This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen
on .
It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
Coalition defends energy plan by attacking Labor's record – politics live
Coalition defends energy plan by attacking Labor's record – politics live
(35 minutes later)
6.02am BST
06:02
Chief Scientist Alan Finkel is due to speak to the media at 4.15pm.
5.58am BST
05:58
Labor has followed up question time with a press conference with Mark Butler.
“We have had confirmed in the last couple of hours that there hasn’t even been any detailed modelling about the impact on business, on households, on the energy industry itself, so we have to have some real facts around this....once we have those facts, our obligation, our commitment is to sit down with business, with the energy industry, with the state and territory governments that after all are going to be expected to implement this thing if it goes forward and start to talk to them about a way forward on energy policy.”
5.39am BST
05:39
Gareth Hutchens
And just a bit more on that 2+ hour joint party room meeting from this morning
The Coalition joint partyroom was held this morning.
Energy minister Josh Frydenberg gave a long presentation, complete with slides and graphs, about the government’s new energy policy.
He was joined by Audrey Zibelman, the chief executive of the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO), and John Pierce, the chairman of Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC).
Questions or comments were invited to Frydenberg, and where appropriate to Zibelman and Pierce.
The discussion on energy went from 9am to 11.20am.
Thirty MPs spoke in the discussion, and almost all of them endorsed the policy.
“Congratulations. Bloody brilliant”, said one MP afterwards (apparently).
One backbench colleague began by saying well done, and he was very happy the government was not proceeding with the Clean Energy Target. But he still had concerns about energy prices, and he suggested the government should build a coal fired power station..
He said “if it’s a choice between reducing emissions and reducing prices, where does this policy take us?”
Malcolm Turnbull, Pierce and Zibelman addressed his concerns directly. They there were a number of reasons why policy would reduce prices but emphasised, repeatedly, that it would create certainty for investors.
A National Party backbencher also criticised the policy, saying he was concerned about its attempt to maintain fidelity to the Paris targets. He said the Paris target shouldn’t be a consideration.
The policy was endorsed by acclamation.
5.36am BST
05:36
Back in the House and Michelle Rowland wants to discuss the “government’s second-rate copper NBN” as the matter of public importance.
5.26am BST
5.26am BST
05:26
05:26
The Victorian Council of Social Services has reacted to the Neg.
The Victorian Council of Social Services has reacted to the Neg.
So about that National Energy Guarantee idea... 🔌 pic.twitter.com/gqqns8FOzp
So about that National Energy Guarantee idea... 🔌 pic.twitter.com/gqqns8FOzp
5.19am BST
5.19am BST
05:19
05:19
Whatever did they do in the time before smartphones?
Whatever did they do in the time before smartphones?
5.17am BST
5.17am BST
05:17
05:17
We finish on a Dixer from Greg Hunt, where he gets to tell us the importance of keeping the power on in hospitals.
We finish on a Dixer from Greg Hunt, where he gets to tell us the importance of keeping the power on in hospitals.
So energy, energy, energy and Malcolm Turnbull appeared to actually feel good about the day. Labor didn’t really get a strong attack line in, but expect that to change as they wrap their head around the policy and look for those cracks.
So energy, energy, energy and Malcolm Turnbull appeared to actually feel good about the day. Labor didn’t really get a strong attack line in, but expect that to change as they wrap their head around the policy and look for those cracks.
Updated
Updated
at 5.20am BST
at 5.20am BST
5.14am BST
5.14am BST
05:14
05:14
Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull decides to answer another question from Tony Burke, who wants to know about those savings (which don’t start until 2020 and on average last until 2030).
Prime minister Malcolm Turnbull decides to answer another question from Tony Burke, who wants to know about those savings (which don’t start until 2020 and on average last until 2030).
“Did the Energy Security Board provide any other lower figures to the government about possible household savings?”
“Did the Energy Security Board provide any other lower figures to the government about possible household savings?”
The prime minister is quite careful … “The only information I have relating to the savings are contained in the letter from the Energy Security Board that is now – that is now public document. And that provides the $110 to $115 figure.”
The prime minister is quite careful … “The only information I have relating to the savings are contained in the letter from the Energy Security Board that is now – that is now public document. And that provides the $110 to $115 figure.”
Updated
Updated
at 5.17am BST
at 5.17am BST
5.11am BST
5.11am BST
05:11
05:11
Updated
Updated
at 5.16am BST
at 5.16am BST
5.04am BST
5.04am BST
05:04
05:04
Another question for the prime minister, which is punted to the energy minister.
Another question for the prime minister, which is punted to the energy minister.
It’s more of the same.
It’s more of the same.
Updated
Updated
at 5.10am BST
at 5.10am BST
5.03am BST
5.03am BST
05:03
05:03
From before Linda Burney was booted. Although, it could still make sense if someone added a question mark.
From before Linda Burney was booted. Although, it could still make sense if someone added a question mark.
The opposition send a message to the PM during #qt @AmyRemeikis @GuardianAus @murpharoo #politicslive pic.twitter.com/IccCi5uw9C
The opposition send a message to the PM during #qt @AmyRemeikis @GuardianAus @murpharoo #politicslive pic.twitter.com/IccCi5uw9C
5.02am BST
05:02
Malcolm Turnbull has decided he is done answering certain questions. When Mark Butler asks, again, about the different policies the prime minister has held, the energy minister steps up in his place.
“Given reports that the member for Warringah spoke against the prime minister’s latest energy policy in the party room today, when will the prime minister announce that he’s against this one too?”
Labor finds this VERY funny.
Josh Frydenberg responds by laying out Labor’s different energy policy positions. Basically all this is doing is showing us how neither party has ben able to hold on to a particular line over the last decade.
The last time I looked, Labor was for a clean energy target, before that an emissions intensity scheme, before that a CPRS, before that an ETS, before then a $15bn dreaded carbon tax, Mr Speaker, which when we on this side of the House abolished, saw the greatest single drop in electricity prices ever recorded, do you remember that great democratic forum like Pluto, Socrates, Aristotle and the citizen’s assembly, Mr Speaker – do you remember that one? Do you remember the ‘cash for clunkers’, Mr Speaker, do you remember the pink batts, Mr Speaker, do you remember spending billions of dollars to keep coal-fired power stations open and spend billions of dollars to close them, Mr Speaker. I mean, what was the result of all that mess? What was the result of all that mess?”
Updated
at 5.18am BST
4.57am BST
04:57
Christopher Pyne gets a Dixer, but having already spoken about how terrible unions are this week, he moves on to the issue at hand.
And he has found the humour in the Great Regulatory Impact Statement Hunt.
“I just thinking during question time over the period I sit with in the box [at the local footy] there with Rita and with Mike, with Ray and Beryl, with Mario, and Mr Speaker I have to say in all the years I have been going to Redlands footy games they have never stopped me and said, “Before I can settle the government’s policy, I’ve got to see a regulatory impact statement.” I have been in parliament for 24 years, Mr Speaker. I have been to a lot of supermarkets, I have done a lot of door-knocking, I have been to a lot of events, a lot of footy games, I have been to RSL functions, no one has said to me, “Look, I’m sorry, before I can settle on the government policy, you got to show me a regulatory impact statement,” Mr Speaker. And yet that’s what wehave been reduced to in this House today because that’s all the Labor has left – from the only issue that matters here today is affordable and reliable electricity prices.”
Updated
at 5.01am BST
4.54am BST
04:54
I’ll let the great Mike Bowers share this one
Tony Abbott arrives late to #qt to cheers from opposition benches @AmyRemeikis @GuardianAus @murpharoo #politicslive pic.twitter.com/Vm7sFFPTCl
4.53am BST
04:53
It’s Julie Bishop’s turn to talk about how amazing the Neg is in a Dixer.
We then move on to Shorten once more, who handily lists out all the different positions Turnbull has held on energy.
“Can the prime minister confirm that so far he has supported an emissions trading scheme and opposed it, supported an emissions intensity scheme and opposed it, ridiculed Direct Action and endorsed it, derided so-called clean coal and embraced it, supported a clean energy target and today abandoned it. When the member for Warringah is … calling the shots, how can anyone believe this prime minister says about lowering bills?
The man who is now selling the National Energy Gurantee, or the N.E.G names all the experts who agree with the policy and bemoans those who embrace three-letter acronym policies.
What a pathetic question from the leader of the opposition. This is the Energy Security Board. Kerry Shott, AO, chair and the deputy chair, both warmly welcomed by the member for Adelaide. The CEO of the Australian Energy Market Operator. Paula Convoy, chair of the Australian Energy Regulator. Apparently they’ve all been caught up in some sort of political conspiracy. Really, Mr Speaker, it’s about time the leader of the opposition recognised that his pathetic political games have failed. His slogans have failed. His embracing of one three-letter acronym after the other without understanding what any of them mean has failed. What Australians want to see is action. They want to see leadership. They want to see policy. They want to see real expertise and they want to see real expertise and that is what we have received from the Energy Security Board.”
Updated
at 4.59am BST
4.47am BST
04:47
Next up is Anthony Albanese:
“So far today the prime minister has refused to guarantee that prices will fall. Does that mean that the so-called National Energy Guarantee has no guarantee, no modelling and no regulatory impact statement? What is the point of a national guarantee if the prime minister … cannot guarantee power price also go down?”
Not sure if the regulatory impact statement whereabouts will capture the heart and minds of voters, but we move on to the prime minister. Who does not answer the question, but has a lot of fun doing it.
“I’ve never seen anyone so bereft of a feather to fly with than the leader of the opposition. He doesn’t have a policy. He has nothing. Just a bunch of whines and complaints. He has no plan for Australia’s energy future at all. That’s other than, if you assume that all of us intend the necessary consequence of our actions, then this is what he intends – he intends more blackouts. He higher prices. He intends less reliability, because that is what his policies have all delivered in the past.”
Updated
at 4.58am BST
4.43am BST
04:43
Barnaby Joyce is called to the floor by the member for Wide Bay, and it has to be said, Joyce isn’t as excited to call out basket-weavers as he usually is. His heart doesn’t appear to be entirely in it. Still, he gives it a red-hot go.
We on this side believe the people working in a rail company are not politically incorrect, people who have blue-collar jobs are not politically incorrect. We believe they still deserve a job. We understand you will have cheap power, cheap wages or no jobs. We will make sure that people maintain their jobs in the manufacturing industry. We know that so far the Labor party have come up with one thing. They’ve come up and they – their biggest attack point is they say, where is your regulatory impact statement?
“Well that is it. Can’t you imagine them at the Manic Monkey Cafe, where Dewdrop is talking to Moonbeam and says the Coalition doesn’t have a regulatory impact statement. That is about their concern – the extent of their concerns for blue-collar jobs.
We have $66bn reasons to make sure that those people who are doing it tough do not get the Labor party bill, the Labor party bill, because the Labor party bill makes people poorer. There’s no doubt about it. A Labor party bill will make you poorer. If you’re doing it tough in the Hunter Valley, a Labor party bill will make you poorer. If you’re doing it tough in Shortland, a Labor party bill will make you poorer. Without a shadow of a doubt, the Labor party is now run by those with a philosophical ilk of the Manic Monkey Cafe, basket-weaver number one. All their friends running a power policy that will drive blue-collar workers out of a job.
“You can see it in Queensland. The new mantle of the dearest – you can see it in Queensland. Queensland Labor beat South Australian Labor as the most effective power policy to put you out of a job. We have brought forward a policy that shows we’re not scared of coal-fired power. We will make sure that it still remains in the mix. We will make sure there is the capacity of base-load – the capacity of base-load power to keep people in their jobs.
“We stand by blue-collar workers, something which Labor has given upon. They have no soul they had under Curtin. They no longer believe in the people they were put here to represent.
“They turn their back on the working class people every day, every day – they turn their back on the working class people and they look towards the basket weavers. They face them and they take their dollar.”
Updated
at 4.57am BST
4.37am BST
04:37
Paul Karp
In the Senate...
The Greens leader, Richard Di Natale, has offered a string of questions to the attorney general, George Brandis, about the National Energy Guarantee. Di Natale accused Malcolm Turnbull of “leading the most pro coal, anti renewables party in this nation’s history” and “a capitulation to Tony Abbott and the far right of his party”.
Brandis responded: “The share of renewable will increase to 28-36% of the energy mix. It will increase. And the share of coal and gas will reduce. So the premise of the question is wrong. This is what grown-up governments do: they listen to advice of experts.”
Di Natale also suggested the coal and gas industry have “cashed their cheque” with the Coalition government and asked Brandis if he accepted that coal kills people.
Brandis: “No I don’t accept that for one moment. On any view coal will be an important part of the energy mix for decades to come.”
Brandis accused the Greens of “undergraduate stunts” and “impugning the motives of the prime minister”, while suggesting Di Natale was a wealthy doctor who could afford to signal his virtue on energy sources because he could afford renewable energy.
Updated
at 4.54am BST
4.37am BST
04:37
Bowen is back with a question for the treasurer regarding the regulatory impact statement and whether it exists.
Morrison gives us a history lesson.
“The cabinet submission is consistent with the handbook and the requirements of the process. I could ask that the shadow treasurer when he introduced ‘cash for clunkers’, what was the regulatory impact statement on that? What was the impact statement on being the worst immigration minister in the history of the Australian federation, Mr Speaker? That’s 50,000 people, half of them who turned up on his own watch, and $11.6m in blow-outs of expenditure created on his watch. Did he put that in the cabinet submission when he went in there and he for his failed policies – we should approve this because we will blow out the cost by $11.6 billion and see thousands die at sea.”
Tony Burke interjects to say if the statement doesn’t exist, he should just say so, but Burke is not the boss of Morrison and can not make him answer questions.
Updated
at 5.18am BST
4.33am BST
04:33
The member for Gilmore, Ann Sudamalis, is quite pleased to ask Frydenberg about how the government will deliver “affordable, reliable supply of energy across the nation”.
Frydenberg is not only happy to tell Sudamalis how the government will deliver affordable, reliable and secure energy across the nation, he even decides to tell her how Labor will not.
“They’ve done nothing in government to cut the retailer costs and did nothing in government to heed the warnings about increasing gas exports. No wonder the power bills increased by more than 100% when Labor were in office. We know, Mr Speaker, when it comes to the leader of the opposition, don’t listen to what he says, but watch what he does. He said he was in favour of a better deal for education but he voted against the Gonski reforms. He said he was in favour of lowering company taxes but he voted against our reforms. He said he was in favour of better childcare benefits but he tried to stop our reforms. And now he says he’s in favour of greater investment, certainty in the energy sector. Well, this is a test of his ticker, Mr Speaker. In is a test of the leader of the opposition’s ticker. Will he stand up for Australian families? Will he follow the advice of the experts? Will he adopt a bipartisan approach to ensure that power bills for millions of Australian families are lower and that we get the investment certainty in the energy sector … ”
Sadly he runs out of time.
Updated
at 4.36am BST
4.29am BST
04:29
Stop the presses. Or at least help me up off the floor. A question has been all but answered during question time.
Denison MP Andrew Wilkie has the crossbench question today and he uses it to ask about the TPI Federation, which helps support permanently injured veterans.
“The TPI Federation has written here repeatedly seeking a resolution to the dreadful situation whereabout 28,000 totally and permanently incapacitated veterans have seen their economic loss compensation fall to just 65% of the minimum wage. Prime minister, given the gravity of this issue, and the Parliamentary Budget Office’s validation of the independent analysis supporting the claim by the TPI, will you take personal responsibility and intervene to facilitate an immediate increase of $176 a week in the economic loss compensation payments to Australia’s TPI veterans?”
Malcolm Turnbull tells the House he has a personal connection to the TPI Federation.
I thank the honourable member for his question. Mr Speaker, my grandfather was a member of the TPI Federation. I know, well, the work of the federation and respect the advocacy they provide, and particularly that of TPI president Pat McCabe. All Australians are immensely proud of our men and women in uniform. We thank them for their service and we owe them a debt we can never repay. Ensuring our veterans have adequate support and compensation is a vitally important role of government. It is one to which I am personally deeply committed. In gratitude for their service, the government provides $12bn annually in pensions and services to veterans and their families. We best honour the diggers of 1917 by providing the best support in every respect to the servicemen and women and the veterans and their families of 2017. The honourable member raised the TPI pension in relation to the minimum wage. I can advise the member that the TPI pension is $1,73.80 a fortnight. I’m advised that more than 80% of TPI recipients receive income support payments, known as the service pension, of up to $894.40 per fortnight. It is important to recognise the TPI pension is part of a package of benefits available to veterans which can also include additional income support payments and medical coverage for all health conditions through their Gold Card. Now, in recognition of this important issue, I’ve asked the minister for veterans’ affairs to work with his department and the TPI Federation to analyse the basis of the federation’s research and the data used in it. And I want to thank the honourable member for raising these important issues and for the TPI Federation’s ongoing role in representing the interests of Australia’s veterans. Now, Mr Speaker, my government will always do the right thing by our veterans. I recognise there are various components to these entitlements and compensation. But unless – I’m less interested in the definitional distinctions that and as a former serving officer would have a keen insight into, than making sure veterans have the support they need and making sure that they have financial support appropriate with their service. If they need medical support and treatment that it is provided. If they need psychological support for mental illness, it is provided, too. I can assure the honourable member and all our veterans that my government is committed to them, just as they were committed to our nation in their days in uniform.”
