Jodie Belyea (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. How is the Albanese Labor government helping families and business with the cost of energy bills, and what policies has the government rejected and why?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Deakin is now warned. Do not interject before a minister speaks. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has the call.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank my honourable friend for her question and her contribution in this House since her recent arrival. In six days time, energy bill relief flows to the Australian people because of the Albanese government. In six days time, every single Australian with an energy bill will get relief from this government, following the relief in last year's budget. And, of course, what's also happening is that wholesale energy prices, which were $375 a megawatt hour when we came to office, were $76 a megawatt hour in the first quarter of this year. That's less—$76 a megawatt hour is less than the $375 that the previous government presided over. That's because renewable energy is up 25 per cent since we came to office and because this government put caps on the price of coal and gas.

The honourable member also asked me what policies we have rejected. We rejected the thought bubble which says that you could introduce the most expensive form of energy known anywhere in the world to Australia and it would somehow, magically, see bills go down. We're not the only people who have rejected it. We saw Rod Sims, the former chair of the ACCC, say yesterday that it would increase energy prices by more than $200 a year. We've seen Dylan McConnell say that it will increase prices by $400 to $500 a year. We've seen Roger Dargaville said it'll increase prices by up to $1,000 a year. Whichever one of those it is, it's more than Australians are paying today. Whoever's right, it's more than Australians are paying today.

It gets worse, because what we know from the opposition's thought bubble is—a few things. We don't know the costs and we don't know the modelling, but we know a few things. We know that this once great party of free enterprise has said they're going to run it all. They're going to own all of them. They're going to run it all. The shadow Treasurer a couple of weeks ago said he's against subsidies; it's all got to stand up for itself. And then the Leader of the Opposition says, 'We're going to own it all.' The shadow Treasurer cleared it up and said, 'Don't worry; it's off budget.' That means they've got to make money on it. So they're going to spend hundreds of billions and then they're going to make money on it, which means they're going to charge more.

Now, the shadow Treasurer has said that off-budget funds are risky, they increase taxes, they increase inflation and they're bad for the economy, and he calls them 'sneaky'. He's going to repeal $10 billion in off budget for housing. They're opposed to $20 billion in off budget for transmission. But they're fine with $600 million off budget for nuclear energy; that's just fine. Apparently that's not going to increase taxes, that's not going to increase interest rates and that's not risky for Australians. This half-baked yellow-cake idea of the opposition's falls apart every time it gets exposed to any scrutiny at all. It's just underlines the fact that this Leader of the Opposition is a huge risk to Australia's economic future. (Time expired)

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question goes to the Prime Minister. The government has quoted AEMO to say its renewables-only energy policy would cost $121 billion. Can the Prime Minister confirm that according to AEMO this value does not include a single cent of the cost for the required upgrades to Australia's distribution network?

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. Before I call the minister, I'd like to hear from the member for Wentworth, who has risen on her feet. She will be heard in silence as well.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaker, I'm seeking direction from the chair regarding standing order 100(d)(i). The standing order states that questions must not contain statements of facts unless they can be authenticated. I note that the shadow minister has asked for clarification about the renewables-only plan of the government, and I'd like to understand if that is indeed a renewables-only plan of the government.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The difficulty the chair has is that I cannot be responsible for every single statement that is made in the House. I can give the member the benefit of the doubt and would hope that no member would ever mislead the House—and I know the member for Fairfax would definitely be in that category—so it's difficult for the chair to make a ruling. The precedent has been for a very long period of time that the question asked by the member be in line with Practice. But I'll hear from the Leader of the House on the point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just on this standing order, Mr Speaker, there have been occasions where members have been asked to authenticate with evidence. Whether that's something that's appropriate for this question or not, I'm just saying there is some precedent for that being sought.

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition and then return to the member for Wentworth.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. On the point of order that was just raised by the Leader of the House, there's no reference to precedent whatsoever. There's some vague recollection of something that might have happened just around the time of Federation, but no detail, no page of Practicenothing at all. So I wouldn't take that red herring, Mr Speaker. The fact is that the wheels are falling off this government—

Honourable members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. The House is going to come to order so we can deal with this issue so question time may continue. On the same point of order, the member for Warringah.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In furtherance to the member for Wentworth's seeking a clarification from the Speaker, the standing orders are very clear that, in relation to those statements of facts—'unless they can be authenticated'. Since this statement of a renewables-only plan has been repeated on a number of occasions, surely now it is not difficult for the shadow minister to provide the authentication of that statement.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Look—

Honourable members interjecting—

Order. I can appreciate, on the—

Government members interjecting—

Members on my right. No. Anyone is entitled to rise on this point of order, and so is the deputy leader.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr Speaker, the statement made was a fact.

Government members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. Members on my right, I want to deal with this matter quickly so we can move on. This is dealing with members' question time, and there are members who I know wish to ask questions. Perhaps on a final point of order, the member for Wentworth.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that the opposition's budget reply speech—I read the opposition's budget reply speech—used the term 'renewables only' on the website of the Leader of the Opposition but in quotation marks. So I am seeking clarification: is this a statement of fact in relation to 'renewables only' or is it not—because there are concerningly different interpretations in relation to that?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're going to deal with this matter so we can move on with question time.

Government members interjecting—

Members on my right! I appreciate the concern by members of the crossbench raising this matter. It would be untenable for the Speaker to simply start deciding, or ruling in or out, what I believe is a statement of fact. I have to rely on the authenticity of all members, including members of the crossbench, with their questions—to understand the position that I'm in, to enable question time to operate effectively. We're going to move on. I appreciate the member's statement, but we're going to move on. The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has the call.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I recall the question, it was about whether the cost in the $121 billion includes distribution. That was the question asked by the member for Fairfax. That was a very interesting question, because I have heard the Leader of the Opposition confuse 'transmission' and 'distribution' in the past. I thought: 'Oh, well, he's the leader; he's got to be across a lot of portfolios. He doesn't have to be across the detail.' We've just learned he's been ill advised by his shadow minister, because transmission is about the big interconnectors—the big interstate connections. Distribution is about poles and wires and telegraph poles in suburbs!

Regardless of how the energy is generated, you still need telegraph poles and you still need wires in the street—unless this is a secret part of the plan we haven't been told about yet: if it's nuclear, you don't need telegraph poles. That's what the member for Fairfax is putting now! Apparently, they're not going to need to invest at all in poles and wires in the streets. We're not going to need any new telegraph poles in new suburbs, because it all comes from nuclear, all of a sudden. They don't need any in France, apparently. In France there are no telegraph poles! This is news! Good news! This is the new golden age, where we don't need any telegraph poles and we don't need any wires.

The former member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, once said he was going to put them all underground in his electorate, but this is going one better: we don't need them at all! Now—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! There's far too much noise on my left. I want to hear from the member for Fairfax on his one point of order, and he may have the call—and before the member makes his statement, he needs to be very clear, not adding additional statements in. He has the lead in the MPI today, so I want to be very clear that he is going to be strict with his point of order. We've had enough interruptions so far; we're going to deal with this in a respectful way. The member for Fairfax has the call.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My point of order is on relevance. The question went to whether or not the AEMO quoted figure of $121 billion included so much as one single cent of the cost for the required upgrades to Australia's—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fairfax will resume his seat; he has raised his point of order.

The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. To assist the House, I'm going to ask the minister to return to the question, because I could not hear what he was saying.

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Fairfax underlines his misunderstanding that any investment in distribution is required whether the power comes from renewables, or coal, or gas or nuclear. It's the same; it's the same regardless of where the generation comes from. You still need telegraph poles. You still need wires.

And the other interesting thing is that the member for Fairfax is now approvingly quoting AEMO, who he and the Leader of the Opposition have been bagging for months for daring to point out that renewables, firmed renewables, are the cheapest form of energy. AEMO will be releasing an updated ISP tomorrow, and I look forward to member for Fairfax criticising AEMO when they make similar points tomorrow.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I give the call—

Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Ask another one, Peter!

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Minister for Climate Change and Energy is now warned! It's the same rules either side: no interruptions when I'm about to call a question, to show respect to the person asking the question. The member for Moreton has the call.