Marion Scrymgour (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. Minister, how does the budget help with household energy bills, and what are the risks to more affordable energy bills?

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

The member for O'Connor will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). I just said something to the House about wanting the noise level to come down, and then you thought it was okay to interject. That's against the spirit of the standing orders but also incredibly disrespectful.

The member for O'Connor then left the chamber.

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

The member for Lingiari represents a beautiful and important part of Australia and she does that very, very well. I thank her for the question. She asks how the Albanese government is supplying support to Australian households with energy bills. There are a couple of ways. There is energy bill relief, and there are tax cuts, both of which were in last night's budget. What energy bill relief and tax cuts have in common is that they give support to the Australian people, but they don't get much support from the Liberal Party of Australia. That's what they have in common. There is $1.8 billion of energy bill relief flowing directly to the Australian people, households and small businesses. On the tax cuts, when taken in total, the three rounds of Albanese government tax cuts are more than $2,000 a year in tax relief for the average Australian taxpayer. That is not a small amount of money. It's important relief for Australians when taken as a whole.

The member for Lingiari asks me if there are any risks to this relief. I am happy to be asked about relief and risks and alternative policies. Not everyone is happy to talk about the alternative policies. Those opposite don't like talking about it very much at all. One person in particular doesn't like being asked about the alternatives, and that's our friend the member for Hume, the shadow Treasurer. We know he was on Insiders on the weekend. He was asked about the cost of their nuclear policy. But that's not the only place he's been asked that recently. He was asked recently at the AFR Business Summit. This hasn't had as much attention as the Insiders interview, I have to allow, so I feel obliged to correct that. He was asked at the AFR Business Summit by Phil Coorey, a distinguished Australian journalist. It's controversial, but I will stand by it! The question to Angus Taylor was: 'Labor has said it's $600 billion. I think your own modelling says it's $331 billion for the build and operating costs.' Angus Taylor said, 'Both those numbers are nonsense.' Phil Coorey said: 'It's your own modelling—$331 billion.' Angus Taylor laughed. His only response when caught out not knowing that his own modelling said that was the cost was to laugh. He couldn't give an answer to the question. Well, I will help the shadow Treasurer out: $600 billion of taxpayers' money must be paid for.

If the shadow Treasurer's doesn't know how much it costs, the Australian people are entitled to conclude it's a big risk that those costs will be paid for by cuts—cuts to health and cuts to education. That's because the only cuts the Leader of the Opposition doesn't like are tax cuts. He tried $50 billion of cuts when he was the Minister for Health. We know the opposition came out and said they did not support the Albanese government's education funding model finally delivering on 15 years of work to ensure that every Australian student, regardless of whether they are in the electorate of Lingiari or the electorate of North Sydney, has access to the same support from the Australian government. We think that's a good thing. The Leader of the Opposition calls all these things wasteful spending; we know he'll cut them to favour his nuclear fantasy.