Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Less than a year ago the Prime Minister said, 'We have no plans to build a coal-fired power station.' Does the Prime Minister stand by that statement?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister, a supplementary question.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A year ago the Treasurer said, 'There is no such thing as new, cheap energy with a coal-fired power station.' Was the Treasurer correct?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasurer was correct at that time, and that is, of course, precisely what we want to address. We want to ensure, through our National Energy Guarantee, that we can deliver lower priced and more reliable electricity. The Labor Party can go to the next election and tell the Australian people that you want higher electricity prices, which are bad for households and bad for business; which will hurt families and pensioners; and which will cost jobs. We'll go to the next election promising lower electricity prices and more reliable energy. It is higher prices versus lower prices. Your 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target and your 45 per cent emissions reduction target—guess what they are going to do? They are going to drive electricity prices up and up and up, which will hurt households and businesses and cost jobs.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This week the Prime Minister capitulated to the hard Right of his party room by promising to build a new coal-fired power station. Despite this, 10 coalition members spoke against the Prime Minister's National Energy Guarantee, and former Prime Minister Abbott, the member for Canning, Andrew Hastie, Senator Abetz and the member for Hughes, Craig Kelly, have reportedly reserved their right to cross the floor. Is the Prime Minister confident that he has satisfied the ideological hard Right or is he worried that the former Prime Minister is correct when he says that the explanation sounds like 'merchant bankers' gobbledegook'? (Time expired)

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I completely and utterly reject the premise of the question. Secondly, what I would like to confirm is that part of the question which relates to proper policy debate inside the Liberal-National Party party room. That's what we do in our party room: we talk about policy. Perhaps they're all a bunch of robots inside the Labor Party, who get programmed as they walk in and somebody presses the button and they all have the same view. That is the socialist model, I guess.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, a point of order?

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. It's on relevance. The question was: when Mr Abbott said the Prime Minister's explanation sounds like merchant banker gobbledegook, was he correct?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't hear that, but it was a rather lengthy question and I consider the minister to be directly relevant to part of it, as he's entitled to be.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to confirm that, in the Liberal-National party room, we talk policy. We genuinely assess the issues. We make judgements on the best way forward and, unlike inside the Labor Party, we're not a bunch of robots who come at issues, all with the same view to start off with. The party room has made a decision. We support the National Energy Guarantee and we will seek to implement it as soon as possible in order to bring down electricity prices. (Time expired)

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is for the Leader of the Government, representing the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Senate ordered the government produce the detailed modelling behind the $550 NEG saving. This morning, the government's non-response confirms what we all suspected: there is absolutely no evidence to support your claims of lower power prices under the NEG; households are still waiting for the $550 that you promised after scrapping the carbon price.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, I have asked for silence during questions already this question time. Please continue, Senator Di Natale.

An honourable senator interjecting—

You can take a point of order, Senator Macdonald.

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

This particular senator keeps making a statement and an argument to the Senate in the guise of question time. I've heard what you've said before, Mr President, but that is not asking a question at question time. It is making a political point and an argument that should not be allowed.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, the standing orders allow a minute to ask a question. A question is allowed to have a preface but it must have a question. Senator Macdonald, I'm happy to take this up with you after question time. I respect you've been here a lot longer than I, but it's the well-established practice that questions can take time to ask. Senator Di Natale, please continue. I don't think you need to start again. I heard—

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know where I was.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Di Natale, please continue.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise on a point of order.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What is the point of order?

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald is a serial offender in standing up and interrupting questions while they're being asked. It is disrespectful and, in light of the conversation and your statement yesterday, what I heard from Senator Macdonald was him indeed dissenting to your ruling. It's unacceptable and he does it repeatedly.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi on this point of order?

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. I wonder whether it's in order for a senator to take a point of order on themselves?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will rule on the point of order. Senator Di Natale, I have called the Senate to order. I've addressed the matter raised by Senator Macdonald. I asked for a question to start earlier before because the noise level was so high and no-one could hear it. This was about one interjection. I could hear the question, as could many others, but I was being consistent in my rulings to ensure a senator was heard in silence. I ask you to continue your question.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that households are still waiting for the $550 that you promised after scrapping the carbon price, we know they won't be fooled twice and they know the NEG won't reduce the power prices. Given the energy mix will stay the same over the next decade, how does the NEG magically reduce prices for consumers?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In answer to that last question, if you provide improved certainty for investors and there's increased investment, increased electricity generation and increased supply. It's the basic laws of market economics: if you increase supply, prices will be lower, all other things being equal.

What I would also say is it's a historic fact that the biggest fall in electricity prices was on the back of the abolition of the carbon tax. I know that you are carbon tax related and electricity fall deniers. You are deniers of electricity price falls on the back of the carbon tax repeal. That's fine, you can continue to deny that, but the historical facts are there.

Moving forward, what do you believe? Do you believe that a 50 per cent renewable target and a 45 per cent emissions reduction target is going to bring electricity prices down? How is that going to bring electricity prices down? You want a 100 per cent renewable energy target. It's going to be an auction here. If Bill Shorten were elected to government, we'd end up with a compromise between 50 and 100 per cent. They'd probably end up at 75 per cent. Families, pensioners, businesses and jobs would all be damaged.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NEG entrenches the power of the big three energy companies: Origin, Energy Australia and AGL. Given they're the ones gauging households and exploiting prices—incidentally, they're donors to the Liberal Party as well—how will the government giving the big three energy companies—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Di Natale, please pause. There is a point of order from Senator Macdonald.

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

I draw your attention to standing order 73—I know you know it, but I'll repeat it for everyone—which says:

(1) The following rules shall apply to questions:

questions shall not contain:

…   …   …

(b)   arguments;

(c)   inferences;

(d)   imputations;

That question is clearly an argument, and it's clearly debate about political matters. It is not asking a question. Mr President, you may say other presidents have allowed this, but, if we're not going to stand by the standing orders, why don't we amend them or get rid of them? If they're there, we should follow them.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Senator Macdonald, you quite correctly read out the provisions of the standing order 73(1). The first part of that allows statements of fact and names to render the question intelligible. I take the point that occasionally imputations are being put in questions. I'll come back to the chamber on it, because it has crept in along with people addressing each other individually across the chamber rather than making comments to the chair, which is another thing that is happening more often. I'll ask senators to keep that in mind, but I'll come back to the chamber on that. Senator Di Natale, please continue your question.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From where?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Di Natale, you were halfway through your question.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How will the government, given the big three energy companies are already gouging consumers, reduce power prices, Minister?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I did actually address that in my first answer. It's very simple free-market economics. I know that, in the world of the Greens and the Labor Party, you don't quite understand the basic principles of free-market economics. If you increase the level of investment to increase the supply of a product that is in high demand, you will bring prices down compared to what the prices would otherwise be. Of course, there are measures in our package that go to making sure that, through energy efficiency measures taken by governments over the years, demand is as efficient as possible. But, by the same token, if you increase investment to increase generation and increase supply, you bring down prices. That is as certain as Monday following on from Sunday. You might want to argue against the fact that Monday follows on from Sunday—feel free.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, the NEG will deliver just four wind turbines and half a gas plant over 10 years. It'll reduce pollution in the energy sector by just 0.2 per cent a year. Can you explain what your plan to reduce emissions from the agriculture and transport sector by 26 per cent each looks like?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, we are committed to bringing the price of electricity down to improve energy reliability and to do so in a way that is appropriately and environmentally efficient. If Senator Di Natale was genuinely interested in all of the specific design features, I would encourage him to address those questions to the minister with the representative portfolio responsibilities in this chamber. But, of course, Senator Di Natale does not appear to be interested in the policy detail, because, if he was interested in the policy detail, he would be supporting a policy framework and a National Energy Guarantee, which is technology agnostic, which is merely focused on increasing the level of investment into energy generation so we can bring down the cost of electricity.

Senator Cameron interjecting —

You're saying Senator Di Natale is on a unity ticket. Is that right? Anyway, I think Senator Di Natale better understands that our approach is technology agnostic. (Time expired)