Senate Economics Legislation Committee, , 8:55:51 to 9:00:43
Questioning the assumptions behind green commodity export projections versus established coal and gas industries.
Topics: Emissions reduction, Climate change, Exports
Speakers: Senator Susan McDonald, Katrina Di Marco, Senator Lisa Darmanin
Thank you very much, Chair. Just to return quickly to this modelling before we go to fuel tax credits. The Treasury modelling projects green commodity exports of between 80 billion and 93 billion dollars annually by 2023 under its baseline and renewable export scenarios, and assumes Australia will produce 27 million tonnes of green iron and eight million tonnes of green ammonia annually by 2035. Before the government pursues policies that would undermine Australia's established coal and gas industries, has Treasury verified their actual projects to deliver that and actual customers willing to purchase the green commodities that Treasury claims will replace them.
Senator, I don't want to be unhelpful, but these are questions for macroeconomic group.
Well, macroeconomic group was very unhelpful because they only turned to the intergenerational report, which is supported by these very broad base projects, and and given that revenue, so I understand what you're saying. Um given that revenue if coal demand is scoped to triple uh by 2060, as the ASEAN report says, has revenue advised government on whether uh undermining and policies that would affect Australian coal producers, which would then miss out on opportunities to expand exports to South East Asia, whether the Australian government policy will contribute to less opportunities, less revenue, and if these countries are going to source additional coal from other places, has revenue assessed whether Australia's policy settings will result in these sales go to competitors rather than Australian producers.
I'm just sorry I can't add to the answers that we've already provided. We do these forecasts based on the macroeconomic aggregates.
I I do think that so is there anybody in government who assesses risk of not pursuing markets, market share, particularly in existing commodity groups that we have, given that we are setting policies like the safeguard mechanism like others, uh, that will affect production and Australia's ability to market to those countries.
Senator Treasury can considers a range of different policies that could affect the future trajectory of the government of the economy. A lot of those are covered in great detail in the intergenerational report. Your concerns around that particular modelling was discussed with Dr. Grant this morning. I said there's just not much revenue group can add to that.
But there's nobody else in government who is going to do this work because we've already established that the net zero transition report uh is not been updated to reflect more recent information, and there's there's no plan to update it for a three-year period. Is that right?
Senator, again, they're they're questions from macroeconomic group.
Okay. You this is a real challenge with government because you sat at the table and answered these questions as part of macroeconomic group, and you've quickly changed hacks.
No, Senator, I actually didn't answer the questions as part of macroeconomic group. I was very prepared to answer the questions about how we model it in terms of revenue. The discussion just didn't didn't move in that direction.
But now that we are discussing it as far as revenue, can you answer it now?
Well, Senator advanced on how we model these things in terms of revenue.
Okay. So it leaves me to understand that revenue group has no views on okay. I am frustrated because I I'm very concerned that nobody in government is briefing the Treasurer or other government ministers on what the results, potential results. Results of policy settings currently are to future revenue revenue receipts, which I think would be an issue for Australia. Nobody in government is doing that work.
So I I didn't.
No, no, I understand that revenue group doesn't do it. Is there anywhere else that you would point me to in government?
I think the officials answered the question.
No, no, I'm sorry. I think what she said is revenue group didn't do it.
But I think what the official has said is the approach that revenue takes to your question and what role they have, and that the question that you have is more better directed to macro economic group, if I'm not mistaken. So perhaps you can still put your question on notice there.