Back in 2022, just after the previous federal election, I think it’s fair to say that I predicted the tone of this one. I wrote that power prices were likely to go up under Labor’s first term government regardless of their policies, and that the Coalition would, in opposition, callously pin the blame on the Labor party and renewable energy.
It was not exactly a brave prediction, considering this has been a political tactic going back decades. That does make Labor’s decision to lean hard on the election bill promise of the last election somewhat strange, and they’re definitely paying a small price for that this time around.
It showed up clear as day during the most recent leaders debate, when Dutton claimed that:
“At the moment, the government’s energy policy, with this ‘renewables only’ energy policy, that’s the reason we’ve got 30% increases in food, because it’s not just your power bill that’s gone up, it’s the local farmer, it’s the local IGA store, it’s the storage, it’s the cartage, it’s the production of food right across the economy”.
And “we can’t pretend that, as the Prime Minister and Chris Bowen keep talking about, that wind is free and solar is free. If that were the case, why have you power bills gone up by $1,300 instead of down by $275?”.
Generously assuming he meant ‘food prices’ not food, this is absurd. The effect of renewable energy on electricity bills in Australia is to suppress wholesale prices, which sometimes flows through to consumer retail bills for households and businesses.
The key, singular cause of a massive surge in bills in Australia has been over-reliance on fossil gas – something Dutton wants more of. Very simply: a pro-fossil policy is greatest threat to the cost of living, and a clean energy policy is part of the cure for it. The reality is opposite to what Dutton is claiming.
It is also worth noting that part of the reason power bills haven’t fallen as projected is because Reputex’s original 2021 assumptions on renewable energy have been badly missed, during Labor’s first term.
It would be an awkward thing for Albanese to admit, but the problem here is not enough renewable energy, rather than too much.
Later, Dutton implies that countries with high nuclear shares see cheaper power: “We’re paying three times the cost of electricity in this country compared to other parts of the world that have nuclear underpinning renewables”.
As I included in an earlier post here, the IEA’s most recent report on power prices shows this up as a really, really shameless lie that, in some better world than this one, results in serious consequences for Dutton.
As you can see below, Australia has one of the lowest power prices of the countries list. France, comfortably the world’s leader in nuclear power share, sits close to the top of the comparison chart in terms of electricity costs:
Every single other region in the IEA’s comparison graphic there has contained at least some amount of nuclear power in its grid since 2018, with the exceptions of Iceland and Italy.
This doesn’t mean that nuclear power is, alone, causing high electricity prices, which are set by a complex mix of causes in different parts of the world.
But it does mean that Dutton’s claim is a really significant lie. This is a slight nitpick but he also claims nuclear in France is 70% – but it hasn’t been that high since 2019. After a dip in 2022 caused by reactor failures, it is climbing, but as of 2024 it’s at 68%.
The debate also featured an attempt from Dutton to justify the party’s nuclear modelling, which assumes significantly lower future energy demand than the preferred scenario used by the Labor party.
“Under our modelling, we don’t require the energy in the system because when you build a solar plant, when you build offshore wind, you need to overbuild it. This is a really important point. And again, it’s you know, it’s difficult to explain in a ten second soundbite. But the fact is that the reason we’re paying so much for our electricity now, the reason it’s three times the cost of other places in the world, is exactly as the prime Minister points out, at least in a moment of honesty. Their policy requires an overbuild of the system. Ours doesn’t. It’s a more efficient way to generate electricity.”
Dutton is parroting Shadow Energy Minister Ted O’Brien’s lines here, who at the energy leaders debate said “Because you’re comparing our plan – our plan, which is not to overbuild the grid, to Labor’s plan to overbuild the grid”.
Somehow it’s even more wrong that O’Brien’s claims. Dutton is (unsurprisingly) confused about power, energy and capacity. Whether or not generation and transmission lines are “overbuilt”, demand assumptions are demand assumptions.
The nuclear modelling isn’t assuming a lean, efficient power system made up of sleek nuclear power stations. No, this comparison is about future demand assumptions – and the nuclear plan only works in an Australia that sees a huge collapse in power demand.
It is in fact the inherently inefficient nature of large, centralised nuclear power stations – which require massive amounts of time and money to build – that results in the Coalition having to selectively focus on low-energy-demand scenarios to justify their vision of the future.
Dutton is living in opposite world. He claims renewables have caused high prices – but they’re caused by fossil fuels. He claims nuclear-powered countries are the cheapest for power, but they’re consistently more expensive than Australia. And he claims that their modelling leans on efficiency, when in reality it’s a reflection of inefficiency.
