Senate debates
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Customs) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Excise) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — General) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009 [No. 2]
In Committee
8:37 pm
Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source
I rise to ask a question about the modelling. The minister quite rightly says that Treasury modelled, I think, five, 10, 15 and 25 per cent reductions between the Treasury and the Garnaut modelling, which used Treasury’s assumptions and so on. Why did the government refuse to model 40 per cent when it had been shown in the other modelling that there was virtually no difference in cost, or very little difference in cost, between a five per cent reduction and a 25 per cent reduction? Why did the government refuse to ask Treasury to model the 40 per cent reduction when the Greens wrote and asked the government to do so?
No comments