Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I have some questions for Senator Cormann and Senator Singh but if I would recap this for the benefit of the 57 people listening to us on News Radio. As I understand it, the Palmer United Party have indicated that they will support a dormant emissions trading scheme when other countries come on board. I think that is a fair summary: that they will support retention of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the renewable energy target—for ARENA I am not quite sure what the position is—and also the Climate Change Authority, which has an important watchdog role. I think that is a fair summary of the position of the Palmer United Party, to have some safeguards but not to trigger an emissions trading scheme. I would be grateful if Senator Lazarus could confirm that summary.

I would like an acknowledgement from Senator Cormann about power price rises, even though the government did not support the second reading amendment. I am very grateful to Senator Macdonald for supporting that second reading amendment. He has proved increasingly to be a truth teller on the coalition side on a number of common-sense issues. Senator Cormann, do you acknowledge that the Review of regulated retail prices and charges for electricity, 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014, for the Independent Regulatory and Pricing Tribunal of New South Wales, indicated that there was more than a doubling of power prices for typical residential customers in New South Wales on regulated prices from 2007-08 to 2013-14, in nominal dollars, and that network charges made up almost two-thirds of those price increases? Do you acknowledge that the carbon price is important but network charges have caused a greater increase in power prices because we have let the networks run on their merry way to gold plate their networks and rip-off consumers? I would like a direct answer to that question, otherwise you are simply denying it. Putting it all on the carbon tax is not entirely fair; there are network charges as well.

In relation to Senator Singh, I agree that a market based mechanism is preferable but I do have concerns about linking it to the European scheme on this basis because there has been such volatility in respect of that scheme and that in itself causes investment uncertainty in carbon abatement. I ask Senator Singh to address that.

Finally, in respect of Senator Milne's comments about taxpayers paying for the Emissions Reduction Fund, Senator Milne is right, but if you can achieve abatement at a cheaper price with sufficient changes to the ERF, it means there will not be the same price fix. It might mean taxes but it will not be consumers paying more for power unnecessarily. It is a quid pro quo. I would be grateful if Senator Cormann could at least acknowledge that network charges are a bigger factor in terms of power price increases.