My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. What is the total system cost of achieving the Anthony Albanese Labor government's 82 per cent renewable energy target by 2030?

It is interesting that I should get a question on costs from the opposition—the nerve of these people! They announce a big energy policy, supposedly—a scam—and I don't think it actually stands up to the test of policy. Does it have any costs attached to it at all? No. Do they know how they'll roll it out? No.

But can you answer it?

Senator Cash and Senator McKenzie!

Does anyone seem to agree with it? No, not many.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat.

Senator Watt! Order across the chamber! Senators, we are just a few minutes into question time. I have Senator Birmingham on his feet on a point of order, and I had to draw your attention to order on three or four occasions.

President, Senator Cadell's question was quite specific, and, whilst a degree of latitude may be given to ministers to talk about other matters or indeed opposition policies, the minister was asked about government costings. This is the finance minister, and I ask you to, now more than a quarter of the way into the time allowed, draw her to the question asked by Senator Cadell.

Thank you, Senator Birmingham. I will draw the minister back to the question. I will also make the point that I expect the minister to be heard in silence.

I can understand that Senator Birmingham's a bit sensitive about the issue of costs. I imagine that, as a former finance minister, he must find it quite difficult to be a member of a party that launches a policy without any costings at all. I can assure the opposition that the price of continuing to proceed with renewable energy—which, as everyone in this place knows and accepts, is the cheapest form of energy—and of our continued steady rollout of renewables with firming capacity will be a lot less than whatever number you lot come up with whenever you get around to it.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order! I've already had to draw the Senate back to order, particularly on my left. I asked for silence, and that is what I expect. Minister Gallagher, did you have anything further to add?

I will add that the figure that's being peddled by those opposite, including by the Leader of the Opposition, of $1.5 trillion—they can come up with a figure for something that's not their policy, but they can't come up with a figure for theirs—is completely false. You are not telling the truth. And I would refer those opposite to the Integrated System Plan. The ISP has looked at the cost of rolling out our plan to 2050 and has come out with a figure of $121 billion.

Senator Cadell, a first supplementary?

That's not being able to give the answer to 2030, I would say. How much will your government be spending on loans, subsidies and equity for, and on underwriting, renewable energy projects and on enabling the infrastructure across Australia to achieve the 2030 target?

Order across the chamber! Minister Gallagher.

Wow! They are a little bit sensitive, aren't they? Wouldn't it be good, Senator Cadell, if you'd brought this forensic line of questioning to your own policy? I'm sure you did in that quick phone call in the party room when people just dumped this plan—not thought through, no costs, no idea how to deliver it. Did you stand up and go, 'How much is this going to cost as we roll this out?' I can refer senators to the funding that's in the budget. In this budget we are investing an extra $22.5 million over the next decade to help make Australia a renewable energy superpower, including: $3.2 billion for ARENA to promote clean energy innovation; $1.7 billion for the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund; and $6.7 billion for hydrogen production tax credits. There's funding for the Hydrogen Headstart program and the Capacity Investment Scheme, and this is in addition to the sensible investments we made in the last budget. (Time expired)

Senator Cadell, a second supplementary question?

Minister, given you haven't been able to give a total system cost, aren't you being hypocritical—

Order on my right!

Aren't you being hypocritical in applying a different standard to opposition policy than you are to your own? If you can't tell people how much your plans cost, why can you comment on ours?

I do accept that it is hard to change a prewritten question on your feet in question time, but what I can say to those opposite and all in this debate, is that we know that nuclear reactors are more expensive. Nuclear energy will be more expensive. Households will pay more. They will get the bill. If we are to believe everything that you've already said today, the costs will be more, households will pay for it and the generations of the future will pay for it—if you can even get your policy agreed to. Our policy—our commonsense, steady policy—of rolling out renewables is better for households, better to address emissions, better for the climate and able to be delivered. Unlike yours, ours is costed. You have no costs; you can't give any detail about your fanciful plan—or supposed plan.