Ann Sudmalis (Gilmore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Hardworking families, retirees and small businesses in Gilmore are worried about energy costs. Will the minister update the House on the government's National Energy Guarantee and how it will deliver an affordable and reliable supply of energy across our nation?

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

I thank the member for Gilmore for her question and note her deep concern about rising power prices and the impact they are having on families across her electorate. This is why today's announcement about a National Energy Guarantee is a major breakthrough. It will provide reliable, affordable power as we transition to a lower emissions future. It is credible, it is workable, it is pro-market and it will lower electricity prices. Importantly, it means no more subsidies, no taxes and no trading schemes. It will deliver, on the basis of the advice of the Energy Security Board, a board of experts, savings of up to $115 per annum. It builds on the work that the coalition is already undertaking to reduce the power prices that are a result of increased network costs—and yesterday's decision by the Senate to pass our legislation to abolish limited merits review was important there; the work we've been doing with the retailers to save millions of Australian families hundreds of dollars a year; and the work we have done with the gas suppliers to ensure that Australians get access to gas first, before it is shipped overseas—and we have seen a significant fall in the spot price.

But the Labor Party believe in more subsidies—$66 billion worth of additional subsidies. They did nothing when they were in government to cut the network costs, they did nothing when they were in government to cut the retailer costs and they did nothing when they were in government to heed the warnings about increasing gas exports. No wonder the power bills increased by more than 100 per cent when Labor were in office.

We know that when it comes to the Leader of the Opposition you don't listen to what he says but watch what he does. He said he was in favour of a better deal for education, but he voted against our Gonski reforms. He said he was in favour of lowering company taxes, but he voted against our reforms. He said he was in favour of better childcare benefits, but he tried to stop our reforms. Now he says he is in favour of greater investment certainty in the energy sector. This is a test of his ticker. This is a test of the Leader of the Opposition's ticker. Will he stand up for Australian families? Will he follow the advice of the experts? Will he adopt a bipartisan approach to ensure that power bills for millions of Australian families are lower, and that we get the investment certainty in the energy sector that this country desperately needs? (Time expired)

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

My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his previous answer. Is the Treasurer aware that the Office of Best Practice Regulation states:

All Cabinet submissions require a Regulation Impact Statement. RISs are also required for all decisions made by the Australian Government and its agencies that are likely to have a regulatory impact on businesses, community organisations or individuals …

Treasurer, do you stand by your previous answer? Why is there no regulatory impact statement for the government to release?

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

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

Members on my right! The Minister for the Environment and Energy will cease interjecting, as will the Leader of the House.

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

I can advise the House that the cabinet submission is prepared consistent with the cabinet policy handbook and the requirements of the process. I could ask the shadow Treasurer, though: when he introduced 'cash for clunkers', what was the regulatory impact statement on that? What was the impact statement on being the worst immigration minister in the history of the Australian Federation? That was 50,000 people, half of whom turned up on his own watch, and $11.6 billion in blowouts of expenditure that were created on his watch. Did he put that in the cabinet submission when he went in there and asked about his failed policies that we should approve this because we are going to blow out the cost by $11.6 billion and see thousands of people die at sea? Here is another failed immigration minister.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. If there is no Regulation Impact Statement, the Treasurer should say so and sit down.

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

The Manager of Opposition Business can't compel the Treasurer to answer in a way other than his being relevant to the question.

Mr Pyne interjecting —

The Leader of the House will cease interjecting! The Treasurer was asked a question about regulatory impact statements and he is talking about regulatory impact statements, as I hear him, and he is in order.

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

I remind the House that this is the government that has responded to the independent Energy Security Board, which has come forward with a recommendation on the way to deliver cheaper electricity prices—more reliable and affordable electricity prices—and the way to do it without burdening the public with unnecessary subsidies that are required only because of the ideological vanity of the Leader of the Opposition and the ideologues who sit opposite, who each day want to worship at the altar of this ideology that is putting subsidies in the hands of companies, paid for by householders who don't have to do it.

There is a simple question for the Leader of the Opposition: will he abandon the failed policy approach that they have stuck to for so many years, join with the government and say to the COAG council that this is the way to ensure we get reliable, affordable electricity for households and businesses which also meets our environmental targets? That is what this plan delivers. It initially came out of the Finkel report, which said we should set up the Energy Security Board. The Energy Security Board, which was set up by COAG as a result of that recommendation of the Finkel report, has looked at all of those recommendations, and it has come forward with this as the answer for how you deal with these issues. So I know the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to impose a $66 billion electricity bill on the Australian public, will not move away from his pride and will not stand down, but he should—in the interests of families and of businesses who need the certainty that he has lectured this government about for so long. He should listen to the Australian people on this and he should put aside this ideological vanity and decide to commit to lower prices, because this plan will deliver lower prices— (Time expired)