Lucy Gichuhi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister please advise the Senate about the importance of a national approach to energy policy and about the risks of going it alone in this area?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Gichuhi for her question and for her commitment to ensuring the affordability and reliability of energy for Australian households and businesses right across the country, but particularly in our home state of South Australia.

I know that the senator is, as indeed are all government senators, well aware of the risks of ad hoc policy in terms of energy—the risks of states that have chosen to go it alone in an ad hoc way and the risks, indeed, in states where they've chosen to pick ideological winners or favourites in terms of energy generation over the key issues of reliability and affordability.

This, of course, has been most evident in the senator's home state—my home state as well—where we've seen the highest prices and the lowest levels of reliability. Those, of course, were the consequences of what Jay Weatherill, now the former Premier of South Australia, called his 'big experiment'—Mr Weatherill's big experiment that gave South Australia the highest prices and the least reliable energy.

At the election held on the weekend, on Saturday, South Australians were offered the chance to double down on Mr Weatherill's policies. They were offered more selective picking of winners, more ad hoc targets and a 75 per cent renewable energy target. That is the choice voters were given and they said, emphatically, 'No way, Jay!' No way to continued high prices; no way to continued unreliability; no way to continued ad hoc approaches to energy markets; and no way to more stunts where you find a famous billionaire to cosy up to for picture opportunities. They instead chose a commitment to make sure that we have sensible energy policy—policy built on the basis of driving down costs, improving reliability and making electricity more affordable and reliable for households and businesses.

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

Senator Gichuhi, a supplementary question.

Lucy Gichuhi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister inform the Senate of the benefit that consumers in South Australia can expect to flow from the National Energy Guarantee?

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

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

Order! Could we please have silence during questions so that I may hear them and rule on subsequent points of order?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks very much to Senator Gichuhi. Indeed, this big experiment demonstrated the cost—the extreme cost—to households but demonstrated as well that sensible policy can make a real difference.

The modelling undertaken for the National Energy Guarantee proposed by the Turnbull government shows that household power bills will be around $400 lower. That, of course, is of great benefit to each and every struggling Australian family, to know that in the future their household bills will be lower than would otherwise be the case and to know that the Turnbull government reforms are going to make a real difference to their cost of living.

But it is not just households. Under estimated modelling, the NEG will see a 23 per cent reduction in wholesale power prices. That means a local supermarket in South Australia, for example, could save almost half a million dollars a year; a small business or cafe could save hundreds of thousands of dollars; and an energy-intensive manufacturer could save millions of dollars. These are real benefits that allow people to employ more Australians, create more jobs and ease the cost of living. (Time expired)

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

Senator Gichuhi, a final supplementary question.

Lucy Gichuhi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister update the Senate as to any obstacles or otherwise in developing a national energy policy?

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Education and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The removal of the South Australian Labor government absolutely clears a major threat to sensible energy policy in Australia. It removes a government that, for the sake of having a fight with Canberra, is opposed to rather than pursuing good, sensible energy policy. It removes a government that puts cheap headlines ahead of the electricity bills of South Australians. We are confident that Steven Marshall and the new Liberal government in South Australia will put good policy before those cheap headlines. In terms of threats to sensible energy policy, the question is: what will Mr Shorten and the Labor Party do? Senator Wong came out just last week and said she supported Mr Weatherill's 75 per cent renewable energy target. What is the Labor Party's renewable energy target now? Is it 40 per cent, is it 50 per cent, is it 75 per cent? What is the Labor Party's position on the National Energy Guarantee? Are they for it or are they against it? Who knows what Labor's policy is, but you can be confident Australians will pay the price for it. (Time expired)