Senate debates
Monday, 30 November 2009
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Customs) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Excise) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — General) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009 [No. 2]
In Committee
9:35 pm
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source
All right. I will give you an hour and a half. I will make it 23 hours, Senator Parry. Senator Joyce, I think any reasonable observation would be that I have sought to answer a great many questions. I genuinely do not understand what you are asking. I do not understand what the phrase ‘prevalence of Garnaut in modelling’ means. I do not understand what the reference is to coal. Are you talking about coalmines or coal-fired generators? I genuinely do not understand the questions, so I am unable to assist you.
In relation to Senator McGauran’s questions, which I think essentially go to a contract with Alcoa for electricity supplied through the SECV, obviously the precise details of that contract are commercial-in-confidence. However, I would emphasise as follows: the issue is not the emissions intensity of the generators; it is the increase in price. The modelling indicates that the change in price is less than that assumed or given by the electricity allocation factor. For this argument to be correct, coal fired generators would fully pass on their costs and would have no loss of asset value. That is not consistent with the argument from the generators. I do understand. I am familiar with this issue. It has been raised with me by the company and others. There is a negotiation between the company and generators. That is a matter of commercial negotiation.
Generally—and it is applicable to this situation—we have been confronted with a range of requests from different parts of industry for the government to enter commercial negotiations ahead of the scheme. I have taken a very clear policy view that governments do not second-guess commercial negotiations. That is the case essentially across the board. I certainly am aware that there are a range of different views about the outcome of a range of contractual negotiations and how prices will or will not be passed through. What I can say to you is that the policy position of the government is that the electricity allocation factor which has been established is a reasonable one.
No comments