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

12:22 pm

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

Senator Cormann is not a stupid man, so he would recall that on a number of occasions he has asked me about generator X or generator Y and I have said that it would not be appropriate for a minister, in relation to a policy area where there is a package before the Senate, to get into details of individual recipients of assistance. What is appropriate is for me to outline, as I have done, the basis on which assistance is provided, the basis on which assistance is disbursed between different players in the sector and the policy rationale for that. I have done so and I will continue to do that. But, as I explained to him when he asked the first question, I do not think it is sensible, helpful or appropriate, frankly, for ministers to say company X will get this amount of money.

We have before the chamber a package which includes three components of assistance in relation to energy security. I have gone through those. I have explained to you why $5.5 billion is allocated on the emissions intensity basis and other bases and the reason for that, which is energy security. I have explained to you the additional assistance in terms of the provision of loans. That is referenced at paragraph 6.193. I am happy to read that onto the record for him if he would like, but it is in the explanatory memorandum. I have explained that in addition there is a backstop mechanism whereby the Energy Security Council can recommend additional measures if required for energy security. I reference my previous answers, because I have gone through the policy rationale for why emissions intensity has been used as the basis on which the $5.5 billion is to be disbursed amongst—

Comments

No comments