House debates

Thursday, 4 June 2009

Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009

Consideration in Detail

9:46 am

Photo of Greg CombetGreg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lyne and the member for New England for their contributions in moving and seconding the proposed amendments. They are directed, as we have heard, towards giving the power to set scheme caps under the CPRS to the Climate Change Regulatory Authority.

Reference has been made to a number of the other measures that can be taken to address carbon pollution, and I just remind the member for New England, respectfully, that the government is pursuing many other initiatives, including supporting research into biochar, as I mentioned earlier. There is also significant financial support for the improvement of energy efficiency throughout our economy, support for greater fuel efficiency in motor vehicle manufacturing in this country and large investments to support solar technology. We will be pursuing our commitment to improvements in renewable energy, taking the target for renewable energy’s share of the national electricity supply to 20 per cent by the year 2020. That is expected to unleash $19 billion worth of investment in renewable energy research, development and commercialisation of technology. The government have also committed considerable funds towards endeavours to ensure that carbon capture and storage can be proven as a technology on a large scale and be commercialised. So quite a lot of measures have been taken.

I recognise the laudable intention behind the amendments moved by the member for Lyne and welcome the member’s recognition, too, of the serious challenge that climate change presents. The government decided, though, in the white paper that scheme caps and gateways should be set in regulations and therefore be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The government took the decision on the basis that the scheme caps and gateways have potentially significant implications for the national economy. In the interests of accountability, elected representatives, in our view, rather than an independent regulator, as is proposed, should make the decisions about scheme caps and gateways. I note, though, that the CPRS Bill requires that when scheme cap regulations are tabled before the parliament the minister must, as soon as practicable, table a written statement setting out the minister’s reasons for making the recommendation to the Governor-General about those regulations. That is contained in part 2, clause 14(7) of the bill.

For those reasons, the government cannot accept the amendments moved by the member for Lyne. But I would like to thank the member for having the strength to move amendments like these, which are a constructive proposal and contribution to the debate—unlike, I might observe, the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the second reading debate.

Comments

No comments