My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Hundreds of Victorian farmers, community members and volunteer firefighters travelled to Ballarat in their utes, tractors and fire trucks last Friday to protest Labor's renewable energy policies, where the risk of transmission towers and renewable energy infrastructure is threatening the futures of regional communities. Speaking at the Bush Summit, the Prime Minister was heckled and booed when questioned about protecting rural communities. The Prime Minister told farmers:

I'll continue to engage, but I won't bullshit people.

Minister does the Prime Minister's no-bullshit policy mean the government will start telling the truth and release the modelling of the true cost of Labor's 100 per cent renewable rollout?

Thank you for that question, and thank you for the opportunity to outline the difference between our political parties about climate change, net zero and renewable energy. We on this side recognise the imperative of transitioning the Australian economy. We on this side recognise the opportunity that we have. We on this side recognise the importance of reforming the energy system. We on this side recognise the importance of policy certainty.

On that side, what we know is that they have had decades of internal fighting about climate policy, and they're still not over it. Even though Ms Ley has made really clear her view on these issues, everyone, from Senator Cash to Senator McKenzie, is showing a complete lack of loyalty to their leader and, frankly, not listening to their voters.

A point of order on direct relevance. I don't argue with the Labor Party's commitment to this policy; I want them to release the true cost.

The:

The minister is being relevant. Thank you, Senator McKenzie.

I was interested, Senator, to see some of the commentary, including from the Western Australian Liberal leader and in the papers, about coalition voters and how most coalition voters are actually wanting the coalition to take a mature and rational approach to this policy dilemma.

Lower the cost.

I will take that interjection—'Lower the cost.' If you really think that coal-fired power is the lower cost, after you have seen coal-fired power exit the system and you have seen how the unreliability of ageing coal-fired power stations has increased costs to Australians, and you really think that nuclear is the way forward—well, I think everyone can look at the coalition's policy and see it is ideological and irrational. The fact is that we have the cheapest possible policy, unlike you.

Senator McKenzie it is one thing to quote language, which, quite frankly, I'd rather you didn't; it is quite another to shout it across the chamber. Please withdraw.

On behalf of the Prime Minister and myself, I withdraw.

Senator McKenzie, you shouted it across the chamber.

I withdraw.

Senator McKenzie, first supplementary?

Government agencies and renewables companies are failing landholders and communities affected by the renewable rollout. Minister, does the Prime Minister's no-bullshit policy mean the government will explain the real cost of Labor's energy targets, and the impacts of those targets, on the energy bills of Australian households and businesses?

We will go down the path of the cheapest available energy. That is what we will do, and that is what we are doing. That is the reality. You might want to front up in front of communities and tell them something which is not true—that there is somehow a magical, cheap nuclear policy. That is what you said at the last election: 'There's a magical, cheap nuclear policy.' That was untrue. There's somehow some other magical policy. The reality is that renewable energy is the cheapest form of new energy.

Now, I don't know which part of the economics of that, Senator, you do not understand, but you continue to stand up in front of communities and mislead them. That is the reality. Well, do you know what we will do? We will get on with the task of reforming Australia's energy system because we want the cheapest, most reliable form of energy for Australians, and we will work to deliver that, unlike you.

Senator McKenzie, second supplementary?

Under the Prime Minister's no-bullshit policy, will the government explain why, under Labor's renewable rollout, regional communities are bearing the burden of hosting infrastructure on their land, impacting food security, social cohesion and private property rights?

Order! I want order in the chamber before I call—

Senator Whish-Wilson! Once again I've called order, and you continue to speak over me. That is disrespectful. Order! I cannot believe I called you to order and you still kept going. Minister Wong.

First, I will take the question about social cohesion, because we have just had a debate on that, Senator, which was part of your question. You talked about social cohesion. You voted against affirming Australia as a nation that welcomes different races, religions and views, united by respect for each other's humanity and for each other's right to live in peace. You voted against that, so don't address me about social cohesion.

Minister Wong, I have asked you to resume your seat. Senator McKenzie?

On a direct relevance point of order, the minister knows full well that just because she can't answer the question—

Senator McKenzie, you are not getting into a debate with me.

doesn't mean she shouldn't at least give those divided communities—

Senator McKenzie, you are not in a debate with me! I called you to order, and you kept talking over me. The disrespect in this chamber over the last couple of hours is, quite frankly, disgraceful. It really is. And every single person who has been disorderly in this place ought reflect on that. The minister is being relevant.

I am asked about social cohesion, and I think, Senator McKenzie, it is legitimate for us to point out, on a day when you voted against a motion on social cohesion in the way that you did, and say to you: 'Really? Really?' Don't come into this chamber and talk to us about social cohesion when you are refusing to play your part as an elected representative to contribute to strengthening it. That is what is occurring. The hypocrisy is on display between this side of the parliament and those opposite.

Minister Gallagher?

Point of order: I'm wondering whether you could reflect on previous rulings of other presidents around the use of unparliamentary language by way of quotation during question time and come back and consider them in light of Senator McKenzie's questions today.

Sure. I do recall and I will take advice, but I think, where it's quoted, sadly, it is not unparliamentary even though I may have a different view. But I will go back and reflect.