Mr MORRISON (Cook—Treasurer) (14:26): I can advise the House that the cabinet submission is prepared consistent with the cabinet policy handbook and the requirements of the process. I could ask the shadow Treasurer, though: 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? That was 50,000 people, half of whom turned up on his own watch, and $11.6 billion in blowouts of expenditure that were created on his watch. Did he put that in the cabinet submission when he went in there and asked about his failed policies that we should approve this because we are going to blow out the cost by $11.6 billion and see thousands of people die at sea? Here is another failed immigration minister. Mr Burke: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on direct relevance. If there is no Regulation Impact Statement, the Treasurer should say so and sit down. The SPEAKER: The Manager of Opposition Business can't compel the Treasurer to answer in a way other than his being relevant to the question. Mr Pyne interjecting — The SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will cease interjecting! The Treasurer was asked a question about regulatory impact statements and he is talking about regulatory impact statements, as I hear him, and he is in order. Mr MORRISON: I remind the House that this is the government that has responded to the independent Energy Security Board, which has come forward with a recommendation on the way to deliver cheaper electricity prices—more reliable and affordable electricity prices—and the way to do it without burdening the public with unnecessary subsidies that are required only because of the ideological vanity of the Leader of the Opposition and the ideologues who sit opposite, who each day want to worship at the altar of this ideology that is putting subsidies in the hands of companies, paid for by householders who don't have to do it. There is a simple question for the Leader of the Opposition: will he abandon the failed policy approach that they have stuck to for so many years, join with the government and say to the COAG council that this is the way to ensure we get reliable, affordable electricity for households and businesses which also meets our environmental targets? That is what this plan delivers. It initially came out of the Finkel report, which said we should set up the Energy Security Board. The Energy Security Board, which was set up by COAG as a result of that recommendation of the Finkel report, has looked at all of those recommendations, and it has come forward with this as the answer for how you deal with these issues. So I know the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to impose a $66 billion electricity bill on the Australian public, will not move away from his pride and will not stand down, but he should—in the interests of families and of businesses who need the certainty that he has lectured this government about for so long. He should listen to the Australian people on this and he should put aside this ideological vanity and decide to commit to lower prices, because this plan will deliver lower prices— (Time expired)