Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's compare the Liberal-National coalition on this side of the House to the Labor-Green alliance on the other. We are pragmatic; they are ideological. We back the Australian people; they back themselves. We believe in lower taxes; they believe in higher taxes. We are for small government; they are for big government.

These contrasting values are now becoming clearly defined and reflected in our energy debate. Take renewables, for instance. While both sides agree that renewables play an important role in Australia's energy mix, we on this side of the House have faith in renewables, which now provide cheaper energy than non-renewables. Thus, we believe the renewable sector is ready to stand on its own two feet in the marketplace. They, however, do not have faith in renewables, which is why they want to provide an extra $66 billion to subsidise them. That equates to over $8,500 per Australian household. That's the extent to which those opposite wish to tax the Australian people. Labor equals big government, equals big taxes, and equals far bigger electricity prices.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we saw the final capitulation of the Prime Minister to the member for Warringah. The man who famously said that he would not lead a party that was not as committed to effective action on climate change as he was has today dumped the clean energy target recommended by his own chief scientist in response to a review set up by his own government. This was a policy that he said would 'certainly work', a policy his energy minister said would reduce electricity bills, a policy supported by Australian business groups, Australian energy companies, energy regulators and environment groups and a policy supported by the Australian Labor Party, who has been trying to work with the government to cement a bipartisan approach to Australia's energy crisis. But it wasn't supported by the member for Warringah, and so it wasn't supported by the troglodytes in the coalition party room. The cave dwellers with their pet rocks knocked it on the head. And what are we left with? The talented Mr Turnbull destroyed Prime Minister Abbott only to become him. Will the Prime Minister—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Gellibrand will refer to members by their correct titles. I've warned him on two or three occasions.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I ask: will the Prime Minister, Prime Minister Turnbull, bring the coalition's pet rock, their ceremonial lump of coal, to question time himself today. Will the member for Warringah allow it? I suppose that the member for Warringah has let Prime Minister Turnbull keep the solar panels on the roof of his harbour-side mansion so there does seem to be some give in the leash around the Prime Minister's neck at the moment. (Time expired)