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
4:30 pm
Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source
I want to go to the productivity contribution. I want to know whether it is possible for new entrants to obtain more permits than they require because they will be allocated on baselines set on industry average rather than industry best practice. If a new entrant is highly efficient compared with the industry average, aren’t they going to get a windfall gain under the government’s scheme? And isn’t that incredibly economically inefficient and damaging because it is essentially providing a windfall gain or a subsidy that offsets the whole point of the price mechanism?
No comments