❓ Mr. Ripper questions Mr. Barnett about the $80m renewable remote power generation program agreement, potential funding loss, and carryover capacity. Mr. Barnett expresses concerns about the funding source and agreement terms, delaying its signing.
AnsweredQoN 299Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Has the minister signed the partnership agreement between the Commonwealth and Western Australia for the implementation of the $80m renewable remote power generation program in Western Australia? (2) If not, when does the minister expect to sign that agreement? (3) Has the commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage told him that there is very limited capacity for any carryover of program funding between financial years? (4) How much funding does this State stand to lose this financial year if the partnership agreement is not signed? Mr BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(4) Members should be aware of where these so-called commonwealth funds, dispersed through the Australian Greenhouse Office, come from. The Commonwealth Government increased the excise on power generation in remote areas of this State from 6.5¢ a kilolitre to 33¢ a kilolitre. That imposed an enormous burden on this State, particularly through the State Energy Commission and Western Power. That is part of the reason, but not the sole reason, that it has, if anything, accelerated the process of getting private sector power generation into those areas. Members will find that if the contract for gas is finalised in the west Kimberley, for example, those moneys will no longer accrue. Mr Ripper: Is there some doubt about it? Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
(2) If not, when does the minister expect to sign that agreement? (3) Has the commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage told him that there is very limited capacity for any carryover of program funding between financial years? (4) How much funding does this State stand to lose this financial year if the partnership agreement is not signed? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(4) Members should be aware of where these so-called commonwealth funds, dispersed through the Australian Greenhouse Office, come from. The Commonwealth Government increased the excise on power generation in remote areas of this State from 6.5¢ a kilolitre to 33¢ a kilolitre. That imposed an enormous burden on this State, particularly through the State Energy Commission and Western Power. That is part of the reason, but not the sole reason, that it has, if anything, accelerated the process of getting private sector power generation into those areas. Members will find that if the contract for gas is finalised in the west Kimberley, for example, those moneys will no longer accrue. Mr Ripper: Is there some doubt about it? Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
(3) Has the commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage told him that there is very limited capacity for any carryover of program funding between financial years? (4) How much funding does this State stand to lose this financial year if the partnership agreement is not signed? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(4) Members should be aware of where these so-called commonwealth funds, dispersed through the Australian Greenhouse Office, come from. The Commonwealth Government increased the excise on power generation in remote areas of this State from 6.5¢ a kilolitre to 33¢ a kilolitre. That imposed an enormous burden on this State, particularly through the State Energy Commission and Western Power. That is part of the reason, but not the sole reason, that it has, if anything, accelerated the process of getting private sector power generation into those areas. Members will find that if the contract for gas is finalised in the west Kimberley, for example, those moneys will no longer accrue. Mr Ripper: Is there some doubt about it? Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
(4) How much funding does this State stand to lose this financial year if the partnership agreement is not signed? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(4) Members should be aware of where these so-called commonwealth funds, dispersed through the Australian Greenhouse Office, come from. The Commonwealth Government increased the excise on power generation in remote areas of this State from 6.5¢ a kilolitre to 33¢ a kilolitre. That imposed an enormous burden on this State, particularly through the State Energy Commission and Western Power. That is part of the reason, but not the sole reason, that it has, if anything, accelerated the process of getting private sector power generation into those areas. Members will find that if the contract for gas is finalised in the west Kimberley, for example, those moneys will no longer accrue. Mr Ripper: Is there some doubt about it? Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(4) Members should be aware of where these so-called commonwealth funds, dispersed through the Australian Greenhouse Office, come from. The Commonwealth Government increased the excise on power generation in remote areas of this State from 6.5¢ a kilolitre to 33¢ a kilolitre. That imposed an enormous burden on this State, particularly through the State Energy Commission and Western Power. That is part of the reason, but not the sole reason, that it has, if anything, accelerated the process of getting private sector power generation into those areas. Members will find that if the contract for gas is finalised in the west Kimberley, for example, those moneys will no longer accrue. Mr Ripper: Is there some doubt about it? Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
(1)-(4) Members should be aware of where these so-called commonwealth funds, dispersed through the Australian Greenhouse Office, come from. The Commonwealth Government increased the excise on power generation in remote areas of this State from 6.5¢ a kilolitre to 33¢ a kilolitre. That imposed an enormous burden on this State, particularly through the State Energy Commission and Western Power. That is part of the reason, but not the sole reason, that it has, if anything, accelerated the process of getting private sector power generation into those areas. Members will find that if the contract for gas is finalised in the west Kimberley, for example, those moneys will no longer accrue. Mr Ripper: Is there some doubt about it? Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr Ripper: Is there some doubt about it? Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
(2) If not, when does the minister expect to sign that agreement? (3) Has the commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage told him that there is very limited capacity for any carryover of program funding between financial years? (4) How much funding does this State stand to lose this financial year if the partnership agreement is not signed? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(4) Members should be aware of where these so-called commonwealth funds, dispersed through the Australian Greenhouse Office, come from. The Commonwealth Government increased the excise on power generation in remote areas of this State from 6.5¢ a kilolitre to 33¢ a kilolitre. That imposed an enormous burden on this State, particularly through the State Energy Commission and Western Power. That is part of the reason, but not the sole reason, that it has, if anything, accelerated the process of getting private sector power generation into those areas. Members will find that if the contract for gas is finalised in the west Kimberley, for example, those moneys will no longer accrue. Mr Ripper: Is there some doubt about it? Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
(3) Has the commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage told him that there is very limited capacity for any carryover of program funding between financial years? (4) How much funding does this State stand to lose this financial year if the partnership agreement is not signed? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(4) Members should be aware of where these so-called commonwealth funds, dispersed through the Australian Greenhouse Office, come from. The Commonwealth Government increased the excise on power generation in remote areas of this State from 6.5¢ a kilolitre to 33¢ a kilolitre. That imposed an enormous burden on this State, particularly through the State Energy Commission and Western Power. That is part of the reason, but not the sole reason, that it has, if anything, accelerated the process of getting private sector power generation into those areas. Members will find that if the contract for gas is finalised in the west Kimberley, for example, those moneys will no longer accrue. Mr Ripper: Is there some doubt about it? Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
(4) How much funding does this State stand to lose this financial year if the partnership agreement is not signed? Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(4) Members should be aware of where these so-called commonwealth funds, dispersed through the Australian Greenhouse Office, come from. The Commonwealth Government increased the excise on power generation in remote areas of this State from 6.5¢ a kilolitre to 33¢ a kilolitre. That imposed an enormous burden on this State, particularly through the State Energy Commission and Western Power. That is part of the reason, but not the sole reason, that it has, if anything, accelerated the process of getting private sector power generation into those areas. Members will find that if the contract for gas is finalised in the west Kimberley, for example, those moneys will no longer accrue. Mr Ripper: Is there some doubt about it? Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr BARNETT replied: (1)-(4) Members should be aware of where these so-called commonwealth funds, dispersed through the Australian Greenhouse Office, come from. The Commonwealth Government increased the excise on power generation in remote areas of this State from 6.5¢ a kilolitre to 33¢ a kilolitre. That imposed an enormous burden on this State, particularly through the State Energy Commission and Western Power. That is part of the reason, but not the sole reason, that it has, if anything, accelerated the process of getting private sector power generation into those areas. Members will find that if the contract for gas is finalised in the west Kimberley, for example, those moneys will no longer accrue. Mr Ripper: Is there some doubt about it? Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
(1)-(4) Members should be aware of where these so-called commonwealth funds, dispersed through the Australian Greenhouse Office, come from. The Commonwealth Government increased the excise on power generation in remote areas of this State from 6.5¢ a kilolitre to 33¢ a kilolitre. That imposed an enormous burden on this State, particularly through the State Energy Commission and Western Power. That is part of the reason, but not the sole reason, that it has, if anything, accelerated the process of getting private sector power generation into those areas. Members will find that if the contract for gas is finalised in the west Kimberley, for example, those moneys will no longer accrue. Mr Ripper: Is there some doubt about it? Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr Ripper: Is there some doubt about it? Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr BARNETT: It has not been finalised yet, but hopefully it will be finalised very quickly. That is money the Commonwealth has taken from the people of Western Australia in taxation. As I have said before, that is a direct tax on regional development and on regional communities. Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr Ripper: Are you refusing to sign the policy? Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr BARNETT: No. I have some objections to how that money was raised. Nevertheless, Senator Robert Hill forwarded a copy of the proposed agreement and a number of aspects of IT are not acceptable. Certainly, I do not agree with them, and the Government has referred them back to him to reconsider. Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr Ripper: Is there a possibility that Western Australia will lose the money allocated for this financial year because the Government will not sign the agreement in time? Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr BARNETT: It would be difficult to spend the money within Western Australia because of some of the requirements the Commonwealth has placed upon how that money will be spent. We argue that if money is to be spent on renewable energy projects, it should be used where the renewable benefit and the greenhouse abatement benefits are greatest. The commonwealth scheme is not well thought through and is very restrictive. Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr Ripper: You are holding up money for renewable energy in Western Australia. Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Mr BARNETT: No. I am saying to the Commonwealth that if it wants to put that money into renewable energy projects, we will work with it, but the money should go into those renewable energy projects in which the greenhouse benefits are greatest. That is what we are doing. I have not had a reply from Senator Hill, to my knowledge.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.