Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator Nash. Yesterday, the Nationals' federal conference voted to 'reject the Finkel proposed clean energy target of 42 per cent of renewable energy by 2030'. Does this motion reflect the position of the Nationals' party room?

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Moore, this is purely a matter for the National Party. It doesn't fit within the minister's portfolio and it doesn't fit within the Deputy Prime Minister's portfolio, whom the minister represents. I feel as though this is not a matter that I can direct to the minister. Senator Wong?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, there's no point of order; it's my ruling at the moment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In respect of your ruling, this is a clean energy target that the Prime Minister has made clear that he's seeking to implement. This is a question that goes directly to whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister and the coalition partner support the government's policy. If the minister wants to read it down, we didn't ask her about the federal conference; we stated as a fact that this occurred at the federal conference and asked whether that was a reflection of the position of the coalition partner.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Attorney-General?

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, it does not relate to the minister's portfolio and, as you rightly apprehended, it is purely a party question.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on both sides! You're wasting time, senators. As we have done in the past, I'm always happy to invite the senator to rephrase the question—which is provided for under our convention and the standing orders. Senator Moore, would you like to rephrase your question?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I was actually considering changing the direction of the question to Minister Birmingham in terms of the clean energy target—

Government senators interjecting—

In relation to the process in terms of the government position.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy, Senator Moore, for you to redirect the question as well, but, if the question is purely about the happenings at the National Party conference, again I would deem that to be out of order. Senator Macdonald?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you've rightly ruled that question out of order and, if Senator Moore can't ask the question properly, we should move on. It doesn't need me to point out that Senator Birmingham wasn't at the National Party conference, so he can't say what the National Party might or might not have done. But I ask you to stand by your ruling in ruling it out of order.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've indicated, it has been past practice, and the standing orders do provide, for the President to allow a senator to rephrase a question. I'm being very liberal on this occasion by allowing her not just to rephrase it but to redirect it. Senator Moore, I'll be listening carefully to your question.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do thank you for being very liberal. My question now is to the minister about energy. It's been widely reported that yesterday, at the National Party conference, there was a motion that looked at rejecting the Finkel position of around 42 per cent renewable energy by 2030. Given the public coverage of that issue, does it in any way impact on the government's position in this space, which has been widely discussed in this place, and is a government position, which includes both the National and the Liberal parties?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Moore for the question, though it was a long, drawn-out process to get to it. The short answer is no; it doesn't impact on the government's determination to carefully consider the implementation of the recommendation from the Finkel report, and we will give that the type of careful consideration that, clearly, the opposition didn't give to any of their energy policies, just as they're unable to give any careful consideration as to how they frame their questions in question time. The challenges we're grappling with in terms of energy markets in Australia are challenges that are brought about in many ways by the flawed and failed policies of those opposite and by the flawed and failed policies of the state governments, who are also Labor governments, that they've championed, which have put undue pressure on prices and reliability right across the electricity landscape. That's why the Turnbull government's been taking action across the retail sector, the energy market and distribution channels, and in terms of energy generation to make sure that, at every possible step, we drive prices down into the future so far as possible and improve reliability.

If the Labor Party want to talk about divisions in the energy policy space, they need only look at Mr Fitzgibbon, who last week was saying that he'd like to see jobs saved at the Liddell power plant and that he'd like to see Liddell stay open if possible. He seems to have weaselled his way out of those statements, because Senator Cameron, Mr Shorten and others are quite happy, it seems, to see those jobs go and the power plant close and with that, though, the uncertainty that comes from the shortfall in dispatchable energy in Australia identified by AEMO, a shortfall that threatens affordability and reliability and one that the Turnbull government is determined to address and fix.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Moore, a supplementary question?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that modelling shows the proposed clean energy target would reduce wholesale power prices by approximately $40 a megawatt hour by 2030 and given what Senator Birmingham has just told us about the government considering a range of things in the Finkel process, why are people within the government standing in the way of a policy that would reduce pressure on power prices?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(—) (): I'd be very surprised if Senator Moore has ever attended a Labor Party conference at which she's found that everybody is in complete agreement with her. In fact, I'd be very surprised if she's ever attended a Labor Party conference where she's never been on the minority side of a debate from a grassroots motion. On this side of the chamber, the Liberal Party and the National Party are parties that empower our members to have debates and get involved in issues; we empower people to join our party so they can have a say. Those opposite like to invite people to their conferences and have it all entirely scripted and controlled by the union movement. They don't allow grassroots members to come and have a say. But we will make sure, as a government, that we take the policy steps to guarantee affordability and reliability across the energy landscape. We are taking those steps already and we will continue to take them and carefully assess each and every policy proposition into the future. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Moore, a final supplementary question?

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After more than three months, the coalition party room—

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Birmingham interjecting—

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Wong and Senator Birmingham! I can't hear Senator Moore. Senator Moore, start again, please.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order on both sides. We go back to Senator Moore.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After more than three months, the coalition party room has still not been able to agree a position on the Finkel review's clean energy target. Can the minister confirm that it is the engagement of members, including members in the National Party, who are standing in the way of action to reduce pressure on power prices?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Far from confirming that, I can deny that proposition outright because what we are doing as a government is making sure that we give careful and thorough analysis to every policy position that we take in the energy market and that we don't do what I've seen happen in my home state, where an energy crisis has seen Premier Weatherill rush out to try to solve it by putting diesel generators around the place; that we don't do what is happening in Victoria, where a desire for popularity suddenly sees the Victorian state Labor government put in place a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target; and that we don't do what the Queensland Labor government in Senator Moore's home state has done and decide to price-gouge energy generators and basically rip off Queensland businesses and households by profiteering. We won't take those sorts of poor policy decisions. We'll take careful, considered and measured policy decisions in the best interests of Australian households and businesses.