Confusion around the Palmer United Party's carbon tax repeal amendment is causing concern for businesses. best epilator for whole body
The amendment is designed to ensure consumers get the full benefit when the carbon tax is scrapped.
Palmer United Senator Dio Wang has told the Financial Review newspaper it applies to all businesses that supply goods or services to consumers.
However, Mr Palmer insists the amendment only applies to electricity and gas companies.
Innes Willox from the Australian Industry Group says it is clear to him that the amendment has not been properly considered by the PUP.
"No we don't believe they have, we don't believe the consequences have, and it's a function of the way the Senate's had to operate," he said. save your marriage divorce
Mr Willox says the plan could cause regulatory mayhem.
"There are a series of amendments here that seem to have been cobbled together at the very last minute by the Palmer United Party in return for the abolition of the carbon tax, which have deeply far ranging consequences for businesses small and large," he warned. dry mouth remedy
The Ai Group warns that the amendments appear to impose a reporting requirement on many industries.
"Caravan parks and shopping centres would have to report they often buy electricity and sell it on to their tenants," Mr Willox said.
"Anyone selling equipment that includes synthetic greenhouse gases would be covered - that appears to include car dealers and importers, wholesalers, retailers and aftermarket sellers of fridges, freezers and air conditioners. Equipment suppliers to mining and the electricity sector may also be caught up." garcinia cambogia
While the carbon tax has lived to fight another day, with debate causing uncertainty for one group of businesses, clean energy suppliers continue to fight a rearguard action against changes to the Renewable Energy Target.
The RET is being reviewed by a panel led by businessman Dick Warburton, and the industry fears the scheme will be watered down or abolished.
To reduce or abolish the RET would work to raise both emissions and electricity prices while destroying an industry, investment and jobs.
"If the Renewable Energy Target is removed, it would have dire consequences for the industry," warned Lane Crockett, the executive general manager of Pacific Hydro Australia.
"We have 24,000 people in Australia already now working on jobs in the renewable energy industry."
Pacific Hydro has announced plans to cut 14 jobs, or 10 per cent of its Australian workforce, because of the uncertainty over the carbon tax and Renewable Energy Target.
Businessman Dick Warburton is leading a review of the RET and many in the industry fear he will recommend a much-diminished scheme, if it survives at all.
"To reduce or abolish the RET would work to raise both emissions and electricity prices while destroying an industry, investment and jobs," argued economist and former Liberal leader Dr John Hewson.
Mr Crockett says, while there is a cost to the RET, it has already pushed the wholesale price of electricity down by 10 per cent.
"Even the Government's own modelling says that, by 2020, it's around about $50 benefit to consumers, taking into account what it costs, and that rises to around $90 by 2030 on bills," he argued.
The Australia Institute's senior economist Matt Grudnoff says the scheme is generating billions of dollars in investment.
"It's doubled Australia's renewable energy capacity since its inception, and it's created $20 billion worth of investment and it's likely to create about $14.5 billion more by 2020," he said.
Critics of the RET point out that it costs $1.5 billion a year already, and that could increase to $5 billion by 2020 in the RET's current form.
The Productivity Commission has also found it is the least efficient form of emissions abatement, in some cases costing over $500 per tonne of carbon reduction.
However, the Australia Institute says there is both economic and public support for keeping the RET.
"86 per cent of people want to see more renewable energy. 79 per cent think the Government should support an expansion of renewable energy," he said.
It has been very efficient at actually getting renewable energy out there.
Dr Hewson says the RET has also played a very small part in electricity price increases for consumers.
"While household electricity prices have roughly doubled since 2008, the RET has probably only contributed about 3 to 4.5 per cent of that increase," he observed.
However, the Grattan Institute think tank's energy fellow Lucy Carter warns that there are vested interests on both sides of the debate, and the results from their economic modelling will depend upon the assumptions they make.
"It is not to say anyone's necessarily being dishonest with this sort of thing, but there's a lot of variables that are in there and you can choose variables that sort of suit the outcome that you want to produce," she cautioned.
Ms Carter says there is no way to provide a definitive answer on whether the benefits from the RET will outweigh its costs, especially when we're looking ahead over decades.
"You can sort of say from a kind of theoretical perspective that it's not the sort of optimal policy outcome, it has been very efficient at actually getting renewable energy out there," she added.
The Renewable Energy Target's fate may depend on the whims of the Palmer United Party, who, in their early Senate appearances, have already proven as fickle as the breeze.