Colin Boyce (Flynn, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Innovation. Minister, how many direct jobs will be lost with the possible closure of NRG Gladstone Power Station in 2029?

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start the question, but, as it was directed to a question about energy, I think it would be more appropriately answered by the minister for energy. We have been very clear that the energy sector is going through a transition as ageing coal-fired power stations close down. Unlike those opposite, we've got plans in place to drive investment into the sector. When they were in government, gigawatts of capacity closed down without a suitable replacement. And who suffered the most? Heavy industry in this country. That uncertainty drove power prices, as they had 23 different energy prices that placed Australian manufacturing under huge pressure. We're combating that right now with our Future Made in Australia agenda, which is driving investment into manufacturing because we're focused on it. Unlike those opposite, who cheered manufacturing going offshore, including the automotive industry, we're focused on cheap energy to drive manufacturing.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order on relevance. That was a very tight question. There was no preamble in the question, and I ask you to direct the minister back.

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

The member is entitled to raise a point of order on relevance, as any other member is. He's allowed to do that. The Leader of the House, on the point of order.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question was sufficiently tight that it was directed to the wrong minister. The minister representing is giving some general remarks, as is appropriate, but has indicated that a question about energy would ordinarily—when you're working out where a question about energy might go, the energy minister is usually the option.

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

Order! The member for Chifley is warned. I'm just going to do this respectfully so that everyone is entitled to raise their points of order. On the point of order by the Leader of the House, the member for Page.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party, Deputy Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I go back to the point of relevance. We can go into the semantics, but the minister chose to take the question. The minister chose to take the question, so I ask him to be relevant. There was no preamble. It was a very tight question. If he's going to take it, answer it.

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

I guess the issue is that, when we are asking questions to ministers, it needs to be directed to the person who has responsibility for that.

Opposition members interjecting—

Order! The question was about a specific number, which the member for Flynn is chasing or seeking, to do with the policy. The minister can conclude shortly, and so, if the other minister wishes to address the actual figure that I think the member for Flynn is after, we'll do it that way. But it will assist the House if questions can be directed to the minister responsible, and then no-one will be in this position—including me. Minister, if you can wrap up, we'll then give the energy minister a go.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll conclude by saying we're providing more certainty to workers than those on the opposite side ever did. I invite Mr Bowen to speak.

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

I thank the honourable member for his question, and I'm glad he hasn't been sharing his views about man-made climate change with the House for a change.

In answer to the honourable member's question, there are about 200 direct employees at the Gladstone Power Station—there are others employed on a contract basis and indirectly—and obviously that is a significant number to the people of Gladstone. But also this is a decision taken by the owners of the Gladstone Power Station, as they have announced, and that is in keeping with the normal protocols.

I would make this point: those opposite are strongly supporting having coal-fired power stations open for longer and sweating the assets to see them last longer. That is the biggest threat to reliability in our energy system today. Do you know why? Because just today we've had two units out at the Callide Power Station, which the honourable member would know well. They're not operating. We have totally unplanned outages across our national energy system at 3.4 gigawatts of coal fired power—not planned; not maintenance. Coal-fired power stations that are working and then all of a sudden break down—that is the biggest threat to the reliability of our energy system. In turn, that is a threat to energy prices, because that sees prices spike, and that, in turn, is the biggest threat to industrial jobs in Australia. Those opposite don't understand the opportunities of our energy system and the need to modernise it now, not decades in the future when nuclear might become available.