Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

I would make two points, Senator Milne. Firstly, you are on the record saying that this is not an energy efficiency scheme, and now you are supporting an amendment that is an energy efficiency amendment. Secondly, what is the point of the biennial review if you are now saying—and this is the problem where we just move amendments and people do not consider how the whole scheme operates—that all you want to do is give the minister power to change the way the act works? You may as well just put it all in the minister’s hands and forget about the biennial review.

There is no reference in this to what the outcome of the biennial review is. Earlier today you passed one amendment that says we will have a biennial review. The government agreed to that after discussions, and we are going to look at all these things as part of a sensible policy process. But now you are supporting an amendment that enables the discretion of the minister to do it with or without regard to the biennial review that you already passed earlier. I am just suggesting that we perhaps try and approach this in a more sensible way.

Senator Xenophon, I again ask what the point is of having a provision which only relates to technologies that demonstrate energy efficiency. I do not understand the public policy benefit of that. If you really want—and I do not think it is a sensible regime—to have a ministerial discretion that is abstracted from the review process we have just agreed to, why would you only have the discretion in relation to energy efficiency technologies and not other renewable technologies? I do not understand the logic in that.