Senate debates
Monday, 7 November 2011
Bills
Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge — General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011; In Committee
1:33 pm
Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source
I just want to finalise this particular issue. I know that is the government's position, but does it mean that another government with a different position could simply say, by disallowable instrument, 'We will reduce the target to one per cent,' or 'to zero per cent'? It is not a cute question; it is not a trick question. I just want to establish that. Assuming that the answer to that is no, the other issue in terms of increasing the target is: if the government says that one of the reasons we need to have this scheme in place is to give certainty, won't there be a degree of uncertainty if the target can be moved by way of a disallowable instrument? That is the flipside of that question.
No comments