10 June 2025

Ley says election loss means Coalition must review policies, even on energy and housing

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
57
smiling woman

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley says her party’s election loss is acknowledged with humility and respect. Photo: Facebook.

Energy and housing are two policy areas new Opposition Leader Sussan Ley says the Coalition will be paying close attention to in the days ahead to resonate with the voting public.

Acknowledging the Liberals and Nationals got thumped at the 3 May election, Ms Ley said it was time for a serious rethink of Coalition policy.

“We suffered a big defeat and we acknowledge that with humility and respect to the voters,” she said during a commercial radio interview on Friday (6 June).

“So, we must listen, we must change, we must develop a fresh approach, and we must take the time to get this right.

“I’m taking the vote very seriously, as are all of my team, of course we are. That listening is very important in what we do next.

“We will modernise. We will rebuild. We’ve got to have a party that respects modern Australia, reflects modern Australia, and represents modern Australia.

“And we’ve got to meet modern Australian communities … where they are …

“Our policies are up for review, that’s for sure, but our values are not and will always back aspiration and people who want to have a crack and get ahead.”

READ ALSO Labor unwillingly eyes political partner to help pass super tax changes

To that extent, the Opposition Leader said the Coalition’s next energy policy would be all about reducing emissions while delivering stability in the nation’s power supply.

The Nationals have pushed the Coalition to support energy policy that would remove the moratorium on nuclear power.

Ms Ley said that would be the first step in developing an energy policy that included nuclear energy.

The Coalition took to the federal election a policy to build seven nuclear power plants around Australia. That policy was roundly rejected at the polls.

The Nats have insisted nuclear energy remains part of the Coalition agreement and they want to ditch support for the international net zero by 2050 target.

Ms Ley says the Coalition’s energy policy will be different to the one it took to the election, and will include a commitment to providing affordable energy for homes.

“If you look at countries around the world that are bringing their emissions down, they are going nuclear and we will consider that, of course, and it may well look different from what we took to the last election,” she said.

On housing, the Opposition Leader insisted it was a priority for the Coalition.

The nation needed more skilled home builders and fewer planning law restrictions.

READ ALSO ‘Assertively’ absurd comments about women in the Liberal Party

“If we can’t find a pathway or articulate a pathway into housing for young people, then they’re not going to support our political party,” she said.

“We had some policies at the last election. We’ll review those.

“I’m always very frustrated by what state governments are not doing when it comes to supporting young people in housing. But I’m not saying that it’s only in their court.

“There are things the federal government can do as well. So, we have to get the housing piece right.

“And I was the Environment Minister in the last government, and you show me an economy in the world that is not growing, that can support its environment.

“In other words, you’ve got to have a strong economy to support environmental outcomes. And they’re very important indeed and I understand that they matter to young people.”

Ms Ley said she also recognised that many women felt they couldn’t vote for the Coalition at the recent election because of some of its policy positions.

“I don’t know that we offered women policies that reflected where they were, where their thoughts, feelings and wishes and aspirations are,” she said.

She is determined to change that.

“I’m not landing on a policy or an outcome. It’s really important that we don’t do that,” she said.

“People might want us to rule things in or out, but we’re not going to do that. We’re going to take the time to do it right.

“But I do want to see policies that reflect the wishes and the aspirations of families, of people at every stage of their life, but more importantly, that overall back Australians who want to get ahead.”

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

57
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Ley is just Labor lite.

We need a party that will do things like cut down red tape, ban stamp duty on property and build jobs.

The wording on nuclear is “yes but no”.
There will be nothing left by the times libs regain power. We need a new party that benefits Australia.

The content of the policy was not the issue at the last election. It was too late and never defended..

You can keep posting drivel like “Ley is just Labor lite” Henry but it won’t make nuclear economically viable in Australia.

“We need a new party that benefits Australia.”

When they can’t even accept the basic economics of the issue on nuclear energy how are a bunch of culture wars dopes going to actually achieve this? I’d love to know.

Unlike America hopefully Australia will continue to avoid the magical thinking of the far right.

How would you like a response? you don’t like facts..

Its well known that labor lied about the price of nuclear.
Britan is building a huge nuclear power station that could power half of Australia due to its size.

Australia is like the only developed country that is going renewables without nuclear.
You’ve been called out on this time and time again.

Swamp Harrier2:22 pm 11 Jun 25

@Henry, your definition of a developed country is one which has nuclear power generation?
/s

Your comment is obvious nonsense in a factual sense, and also nonsensical as a policy prescription. Exactly what did you “call out”? Your own ignorance?

“Britan is building a huge nuclear power station that could power half of Australia due to its size.:

Talks about not liking facts then produces a whopping lie like this.

Not to mention the years of delays and tens of billions in cost overruns.

Just too funny really.

Lol…I like how you accuse me of not liking facts and then post this embarrassing comment straight afterwards “Its well known that labor lied about the price of nuclear.”.

Orly? Proof?

You need to log off Skynews champ it’s not helping you, the Energy Generators & Retailers ie. the for profit power companies said “no” to nuclear because of cost, time and risk. It had nothing to do with Labor champ. Fact.

Also another fact that has escaped your bubble, the QLD LNP government had also said “no” to nuclear reactors in QLD. Again nothing to do with Labor.

Nuclear wasn’t happening in Australia even if Dutton hadn’t resoundingly lost an election on the issue. Fact.

“You’ve been called out on this time and time again.”

Culture war clowns who don’t understand the Australian energy market or are even aware of what the key stakeholders are doing are not calling anyone out.

Protip: Best not to call out other people’s understanding of “facts” when you’re clearly demonstrably clueless…it always ends badly.

UK is building 2 huge reactors of ~3.2 gw for £14.2b. (30b AUD)

Power for 6 million homes.

Labor tells us it will cost 700 billion. Using the UK figure are we looking to power 140 million homes?

That’s the lie

@chewy14. Yes the downside they take a long time to build is there. But if we had started a year earlier we’d be a year closer.

You have to put it into perspective. A wind farm also take 10 years to build too but it would only last 10-20 years after that. Nuclear should last 80.

Wind power also causes climate change, reducing wind making it hotter.

Henry… champ I’m sorry to tell you but bizarro world maths doesn’t apply in the real world.

Hinckley C in the UK is massively over budget and over time. The costs have blown out from £18bn to £34bn for that reactor alone and it’s now not finishing until 2031.

And there’s no guarantee that it won’t have further cost/time over runs.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/hinkley-point-c-could-be-delayed-to-2031-and-cost-up-to-35bn-says-edf

As the 6 million homes claim, how many are they powering now champ? 15 years of development and maybe more at nearly double the original cost…lol ok champ.

“Labor tells us it will cost 700 billion.” but this is where you get really bizarro and should log off and go for a walk ….firstly you’re confusing Aussie $ and British £…. but just rough back of a post card maths ….and stay with me champ because I know you don’t do numbers….Dutton was promising 7 reactors, at 7 * £35bn that’s £245bn…convert that to AUD that’s $507bn and factor in the massive costs of starting a nuclear energy industry from scratch in a country far from the rest of the world and even you must see that Labor’s figures are about right.

Seriously dude, log off and go for a walk.

“UK is building 2 huge reactors of ~3.2 gw for £14.2b. (30b AUD)”

Henry,
Um perhaps you should check the latest cost estimates for that project which are more than double and potentially triple the cost you mention.

Along with the massive delays.

And that’s not even starting on the power capacity estimates.

“homes” are not the only things that use power and that amount of capacity is not nearly half our total electricity demand.

You know, those pesky facts.

Oh and I keep pointing this out to culture wars clowns and they never have an answer but the Energy Generators & Retailers rejected Dutton’s plan because it wasn’t economically viable.

These are for profit companies with shareholders….they’re not rejecting nuclear for any other reason that it doesn’t economically stack up.

Time to grow up.

Speaking of facts chewy, can you tell us about the “100% renewable offset” ?

Henry – you’re on the right track. You’ll hear plenty of repetitive dribble about “culture wars”, “go for a walk” and my favourite “show me the evidence”. It means you’re talking sense.

First up the delay was that it was harder to build a power plant during covid when half the world shut down.

Second I made no mistake about the conversion rates.

Third you have no idea what you are talking about. Your mixing power plant costs with reactor costs. Power plants have several reactors.

I gave you the current cost estimates.

Nuclear stacks up everywhere else in the world.

If you want to talk about cost blow outs how is snowy 2.0 going? How many of these massive projects are we going to need? What sort of environmental damage is going to occur when we have to create more pumped hydro.

Maybe it was rejected as the cost of renewables was going to give us back $275.

I’m amazed to say that I’m still waiting. I have no idea what your talking about or why it even matters. Australia has a memorandum against nuclear power generation.

“Speaking of facts chewy, can you tell us about the “100% renewable offset” ?”

You mean the renewable energy offsets that the ACT Government? Jeez, how many times does basic information need to be supplied.

I know you have a short memory but you should probably try to at least have a working knowledge of the topic before commenting so vociferously.

“First up the delay was that it was harder to build a power plant during covid when half the world shut down.”

Covid didn’t last for 15+ years. Yes it had impacts on delivery but no one would seriously suggest its the major cause of delay.

“Third you have no idea what you are talking about. Your mixing power plant costs with reactor costs. Power plants have several reactors.”

Not sure how this is relevant, we are discussing the total power plant cost and capacity. You are either mixing one or thr other up.

“I gave you the current cost estimates.”

No, you didn’t. The prices have continually increased and there’s still years of construction to come, placing even more risk to the final project cost.

Happy for you to provide some evidence to back up your cost claims, why not use the owners estimates to help you.

And once again, that capacity is not remotely half Australia’s electricity needs.

“Nuclear stacks up everywhere else in the world.”

Stacks up? As what?

A more expensive option that only really works in increasingly niche situations where other options cant be deployed.

Those conditions don’t exist in Australia.

“If you want to talk about cost blow outs how is snowy 2.0 going? How many of these massive projects are we going to need?”

The fact that you cant see the parallels to the reasons for blow-outs for nuclear is mighty ironic.

“First up the delay was that it was harder to build a power plant during covid when half the world shut down.”
That was just one delay. All sorts of things can cause major delays, pandemic, war, an incompetent, corrupt President starting an unnecessary trade war… it’s a massively complex process that inherently comes with a lot risk.

“Second I made no mistake about the conversion rates.”
Yes you did, embarrassingly so. You quoted UK costs in pounds and Australia costs in dollars and compared them as if they were the same thing. You’re embarrassing yourself

“Third you have no idea what you are talking about. Your mixing power plant costs with reactor costs. Power plants have several reactors.”

Yeah nah, nice try. Dutton proposed 7 sites for reactors. So unless he was planning to build plant without the reactor which would even dumber than your arguments you’re wrong on that score too. Really embarrassing yourself now.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-19/dutton-reveals-seven-sites-for-proposed-nuclear-power-plants/103995310

“I gave you the current cost estimates.”
You mean vague, unreferenced cherry picked figures. Sure.

“Nuclear stacks up everywhere else in the world.”

Well except for Austria, Denmark, Ireland….Australia. Please explain why the Energy Generators & Retailers rejected Dutton’s nuclear proposal without further beclowning yourself I mean?

“If you want to talk about cost blow outs how is snowy 2.0 going?”
When you start throwing in red herring logical fallacies it’s clear you’re really losing. Snowy 2.0 has nothing to do with the cost of nuclear energy in Australia. Thanks for playing.

“Maybe it was rejected as the cost of renewables was going to give us back $275.”
IDK what this drivel is supposed to mean but it doesn’t change the costs, time or risk factors that led the Energy Generators & Retailers to reject Dutton’s dud nuclear proposal.

“I’m amazed to say that I’m still waiting. I have no idea what your talking about or why it even matters. Australia has a memorandum against nuclear power generation.”

This is another reason why nuclear won’t happen in Australia. It requires legislative changes at federal AND state levels. Yet culture wars clowns won’t recognise that vast sections of the community do not want nuclear for very good reasons and as such it be incredibly difficult for any government to change the legislation.

So knowing that they lose the argument on the economics and just the reality of the key stakeholders (energy companies, states and the wider community) not being on board why do culture warriors persist on this dumb losing argument?

HiddenDragon9:25 pm 10 Jun 25

“Ms Ley says the Coalition’s energy policy will be different to the one it took to the election, and will include a commitment to providing affordable energy for homes.”

This will be a very interesting tightrope walk for the Coalition, particularly with a majority of voters still engaging in wishful thinking on the subject of a (nearly) all renewables future, and with the costs and complications of getting renewable power from where it is generated to where it is needed becoming apparent –

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdedjnw8e85o

For a country a fraction the size of Australia, the £60bn figure quoted towards the end of that article is sobering.

That 60 billion figure comes with zero context however… and to some degree is misleading when it is actually explored properly, within the context of what is being presented in that article.

If you delve into the National Grid accounts (see https://www.nationalgrid.com/document/152011/download), you’ll find that figure is the National Grid Group’s total capital investment figure for the five years 2024-2029 – see page 18. That covers all their activities – maintaining transmission and distribution networks, asset renewals and all sorts of other investments, alongside those needed to facilitate renewable energy into the grid.

They have business interests in the UK and US that are covered by that total figure. Almost half of that figure (28 billion) is in US assets unrelated to the UK’s grid transformation.

About 8 billion of it is distribution network upgrades – some relevant to renewable energy, some not, but largely ‘Business as Usual’ investments.

So the actual relevant figure that should have been used in that BBC article is in the range of 23 – 30ish billion, not 60.

Still a lot of money sure – but its a much more nuanced story than suggested in that BBC article.

It is also an interesting wider discussion in that article around ‘zonal pricing’ or whatever jargon they wish to use. Something we already have effective by having state based electricity prices in Australia – can see pros and cons to either approach.

“For a country a fraction the size of Australia, the £60bn figure quoted towards the end of that article is sobering.”

Is it though or are you talking out of your hat again?

Hinkley C was originally budgeted for £18bn and with delays will blow out to £35bn. And that’s assuming it’s finally commissioned in 2031.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/jan/23/hinkley-point-c-could-be-delayed-to-2031-and-cost-up-to-35bn-says-edf

Nuclear energy isn’t the easy win the Coalition and their boosters keep pretending it is, even in a country with an established nuclear energy industry.

Meanwhile Australia has a road map to 100% renewables.
https://aemo.com.au/-/media/files/initiatives/engineering-framework/2023/nem-engineering-roadmap-fy2024–priority-actions.pdf

A new firm is putting Thorium breeder reactors in containers and stacking them. Modular units that would solve many of the issues of cost overruns.

Hinkley is an active power plant with 4 reactors. How much of the costs was due to covid, and dealing with cleaning up the old reactor?

Spain and Portugal also had a roadmap, but they found it hard to read in the dark…

What assurance can you give that we also won’t have ongoing power issues. None.

“A new firm is putting Thorium breeder reactors in containers and stacking them”

So Australia should invest billions of dollars in the hope this works out? That’s what you’re saying….we should invest billions in unproven technology…because…..IDK .

“Hinkley is an active power plant with 4 reactors. How much of the costs was due to covid, and dealing with cleaning up the old reactor?”

Which doesn’t change the massive time and cost over runs. You embarrassingly forget too that in Australia we have no nuclear industry to build upon. The UK have an established nuclear energy industry and they’re experiencing massive problems we’d be starting from scratch far away from the rest of the world.

“Spain and Portugal also had a roadmap, but they found it hard to read in the dark…”

Sigh….more cringeworthy nonsense from Henry. The Spanish blackout had nothing to do with generation, it was a network management issue. They’re now looking into cyber security.

You’d know that if you were informed on this issue rather than cutting and pasting culture wars memes and posts on Telegram.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-01/spain-blackouts-cybersecurity-agency-to-investigate-outages/105237120

“What assurance can you give that we also won’t have ongoing power issues. None.”
The major power issue we’ve had over the last decade has been a lack of investment due to the uncertainty around energy produced by a coalition government that literally sacked a PM (Turnbull) to stop an energy deal (the NEG) which included fossil fuels and renewables and had the in principle sign off off all the major stakeholders (feds, states and energy companies) and the inaction on energy that resulted under Morrison.

Inaction on energy policy which would have continued if Dutton had won the election because even he knew his nuclear policy wasn’t going to happen.

Log off and go for a walk mate you’re uniformed at best and out of your depth.

Agreed Sussan, the first thing the Coalition should do is get rid of the crazy Net Zero policy like many other governments around the world.

Net zero is completely unachievable alongside economic prosperity and growth. Whoever dreamt this stuff up ?

Capital Retro10:15 am 10 Jun 25

It was reported yesterday that “green” hydrogen in Australia will now cost at least 4 times as much as “alternative” energy so we may achieve net zero faster that planned as all industry closes down.
The aluminum smelter at Tomago which uses 10% of electricity produced in NSW is now looking for a financial rescue.

We all know you dream of being back in the 1830s, and couldn’t care less about future generations.

Go that way and that’s where the Tory-lites will end up.

Indeed CR, it’s not just Tomago in trouble but there’s a horror movie unfolding with the Whyalla wipeout too. Labor seem intent on shutting down Australian industry while China, India and others keep increasing CO2 levels.

Last year global CO2 levels increased again, when will Australia wake up and smell the roses to the inconvenient truth.

Jason Ozolins2:55 pm 10 Jun 25

Do feel free to outline how Whyalla steelworks owner Sanjeev Gupta’s debt servicing crisis across his global empire was down to Australia’s net zero policies and not the collapse of GFG’s key credit provider, Greensill Capital…
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-22/sanjeev-gupta-whyalla-global-empire-steel/104965788

Australian power prices Jason.

I’m sure the irony that Tomago is in trouble because of coal power prices is not going to be lost on you Penfold. A disaster they have brought on themselves, yet like usual expecting the tax payer to bail them out.

The derision is hilarious Penfold – the straight out, unfounded lies you peddle constantly less so.

Bowen’s sky-rocketing power prices are Tomago’s fault ?

Yes that statement is lost on any rational observer of the energy market. And anyone who knows how power prices are calculated.

“Yes that statement is lost on any rational observer of the energy market. And anyone who knows how power prices are calculated.”

So you fully understood it then Penfold.

Well done.

Capital Retro5:08 pm 10 Jun 25

JS9 is only familiar with state owned industries on 5 year plans , Penfold.

I hope he has lots of Rio Tinto shares in his super portfolio:

https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/rio-pushes-for-eye-watering-tomago-bailout-20250606-p5m5ih

“The problem we are facing with a place like Tomago right now is it might take us a longer time to get renewables, and the electricity from coal-fired power, what we have been quoted, is extremely expensive,” he said.”

Nice link CR, really highlights the problems with the lack of coherent energy policy over the last 15 years and how we need to make the transition to cheaper renewable energy sources as smooth as possible if we want to continue having any heavy industry in Australia.

CR the concept of industry, economy and running a business do seem lost on our left-leaning friends. They’d probably prefer the Chinese to take over one of our last heavy industry producers because of our skyrocketing power prices.

At least then we’d be doing something for the global carbon footprint, um wouldn’t we ?

You might actually want to read the link you provided CR – unless all you really want to do is show yourself to be an utter goose…..

Oh, right.

Look at CR, all for corporate welfare from the taxpayer, like the good little wannabe lefty he is….

Oh, oh oh. You and Penfold really are beyond help.

CR don’t you find the most impressive attributes of our leftist friends includes their tolerance, friendliness and willingness to constructively engage with people whose views they struggle to understand. Imagine holding different views to the narrowness and shallowness of groupthink.

Well I guess you could never call your views groupthink, given most are sourced from places like Sky News and their total of about 4 viewers.

Calling out blatant lies or mistruths, or pointing out the irony of posting links that actually don’t support said ‘different views’ is none of what you imagine it to be…. but keep on with your drivel, it keeps the rest of us entertained.

Strange that some posters here keep mentioning some mythical “leftist friends” in their weak attempts to avoid the issue and engage constructively on the topic.

Although I suppose making up imaginary friends goes along with the imaginary evidence used to support their positions.

The AFR article CR posted didn’t mention SkyNews, it appeared to be an AFR article.

According to other reports, there’s 6000 jobs at risk.

“We’ve got the materials, we’ve got the workers, we’ve got the smelters, but what we don’t have is a working energy system,”

Gee, haven’t we heard that before. Love those renewables.

“The problem we are facing with a place like Tomago right now is it might take us a longer time to get renewables, and the electricity from coal-fired power, what we have been quoted, is extremely expensive,” he said.”

No one said it was Skynews.. More imaginary tales in the mind of Penfold – taking 2 and 2 and getting 458,111.

The problem with Tomago has nothing to do with a ‘working energy system’. There is plenty of energy available for their needs. It is nothing but a contracting failure on their part – they took a punt on when they thought renewable capacity would be available, and didn’t mitigate properly to secure at what they see as affordable prices coal generated power.

No different to the pure lies peddled around gas – i.e. there is plenty of gas supply, and we are not short of it. But contracting by little wee Johnny Howard has left Australia up the creek, because we sell it off for basically nothing.

Perhaps you should read your earlier post since you’ve forgotten.

Regardless, Tomago has been successfully operating since 1983, when nice cheap reliable coal power provided cheap aluminium exports.

Ever since renewables started taking over, things have gone downhill. Same at Portland smelter in Victoria too. Coincidence ?

Capital Retro1:45 pm 11 Jun 25

I love them when they do this:

https://youtu.be/I9crh_EAXKs

Yes CR, that’s sadly a reflection of what these supposed progressives are doing to our economy.

LOL, a whole 18 turbines won’t be replaced, literally because the site cant handle the modern wind turbines which are 5-6 times the capacity of the early 90’s designs.

Lucky that the capacity lost will be replaced by other renewable capacity orders of magnitude higher elsewhere.

The amount of times tweedledee and tweedledum shoot themselves in the foot with these attempted cherry picked “examples” is hilarious.

Thanks for confirming your love of sky news CR. Shame you can’t undertake active research past regurgitating the vomit of your 24 hour news service to realise the real reason it isn’t being repowered is that the significant advances in technology since the early 1990s (which was when those turbines were designed) mean the site is effectively not suitable for the latest generation wind turbines – which are of course much larger physically and from a generation perspective, and hence its not economic on a relatively small site (compared to modern wind farms) to replace them.

But oh wait – don’t you love the free market being allowed to make market driven decisions? Or is that only when it suits…..

Rightio.

Chewy did you post that in the right chat because I have no idea what you’re talking about ?

Capital Retro3:27 pm 11 Jun 25

It’s not a “free market” when massive taxpayer funded subsidies are given out, chewy.

One great thing about getting news from a range of sources is it let’s you form your own opinion. Personally I read everything from The Oz, News, SMH, Canberra Times, Daily Mail and even the ABC to get some balance.

And for a laugh on the weekends, even the Guardian and Saturday paper.

You guys should try it sometimes, it’s amazing what you’d learn 👨‍🎓

“I have no idea what you’re talking about”

© Penfold

Good to see you want to stop the massive coal and other fossil fuel subsidies that have been ongoing for decades Capital Retro.

Axon sorry to point out the obvious, but communications are two way streets. One says, one hears and tries to understand. Not having any idea what chewy was talking about, again, is not necessarily the fault of one person.

The reference to Alice in Wonderland characters, for example, in a discussion about energy, does seem a little bizarre.

Capital Retro8:52 am 12 Jun 25

I don’t have enough reefers to imagine that deep, Penfold.

Capital Retro8:54 am 12 Jun 25

Just remind what those subsidies are again, chewy?

She is correct. The Tony Abbott/Credlin/Skynews wing of the party won’t let it happen, at the very least they won’t allow it to be done “right”.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.