My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. When asked yesterday about the Energy Security Board's modelling of the impact of the government's National Energy Guarantee, the minister told the Senate that 'more than 2,800 megawatts of new dispatchable capacity is expected to be built between now and 2030'. Can the minister confirm that none of the 2,800 megawatts he used to defend the National Energy Guarantee actually results from that policy?

Yesterday, the senator or associated senators asked questions about modelling in terms of future energy generation expectations, and, indeed, the government's answered those. We heard from Senator Di Natale before asking questions about the NEG modelling. You can go online and look at the NEG modelling. You can look online at the assumptions that underpin the NEG modelling. You can look at the different data sheets that underpin the National Energy Guarantee modelling. It is all there. The answer that was given to Senator Di Natale earlier today—and Senator Cameron could well look at that too—

Order! Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Cameron, on a point of order?

Yes, the point of order is on relevance. I wasn't asking about what was out there anywhere else in the stratosphere. I asked: can the minister confirm that none of the 2,800 megawatts he used to defend the NEG actually results from that policy? He should be drawn to that question.

Thank you, Senator Cameron. You have reminded the minister of the question, and I note that he has a minute and 21 remaining to answer.

As I was explaining to Senator Cameron, all of that modelling, all of the underpinning assumptions and all of the data spreadsheets related to it are available on the COAG Energy Council website for Senator Cameron, Senator Di Natale and anyone else to have a look at those assumptions, that modelling and the outcomes. That modelling clearly shows that the NEG will work in a way that gives Australia energy reliability and the energy mix that we require for people to have the confidence to invest in businesses; for households to know that, when they flick the switch, the lights will go on; for households to know that their prices will, on average, be around $550 lower than would otherwise be the case, because of the work that the NEG's undertaking; and for businesses to know that wholesale energy prices would be around 20 per cent lower. That's because it works as part of a suite of policy measures.

Mr President, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This was a very simple question: can the minister confirm that the 2,800 megawatts that he used to defend the NEG actually results from the policy? It's either yes or no. You've drawn his attention to the question and he should answer the question.

Senator Cameron, I can't instruct a minister how to answer a question, but I do take this opportunity to remind the minister of the question that was restated by Senator Cameron.

Mr President, as I pointed out to Senator Cameron—as I did to Senator Di Natale and others—the modelling is all there. The modelling is there for you to see, for you to do your own analysis of, for you to look up—

Senator Carr, on a point of order.

Mr President, on the question of relevance, it is a very specific question. Surely the minister can give a very specific answer to a very specific question.

At this point I consider the minister to be directly relevant. I have reminded him of the question. We have 14 seconds remaining. I will ask him to continue.

I'm not sure whether Senator Carr or Senator Cameron know how to use the internet, but go to Google, look up COAG Energy Council and look up modelling and you'll be able to find all of that information yourselves.

Order! Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Wong.

Perhaps the issue is you don't know your policy. How about that?

Government senators interjecting—

Order on my right!

Mr President, this minister—

Government senators interjecting—

It was very disrespectful. This was a policy question. The point of order is direct relevance—

Government senators interjecting—

If I may—

Order! I'm trying to hear you, Senator Wong. Please continue.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Senator Collins!

The point of order is direct relevance. He was asked a direct question about whether the 2,800 megawatts results from the policy and instead he reverts to abusing senators. Why don't you answer the question? Can't you defend your policy?

Government senators interjecting—

Why don't you answer the question? Defend the policy.

Order around the chamber! Points of order are not opportunities to prosecute a case. Senator Birmingham, I have reminded you of the question, and I note you have four seconds remaining to answer.

I have concluded.

Senator Cameron, a supplementary question.

Let's see if he can do a little bit better on this one. I again refer to the minister, who yesterday, in response to questions about the Energy Security Board's modelling of the government's National Energy Guarantee, named four thermal generation projects. Can the minister confirm that not one of the projects he used to defend the NEG actually results from that policy? Simple.

If Senator Cameron wanted to read all of the Hansard, rather than selectively quoting from the Hansard, he would know that I named those projects as projects that have already been announced—as examples of investment in thermal generation that are already being undertaken. Rather than coming in here, Senator Cameron, and trying to selectively quote and play tricky games, what is very clear is that the coalition has a clear policy to drive down power prices.

What I saw today was Mr Butler come out and reconfirm that the Labor Party policy is for twice the emissions reduction target, or thereabouts, of the coalition, that the Labor Party policy, presumably, is still for the emissions intensity scheme it took to the last election, and that the Labor Party policy, presumably, is still for a 50 per cent renewable energy target—higher prices and lower reliability, compared to the Turnbull government's plan. (Time expired)

Order on my left. Senator Cameron.

Third time lucky, Mr President. Given the minister is trying to use existing energy projects in a vain attempt to defend the Turnbull government's NEG, isn't it clear former Prime Minister Abbott is correct when he says the National Energy Guarantee is 'seriously bad policy'?

Absolutely not. Policy that gives Australians certainty and reliability of their energy generation, policy that drives prices down for Australian households and businesses, is good policy. That's good policy that this government is developing, and it stands in stark contrast to the bad policy of those opposite, who, if they had their way, would leave Australians in a situation where they don't have the reliability guarantee the Turnbull government's policy is delivering. Rather than having prices going down, as the Turnbull government's policy will do, prices would go up under the Labor Party. They have gone up in the past and they would go up again in the future if given the chance, whereas our policy is clear: downward pressure on prices, thanks to the NEG, our retail market reforms, our transmission market reforms and our continued reforms that we will apply as a result of the ACCC recommendations. (Time expired)