Senate debates
Monday, 7 November 2011
Bills
Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge — General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011; In Committee
11:15 am
Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source
I note, Minister, that in response to Senator Xenophon you describe the ESAA modelling as hypothetical, and of course all modelling, as I am sure you would agree, deals with a range of hypothetical scenarios. You also indicated that the Treasury modelling did not assume the deferred payment scenario. Minister, are you able to advise the chamber whether the Treasury modelling did assume or believe there would be a reduction in the forward contracting for electricity? It is of course one thing for it not to assume the deferred payment scenario and, therefore, as you rightly said, presumably it then did assume that payments would be made at the time that the forward purchase of these permits was locked in. However, does it accept the principle, to some extent at least, of the scenario outlined by the ESAA that there will be a reduction in forward contracting of electricity prices and, therefore, the greater risk and uncertainty, and the possible higher use of spot price electricity and, with that, the potential flow-on for increases in electricity prices? But, very particularly, does the Treasury modelling that was undertaken accept that there is a chance, in places, that there will be a reduction in forward contracting?
No comments