Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Can the minister confirm that the government does not have any detailed modelling of the impacts of what is now government policy?

Mr Pyne interjecting—

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

The Leader of the House will cease interjecting.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Minister for the Environment and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm for the House that the Energy Security Board, which is made up of the Australian Energy Regulator, the Australian Energy Market Operator and the Australian Energy Commission, has written to the government and outlined that on the basis of its analysis prices will fall for an average household by $100 to $115 per annum between 2020 and 2030.

I'm asked this by the member of Port Adelaide. We think he's a fan of the clean energy target, but we know that the clean energy target's reduction in power bills would not be as good as the advice from the Energy Security Board, this new appointment. The Energy Security Board is a very important board. Guess who said when these positions were appointed that they were 'excellent appointments'? Who said that? It was the member for Port Adelaide. Who said that a clean energy target was the second best option? Who said that? It was the member for Port Adelaide. But this is the piece de resistance. Who said that the government is not listening to the energy expert? It was the member for Port Adelaide. Who else said about renewables that they will be able to stand on their own two feet and compete in the market without subsidy from government? That was again the member for Port Adelaide.

So the question to the Leader of the Opposition, who turns his back because he doesn't like to hear the truth, is: why have the Labor Party signed up to a $66 billion subsidy if they believe that renewables are the most cost-effective supply of new generation? Why have the Labor Party signed up to $66 billion if they believe that the clean energy target is the second best option? Hypocrisy by name, hypocrisy by nature—this is the modern Labor Party.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer advise the House on the benefits of the government's National Energy Guarantee and how this will relieve the cost pressures on hardworking Australian families and businesses by delivering affordable and reliable energy? How does this compare with alternative approaches?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Banks for his question. The National Energy Guarantee is the unanimous recommendation of the independent Energy Security Board, set up by COAG on the recommendation of the Finkel report. It will give Australians what they are asking for—reliable energy at a lower cost that meets our environmental obligations. It is estimated by the independent board to deliver savings of up to $115 per household per year. This is a game changer. This takes us into a new era for energy, a post-subsidy era, where Australian families, households and businesses will no longer be forced to pay for these ideologically driven subsidies. They will no longer need to pay for them as a result of the policies of this government. We are removing these costs from the system. By contrast, the electricity bill you would get from the Labor Party would be $66 billion in higher subsidies, driven not by economics or engineering but just by the sheer ideology of the Labor Party. They are not subsidies that need to be paid to meet our environmental obligations; they are subsidies that will be imposed by the Labor Party, by this Leader of the Opposition, on families, on businesses, on households, to the tune of thousands of dollars for each one of those families over that period. They do this, they nail their colours to the mast of the Clean Energy Target, on the basis that it would deliver certainty and it would deliver on our environmental obligations, but what they do know is that a CET will not deliver on reliability, on affordability. ACCC chairman Rod Sims said: 'Clearly, if you want to solve for affordability, it is not the Clean Energy Target that is going to do it.' He said:

The Clean Energy Target involves a subsidy which has to be paid for, which is smeared across all users …

Labor have given up on reliability and they've given up on affordability, all in the name of putting subsidies before the idol of their own ideology. But on top of that, they say that the CET will deliver certainty. I'm pleased to quote the chief executive of the Business Council of Australia, who said today: 'The National Energy Guarantee will provide more in certainty than the Clean Energy Target. The government plan has great potential to produce affordable, reliable power, reduce emissions and boost market confidence, and we are looking forward to the further work.' This government has a plan for reliable, affordable energy that delivers on our environmental obligations. The Labor Party has a plan for an electricity bill of $66 billion on families, households and business.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, what did the regulatory impact statement, which must have been considered as part of the decision announced today, find would be the impact on the economy of the Prime Minister's latest policy compared to a clean energy target?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Regulatory impact statements, as the shadow minister and former minister in the previous government would know, are done as part of legislation, and that is pulled together to go forward through the process with COAG. What we have done today is adopt the recommendations of the independent Energy Security Board, the members of which were heralded and championed and cheered on by those opposite when they were appointed. When they come out with a recommendation that they don't like, they turn on them as they turn on each other and as they will undoubtedly turn on this Leader of the Opposition.