Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Well, it’s true—otherwise that would be part of the deal. It is also true that that is why there is no reference to the emerging technologies—those amendments were withdrawn. The industry says the coalition made them a promise and then reneged on it, and they did renege on it. Let’s understand that.

Let’s go specifically to the renewable energy target and the points that are being made in relation to food processing, and I take the minister’s point in terms of the definitional issues that need to be established here. The Greens have long supported a renewable energy target. As the minister has just indicated, the mandatory renewable energy target has gone on for a very long time and there have not been exemptions for this sector. There have, of course, been exemptions for aluminium, which I will get to in a minute when we get to the next amendment. That is something that has been spread across the whole community and, as a result, it is less of an impost.

I will be interested to see what the Productivity Commission has to say when these matters are referred in the future and to see what the government comes up with in terms of how it might work in association with the CPRS if it is ever passed. But, at the moment, I think there is total confusion in the National Party about these two issues. That is the result of the government linking them. I accept that, now that they are decoupled, we should be looking at this purely in terms of impost. I remind Senator Boswell that a number of other countries also have renewable energy targets—it is not a case of trade exposure when other countries operate under these targets as well. In fact, by bringing in the renewable energy target and spreading it across the system, as the pool price is depressed, everybody benefits by the reduced wholesale pool price.