Senate debates
Monday, 30 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
11:17 am
Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source
Can I indicate that I will support this amendment. I understand the minister’s arguments, but I think that from a risk management point of view we ought to do everything possible to reduce emissions. I note that there is a growing body of scientific evidence that says that you need to go below 450 parts per million. I note what the minister has said in terms of every year of delay making the task more difficult. I think that is pretty axiomatic—it is quite clear. The fact is—and this is not a criticism of the minister or the government—the government made a policy decision earlier this year to delay the implementation of the scheme until 1 July 2011. I think we do still have a window in terms of the policy framework. The minister knows and will hopefully discuss this later today in terms of the best model to achieve those reductions. But I think that if the scientists are saying 450 parts per million will not reduce the risk anywhere near enough then we ought to aim for a more ambitious target. If the wording was ‘may have regard to the principle’, so that it is a guiding principle and not a mandatory one, I wonder whether that would in any way change the government’s view in respect of that. If it were ‘may’ rather than ‘must’ it would at least be something that is considered in a policy framework. I ask whether that would make any difference to the government’s position in relation to that.
No comments