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 Acting Prime Minister. Frontier Economics has revealed that the Albanese Labor government's renewables-only plan ignores key costs, including billions of dollars in so-called sunk costs for projects yet to commence and for which the Australian taxpayers still have to pay. Is this the case?

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

Order. The member for Fairfax will pause. I want to hear from the member for Warringah on a point of order.

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

It is a point of order under standing order 100(d), where a question must not contain statements of facts unless they can be authenticated. And, pursuant to the Practice book, when a member refers to facts they must vouch for the accuracy of the facts, not just the reporting of them—the actual content of the facts being included in the question. So I ask whether or not the member for Fairfax vouches for the facts and figures included in his question.

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

Just join the Greens, Zali. Why bother with the pretext?

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

I'd ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw that comment.

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

I could see that there was an exchange going on, but when someone turns their back on me I can't hear what they're saying. So, was—

A government member interjecting

Order! I will decide who withdraws. I will not take direction from members on my right—or left. Did the Leader of the Opposition say anything unparliamentary? Had the member concluded his question? I'll just hear from the Leader of the House before we circle back to the member for Warringah.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To the point of order, it's one that has been rarely raised but was raised a number of times by the former member for Hunter, Joel Fitzgibbon, during the first term of the Abbott government, and on those occasions members of the government were asked to vouch for what they'd stated.

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

I'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition.

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

At the invitation of the Leader of the House, I'm happy for you to arbitrate and declare whether this was an unparliamentary or offensive remark. What I said was—

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

No, Leader of the Opposition—

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

I'm very happy to oblige.

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

We're talking about something else.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, just to assist: I wasn't referring to anything that you'd said at all. If this is the moment of this term when you can say you're happy, we'll take it! But I was referring to the point of order that was raised by the member for Warringah.

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

We've moved on from that point, yes. So, we're dealing now with the point of order from the member for Warringah regarding the validity of the question, not the issue; that's been dealt with. The member needs to be aware of the standing orders to make sure that a question raised by any member does contain fact. If I was to sit here and ask for every question to contain proof of everything that was said, it would be a very long question time. We'd be here for hours. The member for Warringah on a point of order.

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

In relation to the standing orders, it is clear that a member can be asked to vouch for the accuracy of the information they are including in their question. That is pursuant to the standing orders and is in the Practice book. So, it is a decision upon a member, in framing their question, to include facts that they are comfortable to vouch for the accuracy of before the parliament.

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

I'm going to listen to the question again. He made reference to a report. I just want to make sure it is within standing orders. So, I'll listen to the question carefully.

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

My question went to the Acting Prime Minister. Frontier Economics has revealed that the Albanese Labor government's renewables-only plan ignores key costs, including billions of dollars in so-called sunk costs for projects yet to commence and for which the Australian taxpayers still have to pay. Is this the case?

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

I'm going to allow the question, because he's referring to a report. I haven't read the report. I'm unaware of the accuracy. But if a member of parliament refers to a piece of work, such as a news article, I assume that it is an accurate report. The member for Warringah on a further point of order.

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

It's simply asking for the member to vouch for the accuracy of the facts that he is reporting. That is what the standing orders provide, because, once it is on the record, it is assumed as accurate. So it is simply asking for the member to vouch for the accuracy of that information.

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

Resume your seat. We're going to move forward because any member of parliament could, including a member of the crossbench, reference a report, and if I were to simply sit here to ask for every report to be verified—I assume, given that this report has been announced, every single member and everyone watching across Australia will now check the accuracy of that. And I would hope that, in any world that it wasn't accurate, the member would have to come back to and apologise to the House if he misled or said anything inaccurate.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The short answer is I don't accept the assertions which were contained in the question that was asked by the honourable member. What we see around the world is that the cheapest form of electricity today is firmed renewable electricity, and, if you go to any developed economy on the planet, they are investing in firmed renewable energy. That is how the world is walking down the pathway of decarbonising. That is how modern nations are engaging in the economic transformation which puts them at the frontier of technology, and that is what this government is going to navigate as well. And it is doing so through increasing renewables in our grid, and through increasing investment in the renewable sector.

The series of questions that we have had from those opposite makes it plain for every Australian to see that this is a party which is opposed to renewable energy. What is absolutely clear is that this is a party still wrestling with itself and the Nationals about whether climate change is actually happening at all. This is a party which is stubbornly and determinedly refusing to move with where the planet needs us to go and needs governments to go. It is an opposition which is refusing to acknowledge the conversation which is happening in Baku this week, as it has happened each and every year, about transitioning our globe and facing one of the great challenges in our lifetime.

We are going to do that because we understand the importance of Australia's contribution to reducing global emissions, but, more than that, what we understand is that a fair and efficient transition, in terms of decarbonising our economy, is what is in the nation's economic interest, and that is what we are pursuing. And we are doing that by pursuing the cheapest form of energy out there, which is firmed renewable energy. Those opposite, and the member in particular, are out there championing, along with the Leader of the Opposition, an idea of pursuing nuclear energy, which we won't see for 20 years, which is the single most expensive form of energy on the planet, which will see an increase in household electricity bills of $1,200 and, when it's all said and done, might—might!—contribute four per cent to our electricity grid. Those opposite can be completely stuck in the past when it comes to these policies, as they were for an entire lost decade, as we saw 22 different energy policies which took this country nowhere. On this side of the House, we have intent, we have a direction and we are transitioning this country to a cleaner, better, more prosperous future.