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
2:31 pm
Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source
I move National Party amendment (1) on sheet 6030:
(1) Clause 24, page 70 (after line 30), at the end of the clause, add:
Exclusion of emissions from non-commercial abatement projects
(4) For the purposes of this Act, an emission of a greenhouse gas from the operation of a facility does not include any emissions from a facility operated in connection with a non-commercial pilot project to develop technologies to:
(a) remove one or more greenhouse gases from the atmosphere; or
(b) reduce emissions of one or more greenhouse gases.
(5) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, develop guidelines to assist in the application of subsection (4), including guidelines on the definition of non-commercial pilot project.
I will be brief. I do not intend we should divide on this but that we should gauge the will of the chamber by the voices. This amendment pertains to coal in the Callide Valley. It is a specific amendment. In the Callide Valley in Queensland they have received a grant for $50 million to bring about carbon sequestration of coal. The effect of the ETS on their current arrangement would be a cost, because the cost of their test project would be approximately $8 million. They would obviously say, ‘What is the point of us trying to follow a program of carbon sequestration if the effect of the ETS is to take away from the money that we have been given as a grant?’ So this amendment is to deal with that issue. If it is supported—good; if it is not—well, I will wait on that.
No comments