Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Before coming to office, the Liberals promised Australians their power bills would drop by $550. They didn't. This year, the Prime Minister promised that wholesale gas prices would halve. They haven't. And yesterday it was revealed that the Prime Minister's latest energy policy might only reduce the power bills of Australians by a lousy 50c a week in three years time. Why would the Australian people believe anything this Prime Minister says about energy prices?

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

I thank the member for Sydney for her question. I can read from an ACCC report, which says about the abolition of the carbon tax that the Commonwealth Treasury's estimated $550 cost saving to households is reasonable. So there we go—the Labor Party is at it again, telling a mistruth like the one that they have repeated in this House about a $1,000 increase. That goes against the advice of the Australian Energy Regulator and other agencies, and they haven't had the courage to repeat it in this place. We have been very successful not just in abolishing the carbon tax; we have also seen the wholesale spot price for gas come down from about $12 at the beginning of this year to about $7 right now. We have been putting pressure on the Queensland Labor government to rein in CS Energy and Stanwell, who are engaged in uncompetitive bidding practices. As a result of that direction, we have seen wholesale electricity prices in Queensland fall by about 25 per cent.

Then, of course, there is the work the Prime Minister did with retailers. I can inform the House that a family of four from Turramurra in Sydney with electricity costs of just under $2,800 a year used the government's Energy Made Easy website to switch suppliers, and as a result they will save around $650 a year. A family with three students were living in St Kilda, in Melbourne, and they had electricity costs of about $1,420 a year. They used the Victorian electricity website and they saved around $230 a year. A family of three living in Ashgrove, in Brisbane, had electricity costs of $2,850 a year, and as a result of the Prime Minister's intervention and promotion of the ability to switch retailers and contracts, they used the government's Energy Made Easy website, they switched suppliers and as a result they will save about $630 a year. Under our proposal, recommended to us by the Energy Security Board, the savings to households will be better than the ones that were promoted by the clean energy target—which the member for Port Adelaide himself described as a second-best option.

The Labor Party are isolated. They are standing alone in opposition to the recommendation from the experts. The industry, the big users and the industry organisations have all come around to support this initiative as being one that will deliver reliable, affordable power. (Time expired)

Damian Drum (Murray, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Health: I refer the minister to media reports in the Riverine Herald in September that showed essential health services are at risk due to skyrocketing energy costs. Will the minister update the House on the importance of a reliable and affordable supply of energy to Australia's rural and regional hospitals?

Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Murray. Labor loves higher power prices, Labor believes in higher power prices, and their policies at both federal and state level are designed to deliver higher power prices—and that is bad for our hospitals. That is bad for Echuca hospital, which the member for Murray believes in, supports and has been an advocate for throughout his time in parliament. Why is this important? It's important because there are not just two policies but two fundamental approaches here. One side of parliament consistently advocates for higher power prices, and then puts in place policies to drive them up, and one side believes in lower power prices and has taken steps to that effect.

For the people of Murray, this matters in the real world, because what we saw at Echuca hospital is the real world. The chief executive said only a month ago that the consequence of the changes in Victoria's power system is a $375,000 a year cost to Echuca hospital. When Hazelwood was deliberately knocked out by the Victorian government, the people of Echuca and the hospital in Echuca paid that price. As the chief executive said:

It's significant and it's a serious issue for the whole community—

in terms of the power price hike—

but in the context of public hospitals it has a material impact on our budget in this current financial year.

In other words, Labor policies are deliberately driving up the cost of electricity and the cost of operations for hospitals, not just in Victoria but around the country.

By contrast, we abolished the carbon tax and it did drive down electricity prices. We have abolished limited merits review, and that will have an impact. The Prime Minister has specifically worked alongside the energy minister with the gas companies, and the wholesale price of gas has dropped from $12 to $7. Now there is the energy security guarantee for Australia, and that is the next step. All are about bringing down power prices.

What we see now, though, is what happens when Labor gets its hands on the levers of power. In Victoria it knocked over the Hazelwood power station. In South Australia it literally blew up the Northern power station. Last time at national level it introduced a carbon tax, and next time it is going to introduce a $66 billion hit on bills for families, on bills for pensioners and on bills for our hospitals. If you believe in the security of our hospital system, you will not believe in Labor's approach to power pricing. It's a threat to pensioners, it's a threat to families, and, above all else, it's a threat to our hospital system.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Under this Prime Minister, carers didn't get the government's one-off $75 energy assistance payment and they're facing the abolition of their energy supplement—a cut of $365 a year. With the Prime Minister already ripping hundreds of dollars away from carers, is he really so out of touch that he expects carers to thank him because they might get a lousy 50c saving on their power bills in three years time?

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Jagajaga raises the issue of the energy supplement. What is fascinating about the member for Jagajaga raising the issue of the energy supplement and the savings that would be garnered for the federal budget by virtue of that removal—

Ms Macklin interjecting—

Mr Morrison interjecting—

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

The member for Jagajaga and the Treasurer will cease interjecting. The minister has the call.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

is that the member for Jagajaga was part of a team that had already made that saving, banked it and spent it. One needs only to look directly at the Labor Party's fiscal plan in its election document. In that, there is a very long list of what are known as 'reversals', on page 30. The list of reversals is long; but there is one thing suspiciously absent from the list of savings reversals, and that is the energy supplement. What then happened was the Leader of the Opposition was asked about the energy supplement and about Labor's fiscal plan. He said in an interview that the Labor position on savings measures after the 2016 election would be 'consistent with what was in the fiscal plan before the election'.

Ms Macklin interjecting—

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

The member for Jagajaga will cease interjecting.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And was Labor's fiscal plan before the election saving the energy supplement, banking it and spending it? It absolutely was. Is the position now consistent? That is absolutely anyone's guess. But what the member for Jagajaga does is get up here and criticise the government for making a savings measure which Labor has made, banked and already spent. And, in the process of doing so, the member for Jagajaga criticises the fact that the energy guarantee has the capacity to deliver savings each year, from 2020, of up to $115 a year.

Now, the criticism of that is that it's not enough. In fact, Senator Dastyari tried to make that criticism today with a cheeseburger. I understood he was more of a Chinese food aficionado! But the fact is that $115 a year as a potential saving to Australian households is actually significant. It mightn't be significant to members opposite, who prefer Chinese food and fine Chinese restaurants, but a potential $115 saving a year is very significant. It is absolutely significant when you compare it with the potential cost increases in the average electricity bill that will occur if you try to put $66 billion worth of taxpayers' money into subsidising renewables—which members opposite also say don't need subsidisation because they are competitive as it is. (Time expired)