Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. What action is the Albanese Labor government taking to put more energy into the grid for Australian households? Why is it so important to be upfront on the issues facing the energy system, and what are the consequences of a failure to act?

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

I thank the member for Newcastle for her question. She, together with her other Hunter Valley colleagues, represents an area which has been crucial to Australia's energy generation and will continue to be so as we move Australia to become a renewable energy powerhouse. No region will be more important than the Hunter in that transformation. Getting more energy generation and more electricity generation is the centrepiece of the Albanese government's approach. We have Rewiring the Nation, which will ensure that we can transition to 82 per cent renewables in the system, because cheap energy is also clean energy. Unfortunately, the former government opposed, and continues to oppose, this investment in transmission.

We have our national energy transformation partnership with the states and territories, which we are negotiating and working on in good faith with our state and territory colleagues. It is very important. I know the previous minister for energy would not have been willing or able to do this. Of course, we also have our important community batteries policy and solar banks policy, to bring on new renewables and to bring on the storage.

But I'm asked about the consequences of a failure to act. That, really, is what we're dealing with: the consequences of 10 years of delay, denial and dishonesty. There are four un-fun facts about the previous government's approach. We know that, under the previous government—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

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

I'm just warming up, Mr Speaker!

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

The minister will cool down, and I'll call the Manager of Opposition Business.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It goes to the question of the extent to which ministers are given free rein to simply give their own interpretation of what's happened over the last 10 years.

An honourable member interjecting—

The point of order, brainiac, is relevance! Standing order 98(c) is quite clear on the range of topics that ministers can be asked about. It is restricted to public affairs, administration and proceedings pending in the House. Then, of course, there's the well-understood requirement that an answer must be directly relevant to the question. It cannot be appropriate that there's a construct under which a minister is asked a question which invites them to reflect in the broadest possible terms on the conduct of the previous government. He should be telling the Australian people what the Albanese government's plans are to solve the problem.

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

Order! The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. I'll hear from the Leader of the House.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order: for the benefit of the Manager of Opposition Business, standing order 98, which he referred to at the start, carries the rules for the questions. They apply to the questioner. Standing order 104 is the one that refers to the answers, and that's the standing order that refers to the minister. It's not a valid point of order to use standing order 98 to try to limit what's in an answer. This question specifically included 'What are the consequences of a failure to act?' and the minister is being specifically relevant to it.

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

I understand the point being made, and this was a question put to me by the Manager of Opposition Business last Thursday. I'll continue to listen to both questions and answers carefully and enforce the standing orders. Answers must be directly relevant and within the parameters of the question. The question was about consequences of a failure to act. If that part of the question was not in the question, the minister would not be relevant. I'll make a ruling if I feel the answer is not relevant and outside the parameters of the question. I call the minister, who was being relevant to one part of the question.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I understand the sensitivity of those opposite about the four un-fun facts of their record. The first un-fun fact is that in their time we had four gigawatts of energy generation leave the system and only one gigawatt of energy generation come on, because the previous government did not encourage renewable energy generation. We saw a 17 per cent decline in renewable energy generation over their period. Second, is that the previous minister announced a billion dollars of funding to get 3,800 megawatts onto the system and didn't deliver a gigawatt, a megawatt, a watt or an electron. Not one. Third, their signature policy, Snowy 2.0—we heard a lot about it. Good project. Did anybody in the House hear the minister come to the dispatch box before the election and announce it was running 18 months late? I might've missed it! Anyone? No. I don't think it came up. It wasn't mentioned. Finally, the result of their delay and denial was the dishonesty: the minister changing the law so he would not be held to account for his actions, citing an instrument to keep the facts from the Australian people. That's what the previous minister did. We are dealing with the implications of a Taylor-made crisis and we're fixing the mess we inherited.