I listened intensely to the member for Lindsay and the member for Moncrieff talk about the matter of public importance today, which is about the energy affordability crisis facing Australians. The member for Lindsay tried to put into my leader's mouth words that he never said. But she ignored the words coming out of her leader's mouth. We've just had a 15-minute presentation from those opposite, and not a single mention of their great, 23rd energy policy—nuclear. In fact, the member for Lindsay finished 45 seconds early. She would rather say nothing about her great policy then mention it in her MPI—unbelievable! Forty-five seconds of silence is better than their one policy—incredible! And the closest the member for Moncrieff came to talking about her leader was when she spoke about the Grinch. That's the only time she came close to him. It's unbelievable!

I think there is an energy problem in households. I know; I've been talking to people in my community for a long time. It didn't just start in May 2022; we know it's been going for a long time. I wonder if a government having 22 energy policies in a decade might be something to do with it, where they put political lines before power lines, where they put culture wars before serving customers—that might be part of it. But that's history. Our job is to solve the current crisis as best we can.

The member for Dickson's lightbulb moment—nuclear—will never power a single lightbulb; we know that. And it's not going to help people right now. After that wasted decade of culture wars, of Abbott knocking off Turnbull over energy policies—we've seen that waste, and we're not going to do that again. But for those opposite to cling to nuclear as if it is a solution, and to then have a matter of public importance talking about energy affordability and not mention nuclear—they are hung by their own petard. It is incredible they would not mention it. The only renewable resource they believe in over there is ignorance. They're going back into a culture war rather than talking in a fair dinkum way about energy.

We know, because we listen to the experts, that the cheapest form of energy is renewable. They can badmouth the CSIRO all they like—and wasn't that a great slap-down of the opposition leader by the actual scientists? I saw a couple of those opposite at the Science Meets Parliament event last night who'd wandered in by mistake from the brewers event or something, saying, 'Who are these people, these scientists with all their facts and figures and solving the problems of the world with actual things rather than cultural wars?'

Tony Abbott, for all his faults, was a conviction politician, and used energy as a way to knock off Malcolm Turnbull. We saw that in Nemesis writ large, and all the damage inflicted on the Australian people because of that culture war. The member for Dickson is not a conviction politician; he's a confection politician. He confects outrage. He offers no viable solutions. His go-to setting is thuggish behaviour; we know that. And his go-to position is to say no. That's it.

We heard no mention from the two speakers on that side so far of their 23rd energy policy. I'll just point out for the sakes of the member for Moncrieff and the member for Lindsay that their policy, their nuclear solution, will take 20 years to deliver. It will cost Australian taxpayers $387 billion. Guess what? That's a lot of money. And that's without answering all those critical questions: where's it going to be located? Where's the waste disposal? How is it going to be regulated? Minor things! But I didn't hear the member for Moncrieff or the member for Lindsay mention, 'We want nuclear reactors in our electorates.'

Mr Pitt interjecting—

Mr PERRETT: There are a few speakers coming after me; I know the representative for Bundaberg will want something on the—what's the river going through Bundaberg? You'll need a lot of water when you have a big nuclear reactor, so I'm sure that they will announce that when they start speaking. (Time expired)