Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

(a)   recalls the decision of the Australian Greens to vote with the Liberal and National parties to oppose the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme; and

(b)   recognises the significant role played by the Australian Greens in opposing action on climate change and the subsequent damage to Australia's future.

Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave granted.

The carbon tax increased household electricity prices and gas prices, reduced business competitiveness and did not reduce emissions to any significant extent. The government is implementing policies that actually work to address climate change. We are on track to meet and to beat our 2020 emissions target and have set an ambitious target of a 26-28 per cent reduction in emissions by 2030. Our renewable energy target will see a doubling of renewable energy generation by 2020. The emissions reduction fund has already achieved 92.8 million tonnes of emissions reduction by supporting businesses to be more energy efficient, to reduce waste and increase recycling and to adopt programs involving reafforesting degraded land and indigenous fire management. The government does not support fossil fuel subsidies.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The CPRS was never designed to address the transformational change that is necessary to deal with the climate emergency that we are now in and was never designed to drive the transformational change in our economy to create jobs and international investment. The CPRS would have locked in our emissions targets at five per cent with no ability to scale up the level of ambition that is required to meet the science. If you look at where the carbon price is set in the way that scheme was designed then you will see that, rather than the $23 a tonne that was agreed through the fixed price as a result of a constructive negotiation between the Greens, the Independents and the Labor Party, the price would have been set under the CPRS at $1. That is right—$1. As a result of those unlimited cheap permits available from dubious international markets, it would have been set at $1. It gave money away to big business— (Time expired)

Question negatived.