My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister confirm that state Labor governments have entered into contracts to extend the lives of coal-fired power stations into the 2040s?

I'll hear from the Leader of the House.

Contracts entered into by the federal government, or between a state and federal government, would always be in order, but I'm not sure how any minister here is meant to be responsible for contracts that states undertake that have no connection with the Commonwealth.

The question didn't go to the responsibilities of the government or the Acting Prime Minister. It's more of an awareness question. To give the deputy opposition leader a fair go, she can maybe just rephrase it so that it is the responsibility of the Acting Prime Minister. If we open this box up, you'd have quite a long bow then; you could ask any leader regarding what a state government had done or hadn't done. I want to make sure all questions are within order and everyone gets a fair go. Perhaps if we could rephrase the question just to make sure it is within the responsibility of the Acting Prime Minister, so it can get through.

My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Given the government's responsibility for the National Energy Market, which includes coordination with state Labor governments, can the Acting Prime Minister confirm that state Labor governments have entered into contracts to extend the lives of coal-fired power stations into the 2040s?

That question is within order.

I'm not sure why the deputy leader thinks that our responsibilities only relate to dealing with state Labor governments! Of course, the Commonwealth government would always deal with governments, whether they are state Labor governments or state coalition governments, in the same manner.

On the question of delays keeping coal and gas power generation going longer: the biggest reason to keep coal and gas power generation going longer is the expensive 20-year delay proposed by those opposite, which is the fantasy nuclear energy policy they have. The biggest risk is a nuclear energy policy that, by their own admission, won't be operational for 20 years and then will only provide four per cent of power—and it will cost $600 billion and it will add $1,200 to the average person's household bills.

The other thing that I think is worth saying about the delay those opposite would cause to the energy transition is 1.7 billion extra tonnes of carbon dioxide would be released into our atmosphere if those opposite get their way and delay the transition by 20 years.

Order! The minister will pause. She is straying into alternative policies. I just want to make sure that, for the remainder of her answer, she's not talking about opposition policy because she wasn't asked about opposition policy. Just as the question had to be relevant, I'm going to make sure the answer is relevant as well—directly relevant.

The reason that state governments are contemplating having to extend the life of any of these stations is that those opposite were warned that 24 coal-fired power stations were closing. And what did they do in response to those 24 coal-fired power stations that gave their closure dates to those opposite? They did nothing. They did absolutely nothing in response to the delays telegraphed while they were in government. They had 22 separate energy policies. They didn't land a single one.

Of course, we're having to double-down, to move more quickly because of the delay and dysfunction that we inherited. And that's the same position the states and territories are in.