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
6:24 pm
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source
I am addressing you, Sir. I sat and did not interrupt Senator Cormann for his contribution. I ask that he extend some courtesy to me.
What is being sought by these amendments is special treatment. Senator Cormann and others may argue that that special treatment is justified—which is what I was trying to say. That is a question of policy judgment. We do not think it is reasonable to say that we should provide assistance on a different basis to one state from another, particularly where some of the modelling results are so similar. As I said, the level of cost pass-through modelled for Western Australia is not dissimilar to that modelled for South Australia. Let us understand what is being proposed. I am sure that the senators know that unless we increase the amount of compensation or assistance under the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme, what has actually been proposed is that a greater proportion goes to Western Australia, therefore a lesser proportion to Victoria, to Queensland and to New South Wales. I do not know if the opposition’s policy is in fact for a greater pie or whether they have got a position that says, ‘We want less to go to Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria.’ We have sought not to discriminate. What we have said is that we will target the assistance regardless of where these different coal fired power stations are in Australia. We will target assistance to the most emissions-intensive generators.
I have had the same proposition put to me by a number of states, saying, ‘This will assist’—for example, and I apologise to Senator Kroger—’Victoria, but it will it will not help us, because we use a lot of black coal.’ I have run the same policy argument. You cannot design a policy for assistance and transitional assistance, and it is very substantial transitional assistance, on the basis of trying to favour one state or another. It is much better to have a simple, clear policy proposition, and that is how the government is approaching it.
No comments