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

I would like to ask the minister again—I did ask before but I did not get an answer—what is envisioned in section 60C of 'indirect cost saving attributable to the carbon price'? I asked before why did people in their substantiation statements have to go beyond 'direct'. Since 'indirect' is not defined, and if people do not put in their substantiation statements they can face a fine to $68,000-$85,000, can the minister please inform the Senate why it is not defined in the legislation what an 'indirect' cost is? And what do the people who are subject to this legislation—let us be real here, we are only talking about electricity retailers, natural gas retailers and bulk synthetic greenhouse gas importers—have to understand by the notion of 'indirect'? What does that actually mean for them?

I did ask the minister before, and this goes to his claim that everybody is going to be subject to legal action, what is meant by for the ACCC to bring on legal action under proposed section 60 the price exploitation must be 'unreasonably high'? Can the minister outline what kind of exploitation must occur for it to be classed as 'unreasonably high' because we are only talking about electricity, gas and synthetic greenhouse gas suppliers. They are going to make a judgement in their substantiation statements about what they have to do. They also know that it will be possible for them to exploit the removal of the carbon price as long as it is not 'unreasonably high'. So I think they need some guidance on two matters. One, what is an indirect cost saving attributable to carbon pricing? Also, please tell me what the threshold is for a definition of 'unreasonably high'.