
Meanwhile, the Coalition hasn’t yet said what its 2030 target would be, and O’Brien is asked whether a Coalition government would lower the target under Paris Agreement O’Brien says emissions haven’t moved despite what Bowen says:
They probably, hand on heart, believe they are saving the planet to when they came to office the Coalition had reduced emissions by 29% from 2005 levels. Do know what it is now? Around 29% … they have not budged. This is the problem. Emissions are not even going down.
But the substantive question is whether the Coalition would back away from the Paris agreement. O’Brien says they’ll commission “analysis” on those targets.
We will do the analysis and then we will work out what is going to be the impact of emissions reduction on families in Australia, on regional Australia and on businesses in Australia…
We will not be setting targets from opposition.
Statistical confusion at the energy debate
This is genuinely difficult to keep up with – both Bowen and O’Brien are talking over each other a lot.
We’re still on what both energy policies will do to prices. Even the host Tom Connell says, “frankly voters get pretty confused”.
O’Brien says the Coalition’s nuclear costings show prices will reduce by 25%, and the pair argue over whether the numbers reflect modelling that’s been done separately by the CSIRO (and there’s a lot more argument on that point).
Chinese menu v Chinese fortune cookies
Sorry, what?
We’re getting some interesting insults here today, with both parties throwing shade at the others’ modelling. Bowen says:
You mentioned opposition modelling which I think is generous term. This is the document. I’ve seen more detail in [a] Chinese menu.
O’Brien retorts:
This is coming from the minister whose own plan wouldn’t fit in a Chinese fortune cookie. If anything, that’s probably where it would belong because you crack it open and all it would be would be a slogan. No numbers, no plan, no modelling.
Look I have few words for what … that … was, but I’ll get to more of the substance in a moment.
