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
6:59 pm
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source
The opposition supports the government’s amendment. Let us rebut some of the nonsense we just heard from the Australian Greens. To say that the money that will be paid by way of compensation is to keep these power stations polluting suggests that they are in business to pollute. They are actually in business to create energy and generate power. Australian’s actually do want reliable energy sources. Of course, if you pay them the money by way of compensation, you then expect them to give a guarantee that they will continue generating power for a particular period of time, otherwise they could just take the money, say ‘Thank you very much,’ and close up shop the next day—not a very good policy. Therefore, you have got to lock them in. To say that we are locking them into polluting is quite ridiculous. We are not locking them into polluting; we are locking them into continuing to generate power as we make the transition into an economy where there is less carbon pollution.
I also make this observation: much as my friend and colleague the Hon. Ian Macfarlane did a fantastic job in negotiating with the government in relation to this aspect, I have just got a funny feeling that part of the government’s decision on this was informed by the Morgan Stanley report, which we still have not seen. It has still not been released. I think the Australian people are entitled to know what that report says. We know that when it went to the Victorian government it caused great consternation, and rightly so. I have got a funny feeling that, whilst we negotiated well and hard to achieve an outcome, the government got mugged by the reality of the Morgan Stanley report, which indicated the consequences.
The Greens somehow want it—and this is always their approach on issues of this nature—to be all black or white with nothing in between. If you want to get out of coal generated electricity, you actually need a transition period. That is why you have got to ensure that the appropriate level of support is there to ensure that the power continues to be generated. To just say, ‘They are polluters and therefore we ought to flick the switch on them,’ is a great idea if you are ideologically driven but not such a great idea if you want the fridge to operate in your home or you still want the aluminium smelters, the food processors, or indeed the milking machines on the dairy farms to work. I am sure the Greens would volunteer to hand milk the cows all around the countryside, but I am not sure that would be a practical approach. I do ask for some sanity in this debate and some consideration of the fact that we do want a proper transition out of the carbon-dependent energy generating regime that we have in Australia to one that is less intensive. That is why I say to the government: well done on this amendment.
Much as we as the opposition would like to take credit for all of this amendment, I still have a slight suspicion that the government acceded to this amendment as a result of the Morgan Stanley report, which they have still not released, and I must say that is part and parcel of the coalition’s criticism of the government in relation to this. Last night, for example, we found out that their population figures were out by a mere 2 million people. We found that out after 12 months. They put down the figures for their projection out to 2050 and within 12 months they realised they only made a mistake of 2 million people—just a small little error along the way. One wonders what errors the Morgan Stanley report may have exposed, but undoubtedly we will not know until the cabinet papers are released after 30 years or so. Whatever the timetable, one of these days they might be released and some historian will get a great thrill from reading through the Senate Hansard of the last few days to see what people said about this Morgan Stanley report that the cabinet of the day was so anxious to hide from the Australian people. I have a funny feeling that the hunch I have expressed this evening as to what the Morgan Stanley report might indicate is right, but, just in case anybody is worried, take this tip: I will not be around in this place in 30 years time to find out.
No comments