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
8:44 pm
Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source
Yes, it has. I am very reluctant to take points of order, Senator Wong. The issue here is one of the impact on our water resources. That is my primary concern in relation to carbon sink forests. That is why I support this legislation. I am concerned there are not sufficient safeguards. Senator O’Brien made a very considered contribution in defence of managed investment schemes, which he is completely entitled to do, but can I tell you, Chair, of the visceral contempt amongst irrigators in the Riverland and the communities in the Lower Lakes in my home state of South Australia towards managed investment schemes and the impact they have had on the water market: the greater demands on water, the distortion of the water market and the unfair advantages that MISs have had over family irrigators. It is quite palpable. So there are compelling reasons to support this amendment, and I thought it was important to rebut the matters raised by Senators Cameron and O’Brien.
Question negatived.
No comments