The Minister for Planning and Public Spaces has set out what this Government has done and what it is doing. I speak about what the Opposition would have done instead and what it would do if it was ever returned to the Government benches. That is the real question before this House. It is not whether energy security matters; everyone in this House will say it does. The question is: Which side of this House is delivering it, and which side has spent the past two years rolling around trying to find a coherent position? Let us begin with the Electricity Infrastructure Roadmap, the very plan that underpins this motion. Members opposite will know it well. It was a previous Liberal Government that introduced it. We acknowledge that.

We also acknowledge that, since losing government, the Opposition has done everything short of formally disowning it—and The Nationals have gone considerably further. Nowhere is that clearer than in the New South Wales Nationals' own position on the renewable energy rollout. Their former leader, the member for Dubbo, publicly called for a moratorium on renewable energy projects. He said that his constituents:

… are hosting these projects in their backyards and … suffering for it, yet they are the ones that miss out.

Does the new Leader of The Nationals support this position? Does he think the need for energy independence is not great enough already? If the internal incoherence of the Liberal position is uncomfortable, the divide between the Liberals and The Nationals is a spectacle. Nowhere has the internal dysfunction of the Liberal Party been more exposed than on the question of the energy transition in regional New South Wales. When this Government introduced legislation to accelerate the delivery of renewable energy infrastructure—the Electricity Infrastructure Investment Amendment (Priority Network Projects) Bill 2025—the member for Goulburn said that the Opposition's own shadow Minister described it to his party room as "inconsequential." She disagreed so strongly that she resigned from the shadow Cabinet. She said, "It is never an easy decision, but I needed to make a stand on principle. My community elected me to represent them, and I was very disappointed that I was not able to have my voice heard."

The member for Goulburn is a colleague, but I note the irony of a member resigning from an opposition that could not properly manage its own internal process on an energy bill, while accusing this Government of poor planning. The then Leader of the Opposition was blindsided by the resignation and the shadow Minister for Energy and Climate Change had to apologise. Now they are still scrambling to find stones to throw at the Government. That is the energy policy leadership on offer from those on the other side of this House. Energy security is not a partisan issue. Families want to be able to turn their lights on and to be protected from price spikes. The manufacturers trying to plan their investment horizons do not care which party gave them certainty. But they do care, deeply, about whether there is a plan. They have watched, over two years, as the Opposition has been unable to agree within itself on whether renewables are good or bad, whether net zero is a commitment or a liability and whether the road map is a blueprint or a mistake.

This Government is not conflicted. We support renewable generation, we support storage and we support this motion. The only question Opposition members have to answer today is whether, after all that, they can bring themselves to do the same. I commend the motion to the House.