Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong. What will it cost the Australian taxpayer to establish and run the new Australian climate change regulatory authority? Will it be $1 million, $10 million, $100 million, or will it be a great deal more?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the compliance burden, the advice I have received is that the authority is likely to require approximately 300 staff. That is a figure not inclusive of those persons already employed under the greenhouse reporting scheme and the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator, so there would be some existing staff who would transfer to that. As I have previously and publicly said, we will release a regulatory impact statement with the legislation and full details of these matters will be before the Senate when it debates the government’s proposal.

This is a substantially less complex and large scheme in terms of compliance burden than the GST brought in by those opposite. As I have said publicly, we would anticipate—and this does depend on the information provided—approximately 1,000 Australian companies will be above the threshold in terms of being large emitters of carbon pollution, and obviously that is a substantially smaller number of companies than the many hundreds of thousands or millions of taxpayers and taxpaying entities which were required to change their approach after the introduction of the GST. Again, these issues will be canvassed prior to the provision of this legislation to the Senate.

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I am grateful to the minister for her assurance but I find it rather strange since there is a substantial number of issues in relation to this matter. Can I press the minister to provide the Senate with information as to the cost to taxpayers of the total government bureaucracy needed to manage the emissions trading scheme including the obligation number transfer register; the national registry of emission units; the power system reliability tests; the emissions-intensive trade-exposed assistance program; the program for the administration and allocation of Australian emissions units; the federal register of scheme forests; and the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme. Will the cost of those activities be $1 million? Will it be $10 million? Will it be $100 million or will it be a greater figure still?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A couple of the programs that Senator Trood is asking about include the very programs that Mr Robb from that side says should be expanded. So in terms of the emissions-intensive trade-exposed assistance program, is the position from the other side that you want more free permits? What you obviously have not explained perhaps to your backbenchers and to the public is that that means less money for Australian households to manage the introduction of the scheme and the impact of a carbon price.

Through you, Mr President, Senator Trood also referred to the Electricity Sector Adjustment Scheme, again, a scheme which the opposition has said should have more money allocated to it. So if those opposite are going to come to this debate, perhaps they ought to put on the table exactly what they say should be occurring. We are establishing a new market here— (Time expired)

Russell Trood (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Senator Wong is the responsible minister and all I am asking for is clarity on the issues for which she is responsible. It seems a pretty straightforward matter. May I further ask: what is the estimated annual cost to business of complying with the government’s bureaucratic ETS legislation and all of its associated regulations? Will it be in the vicinity of a million dollars? Is it likely to be in the vicinity of $10 million or perhaps $100 million, or has the minister been unable to compute the cost of that as well?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have said already, the regulatory impact statement will be available with the legislation. The exposure draft, in the interests of discussion with the Senate, we propose to put before a Senate committee. What seems to lie behind Senator Trood’s questions is a view that we should not have proper regulation for this market, and I know that there are some on that side who do not believe in regulation for markets. We are setting up a market and, yes, we will ensure that it is robust, credible and prudent, and we will put in place proper regulation. I would ask those opposite to consider that their leader is on the record as saying that he supports an emissions trading scheme. This might be news to Senators Joyce and Boswell, but their leader has said that he believes in an emissions trading scheme. So I await the opposition putting on the table—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! When there is order I will ask Senator Wong to resume.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, Mr Turnbull is on the record as supporting the emissions trading scheme. If those opposite have a way of establishing a market in carbon that does not require regulation, I am sure that Australia would like to see it. (Time expired)