Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The government do not support the proposed amendment. In essence, the effect of the amendment is twofold. It requires entities receiving assistance to submit a business plan which demonstrates ‘a commitment to reducing carbon emissions’ and demonstrates ‘that there will not be a net reduction in jobs in relation to the activity’. It also appears to empower the minister to order the relinquishment of some or all of the emissions units if ‘the objectives of the business plan are not being met’.

The difficulty with the amendment is that it would create enormous uncertainty regarding whether or not a business would be entitled to the assistance. It would mean that each year’s allocation would be—and this would trouble me somewhat—at the whim of the minister of the day. Effectively, if the minister had the power to order the relinquishment of some or all emissions units, at the beginning of the year you would not know whether or not that was going to occur. In addition, a whole range of decisions made by a business over the course of a year may potentially cause a reduction in, or removal of, assistance. It creates significant business uncertainty. We are about providing business certainty. The amendment also contradicts one of the main purposes of the CPRS, and that is to ensure that the system does not require continuous regulatory intervention.

I am sure, Senator Xenophon, if you turn your mind to the explanation, you will see that the amendment does a couple of things. It provides business uncertainty. It also means that the minister would be in the process more than we intended. One of the problems at its base is that it places a compliance burden on business in receipt of the assistance, and that, I am sure, is not what you are trying to achieve. I can in part see the purposes of your amendment, but for the reasons I have outlined the government opposes the amendment. It does not provide what I would call a beneficial effect for business, neither with certainty nor with the increased obligations there would be on businesses.