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

11:22 am

Photo of Penny WongPenny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Finance and Deregulation) Share this | Hansard source

I am being asked to respond to a hypothetical if. We are not here to debate hypotheticals; we are here to debate the package. I have explained that the independent modellers on this issue, which we used as part of the Treasury modelling, did not anticipate a reduction in forward contracting. I have also explained that the advice of financial institutions is that such products would be available. I have explained that if the market did not work as anticipated the government has made clear it will provide loans for market participants to address these working capital constraints that have been asserted. I have also explained that we are providing $5½ billion under the Energy Security Fund.

I have also explained on a number of occasions now that if the opposition do care about uncertainty in the market, which is an issue that goes against forward contracting and management of risk through the longer term, then they would not be opposing this and they would not be suggesting that they have some blood oath to rescind it. That of itself puts uncertainty into the market and would therefore add to the very policy risks that the senator has referred to.

Comments

No comments