Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's latest energy policy. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the government has not modelled its impact on business—

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

The Leader of the House will cease interjecting, as will the Minister for the Environment and Energy. The Leader of the Opposition will begin his question again. I need to hear the question.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister's latest energy policy. Can the Prime Minister confirm that the government has not modelled its impact on business, has not modelled its impact on renewable energy jobs, has not modelled its impact on the broader economy and has not modelled its impact on households? Why should Australians believe anything that this Prime Minister says about a lousy 50c saving in people's power bills?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition stood in front of some solar panels. For a little while he was talking sense, and then a beam of sunlight struck the panel and he was transformed, not into a werewolf but into an economic fantasist. He said, 'Renewable energy is getting cheaper and will continue to do so.' He did. He said, 'It's correct to say we've been moving down the renewable energy path and we're seeing the benefits.' And then he said, 'It needs to be subsidised.' This is the bit that we're struggling to understand. His comrade in arms, defying economics, was the member for Sydney. She's even more emphatic. She said to Kieran Gilbert that renewables are becoming cheaper all the time and are already cheaper than coal. Kieran Gilbert was not asking an unreasonable question when he said, 'So why subsidise it?' Fairly obvious! She said, 'It's not about subsidies; it's about certainty.' This is the Labor Party: 'It's about certainty.' I'll tell you what the certainty is: $66 billion of costs loaded onto Australian families and Australian businesses in order to subsidise technologies that are already the cheapest alternative, according to the Labor Party.

If Labor were remotely fair dinkum or consistent about this, they would welcome the level playing field our Energy Guarantee offers—the level playing field! There are two constraints in the Energy Guarantee plan recommended by the Energy Security Board. One is to keep the lights on. Most people regard that as a very high priority—not the Labor Party, obviously. We do. The other one is to ensure that you meet your Paris commitments. That's very important, too. And then you've got to do so in the least-cost manner. That's the triple bottom line. That's what the Energy Security Board has recommended—a plan to deliver. It's about time Labor started becoming consistent and principled and rational and supported the advice of the experts.

Mr Thistlethwaite interjecting—

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

The member for Kingsford Smith will cease interjecting.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on actions the government is taking to reduce power bills for hardworking families and businesses and to improve the reliability of Australia's energy system, including in my electorate of Bonner?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question. Affordability, reliability, responsibility—that's what the Energy Guarantee delivers. That's what it delivers, and it is based on the advice of the smartest people in the industry—the regulators and the operators, assembled on the Energy Security Board by COAG, appointed by Labor governments, Liberal governments, working together. These are the experts that we have been called on to listen to for so long. That's the Energy Security Board—this is their recommendation. What does their advice say? It says that the best, most effective way to reduce power bills, improve the reliability of our energy system—which, as the member for Port Adelaide knows very well, is far from reliable in his state—

Ms Madeleine King interjecting—

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

The member for Brand!

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So we know exactly what Labor's policies are going to result in—massive hikes in energy costs and a big drop in reliability. Blackouts, blackouts and more blackouts is what we've seen from Labor, and higher and higher bills. Energy costs doubled under the last Labor government. The Energy Security Board's advice is that we should integrate climate policy and energy policy through the market to ensure the least-cost route to deliver the lowest prices we can for Australian families. That's their advice.

We keep on being asked for guarantees. I can guarantee that the authors of this recommendation know a lot more about energy and economics than anyone sitting opposite us today. These are the people, chaired by Kerry Schott—

Mr Bowen interjecting—

I heard the member for McMahon talking about high school economics—very good; there's much to be commended. Kerry Schott has a PhD in pure mathematics from the University of Oxford. She has chaired energy companies, with John Pierce, the head of the AMC, one of the finest Treasury secretaries in the history of the state of New South Wales, and he has been involved in the energy sector for decades. Audrey Zibelman was the energy market operator in New York. And then, of course, you have Paula Conboy, who was a regulator in Ontario. This group of people, assembled expertise, was put together as recommended by Alan Finkel, and we went to them for advice. And this is the advice we got: what this will deliver is cheaper electricity, lower wholesale costs, savings for households and reliability. That's the triple bottom line we're delivering. It's the triple bottom line Labor is destroying and defying. They failed. We've got the answers here from the ESB; Labor should adopt them. (Time expired)

Mr Brian Mitchell interjecting—

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

The member for Lyons was interjecting continually through that answer. He will cease interjecting. If he interjects again, he will be ejected immediately. The member for Brand: I also cautioned her during the answer, but I'm pretty sure she didn't hear me, because she didn't break sentence—she kept going.

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 Prime Minister. Last night on Lateline, when asked whether she would personally guarantee to the people of Australia that their energy bills will be cheaper in three years time under the Prime Minister's latest energy policy, the chair of the Energy Security Board, Kerry Schott, said:

I don't think anybody can guarantee a price reduction.

When even the chair of the government's Energy Security Board can't guarantee that energy prices will fall for households, why should the Australian people believe the Prime Minister's so-called guarantee?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One thing we can guarantee is that, if you impose a $66 billion subsidy on the Australian energy sector and you get the taxpayers to pay it, electricity bills will be higher.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

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

The member for Isaacs is warned.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We can also guarantee that if you continue to ignore the need for dispatchable base-load power then you will get more blackouts. If you get more blackouts, you will get more volatility and then you will pay even higher prices. We know how this Labor horror movie goes. It's been playing in South Australia for years. We know exactly what it does. They have no conception of the engineering and the economics that we need to deliver a reliable and affordable energy plan.

As for Dr Schott, I can say to the Labor Party: Eddie Obeid couldn't intimidate her and neither can any of his friends opposite. Kerry Schott is one of the finest public servants in this country. This is what she said: 'The guarantee is about providing a reliable power system and meeting the emissions targets set in the Paris Agreement. What will happen when those mechanisms are put in place is that prices are likely to come down and they're likely to keep coming down.' That is exactly the same advice that we received in the letter from the Energy Security Board—the experts that we've been called on to listen to and take advice from. What did they say? They said: 'Wholesale prices are expected to decline by 20 to 25 per cent over the same period—from 2020 to 2030—and that could lead to a reduction in residential bills in the order of $100 to $115 per annum. Compared to the clean energy target as specified in the Finkel review, this guarantee can be expected to lead to wholesale prices that are on average eight to 10 per cent lower over the 2020 to 2030 period.'

We've seen the Leader of the Opposition morph from a plausibly rational person to being completely irrational and saying that the cheapest energy source needs to be subsidised. That is unusual. That is 'Shortenomics'; it really is! We'd like to see a bit more of the nice Leader of the Opposition, the genial, bipartisan one who wrote to me and said:

The most effective policy for investment certainty in the energy sector is bipartisanship.

…   …   …

… we believe it is time to put an end to the 'climate wars' …

…   …   …

… Labor calls on the Government to work with us in a bipartisan approach …

Well, we have a recommendation from a bipartisan appointed expert— (Time expired)

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer advise the House on the action the government has taken to provide certainty for investment in Australia, including in our energy sector, by guaranteeing an affordable, reliable energy supply for hardworking families and businesses? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?

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

I thank the member for Forde for his question. He was re-elected at the last election on a platform that the Turnbull government is always doing things to drive investment and to secure the confidence of investors to invest in the jobs that are generated by that investment, the more and better paid jobs coming under this government, with some 325,000 jobs created in the last year alone. In the budget we said yes. We said yes to $75 billion in nation-building infrastructure investment to drive investment, whereas the Labor Party continue to say no. They said no to the East West Link. They said no to WestConnex. They've even said no today to the extension in southern Sydney. They've said no to their own electorates, like the shadow Treasurer did on the Western Sydney Airport being in Fairfield. They are saying no to these projects. We said yes to cutting taxes for the small and medium sized businesses—and legislated to do that—that now cover half of the Australian labour force. The Labor Party said no to cutting those taxes—they're saying no to ensuring that Australian businesses have a competitive tax rate right across the board. That's necessary because of taxes being cut in France, in the United Kingdom, in the United States and also in China, where they're looking to do the same thing.

In the budget we said yes to all of these initiatives to drive investment. Yesterday we said yes to providing certainty for investment in boosting energy supply through the National Energy Guarantee that will make power more affordable and more reliable and achieve our environmental commitments. Business and industry have said yes to that. Economists have said yes to that. The Chief Scientist has said yes to the National Energy Guarantee. What have Labor done again? Labor have said no. Labor have no plans for investment certainty. They only have a plan to say no on every single occasion, as this government works to drive investment that supports jobs, that supports certainty, that supports higher paid jobs and that supports a growing economy. What they do is look for any excuse to say no—any and every excuse. They will sink to seeking to discredit and bully even an Energy Security Board with people appointed by Labor state governments on it. We've seen them in interview after interview seeking to undermine those independently appointed members of that board—seeking to bully and intimidate like the unions whose behaviour they defend and protect in this place every single day. The recipe from those opposite is higher taxes and higher subsidies—$66 million in higher costs for Australian business and consumers, which means less investment. (Time expired)

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Last night on Lateline, Kerry Schott stated:

I don't think anybody can guarantee a price reduction.

Was the Chair of the Energy Security Board correct?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Chair of the Energy Security Board has accurately described the advice that she has given, which is that a consequence of having a level playing field—combining climate and energy policy and getting rid of the subsidies—is likely to result in a 20 to 25 per cent reduction in wholesale prices. I quote from the board's letter: 'Wholesale prices are expected to decline by 20 to 25 per cent per annum over the same period.' The pathetic thing about the opposition in this field today is that they have called repeatedly for us to take the advice of experts. Alan Finkel recommended the Energy Security Board be established and COAG, including state Labor governments, appointed the members of the Energy Security Board. The member for Port Adelaide was gushing in his praise of the independent chairman and the deputy chairman.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. It was a straight and narrow question. Was Dr Schott right? Yes or no?

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

The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Prime Minister has the call.

Mr Hill interjecting—

The member for Bruce will leave under 94(a).

The member for Bruce then left the chamber.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Kerry Schott is one of our nation's greatest public servants, energy experts, economists and mathematicians. What she said on Lateline is absolutely correct and what honourable members opposite know is the case. The fact of the matter is this: as she said, and as we know, there are many impacts on a household's electricity bill. Wholesale prices are one important factor. But there's also the matter of the price of fuel, which is not affected by this policy. There is the price of gas. What did Labor do to gas? They sent the price through the roof through not protecting domestic demand.

What have we done? We've brought the price of gas down by ensuring that Australians are protected and can get the gas they need. Another big factor, too, is the cost of networks. That is not affected by the Energy Guarantee; it's a separate issue. That is being attacked by the abolition of the limited merits review, now through the parliament. The reality is, as Rod Sims said, as Kerry Schott said, as John Pierce has said, and as we all know—except those in this parallel universe of ideology and political stupidity opposite—energy prices are affected by many measures. This National Energy Guarantee will deliver lower wholesale prices than any alternative, and that's what Australians need—reliability, affordability and responsibility We have a plan. Labor's just got one whine after another. (Time expired)

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Prime Minister, electricity prices in Victoria, Queensland and South Australia in the 13 years from 1989 to 2002 rose from $650 to $780, a minuscule $130 in 13 years. From 2002 all pricing was done by free open-market operations, and the industry wholly corporatised and privatised. In the next 13 years the price skyrocketed from $810 to $2,130—a $1,300 increase. Since NEMMCO quotes environmental charges at only 25 per cent of current costs, clearly the price explosion—

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

The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. We will take that as a 45-second statement. We will go to the member for Chisholm.

Julia Banks (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the—

Mr Katter interjecting—

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

The member for Chisholm will resume her seat. The member for Kennedy has been asked to resume—

Mr Katter interjecting—

The member for Kennedy will resume his seat. There was no question. The member for Kennedy will resume his seat.

Mr Katter interjecting—

The member for Kennedy will not reflect on the chair. The member for Kennedy, unlike members of the opposition, has additional time to ask a question. Special rules have been put in place to allow 45 seconds, and they were put in place principally for him. There were 45 seconds of quotes and statements without a question. This is question time, and I'm not going to be lectured by the member for Kennedy. The member for Chisholm has the call.

Julia Banks (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is for the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Will the minister update the House on the government's action to guarantee affordable and reliable energy for hardworking Australian families and businesses, including in my electorate of Chisholm? How does this compare to the risks associated with the alternative approaches?

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

I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and acknowledge her deep interest in and concern about the energy sector and rising power prices and the importance of taking action on a number of fronts to reduce the pressure on family electricity bills. The Turnbull government's been taking action on a number of fronts, including in reining in the power of networks, in ensuring a better deal for families from the retailers and in ensuring that Australians get access to gas before it is shipped overseas. Our announcement of the National Energy Guarantee is a credible, workable, pro-market policy that will deliver lower power prices for Australians and a more reliable system. Unlike the policies proposed by those opposite, this involves no taxes, no subsidies and no emissions trading schemes. It will see, on the basis of the advice and analysis of the Energy Security Board, savings of up to $115 per annum for an average Australian household.

Since the announcement by the Turnbull government, there's been enormous widespread support, including from Australia's largest manufacturer, BlueScope Steel. Paul O'Malley said, 'It turns the game around,' 'It re-tilts the playing field,' and 'It's fair'. Australia's Chief Scientist Alan Finkel said it's a 'credible mechanism'. That is from the country's most authoritative voice in energy matters. AGL described it as an 'important step'. Energy Australia said it was a 'serious proposal'. Origin said, 'We look forward to working with the government and energy market bodies to progress it.' Energy Networks Australia welcomed it. The Grattan Institute described it as 'the last piece in the complex jigsaw puzzle of a credible energy and climate change policy', and said it 'should be supported, not only within the Coalition but by Labor, the states, the energy industry and by electricity consumers'. Energy Consumers Australia welcomed it and said it 'integrates the need for reliable power and emissions reductions in the electricity sector, at least cost for consumers'. The BCA, which represents one in ten Australian workers, through the companies, says that it provides 'greater investor confidence than a more complex CET may have'. The Australian Industry Group, which represents more than one million employees, said the plan gives the electricity sector a 'great deal of flexibility'. (Time expired)

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced his National Energy Guarantee. But today the Treasurer agreed that when it comes to savings on power bills the guarantee was actually a prediction. Just now the Prime Minister confirmed that his lousy 50c savings are only likely. Doesn't this make an absolute mockery of the Prime Minister's so-called guarantee?

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can understand the way in which the Leader of the Opposition is squirming on this issue. I can understand his embarrassment. Having called for bipartisanship, having called for us to listen to experts, having supported the establishment of the Energy Security Board, then, when these independent experts, authorities in the field, give advice that doesn't suit him politically, he wants to attack them personally. He wants to challenge their integrity. Yesterday, he was having a go at the integrity of the Energy Security Board, muttering to himself. He was; I could hear him muttering away to himself, talking to himself. I think that may well have been the case. He will always get an attentive audience when he does that.

What we have is the advice from the Energy Security Board that will deliver affordable and reliable power. What it does is ensure that the Energy Market Operator will not have to be, as it is every other weekend, intervening in the South Australian energy market, calling on expensive gas-fired generation just to keep the lights on because there is not enough dispatchable power in the South Australian market. What this will do is ensure that we have reliable power that is affordable and that we meet our emissions reduction obligations under the Paris agreement. What the experts have done is given us that advice, and we know that that is advice from the most qualified people in the nation. Their establishment was recommended by Alan Finkel. Their recommendations have been welcomed by Alan Finkel, they've been welcomed by the industry and they've been welcomed by distinguished commentators, like Tony Wood of the Grattan Institute.

This is seen as the best chance we've had for years to achieve a bipartisan energy policy that will restore investment certainty into the market. I refer honourable members to the Energy Security Board's letter to the government—it is a public document. It says:

Under this scheme, the wholesale price would be expected to be lower relative to today and lower compared to a certificate-based scheme.

So they've carefully considered the recommendation of the Finkel review for a clean energy target and what they have come up with is a mechanism that works even better, that does a better job on reliability and does the same job of reducing emissions—very importantly. But, above all, because it integrates climate and energy policy, it will result in lower costs and, hence, lower prices for Australian families. Everything we are doing is aimed at bringing prices down— (Time expired)

Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, and Minister for Resources in Northern Australia. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on how the government's National Energy Guarantee will deliver affordable and reliable energy for hardworking families across regional Australia, including in my electorate of Flynn, and is he aware of any alternative approaches?

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge the hard work he does for people in Biloela, as he makes sure the people in Biloela of the weatherboard and iron have affordable power and do not have to deal with the policies of the basketweavers—or the people of Eidsvold, who need to get affordable and reliable power, who need the dignity of that in their lives and don't have to put up with a policy that's being delivered by incense sticks, which is the policy of the Labor Party; or the people of Mount Morgan, who do not believe they're politically incorrect and do believe that as blue-collar workers they still deserve a job; or the people of Wondai, who believe in affordable power, not wind-chime power, which is what the Labor Party wants to deliver to them. No, these people understand that we have a plan to bring forward power to make sure the baseload power stays on the system, that the coal-fired power keeps going.

Our plan is backed by the National Energy Guarantee, supported by the National Irrigators Council, BlueScope, AGL, Energy Networks Australia, the Grattan Institute, the Australian Industry Group, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Energy Council and the Energy Users Association of Australia, because they know that this is a diligent plan.

The member for Flynn would probably be aware of this because in the member for Flynn's seat he has a big coal-fired power station. It supports nearly 1,000 workers, amongst other things, at the Boyne Smelters. These are blue-collared jobs. And the member for Flynn is standing behind those blue-collared jobs. The member for Flynn is not embarrassed about blue-collared jobs. The member for Flynn is a pragmatist about how we keep these men and women in a job.

I want to quote someone from the Labor Party who was talking about that Gladstone coal-fired power station. This member from the Labor Party said: 'Naturally, the Australian Labor Party welcomes Commonwealth participation in the provision of electricity in Central Queensland, which is an area where power has been hardest to come by and is the most expensive in Australia.' That member for the Labor Party—a very prominent member of the Labor Party—later went on to say the only problem he had with the coal-fired power is that the advance was not a grant. Now who was that member of the Labor Party? Who could that be?

An honourable member: Mark Latham!

I'll take the interjection. They've just said Mark Latham. No, it's a bit better than that. You might remember this bloke. He believed in coal-fired power. It was Edward Gough Whitlam. And boy, oh, boy, hasn't the apple fallen a long way from the tree! The apple's gone all the way from Central Queensland to Annandale. The basketweavers now run this. So I say to the men and women of Australia: if you want to pay $66,000 million more than you have to, out of your wallet then vote for the liability which is Bill.