Senate debates

Thursday, 26 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

8:25 pm

Photo of Penny WongPenny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

First, I disagree with the accusation or the criticism that these are ‘political’ targets. These are targets that we are setting as we seek to introduce a scheme, a law, that for the first time will reduce Australia’s contribution to climate change. My view is that the science is telling us that things are worsening faster than predicted, and what that says to me is we need to act now. So, Senator, whilst I understand that this is your and your party’s position and you will put these arguments in this amendment, for us this is not a debate about theory; this is a government seeking to put into practice, to effect action. That is why we want this legislation passed.

The fact that your party has chosen to vote against action on climate change is quite extraordinary. To see Senators Brown and Fielding sitting on the same side of the chamber to stop any action on climate change is quite extraordinary, because what you are saying is: ‘If the number is not as high as we want, we’d rather do nothing. We’d rather allow this nation’s contribution to climate change to increase.’ We fundamentally disagree on this. We believe we need to start taking action. Part of the reason we need to act, and why I do not think focus on 2020 should blind us to the other challenges, is that we know we have to go so much further and that, the longer we delay, the higher the costs will be and the harder it will be. The logic that says, ‘Because the target’s not high enough we don’t want to start acting now,’ when what you are doing is in fact making it harder for us to do anything and harder for us to go further, is a very strange logic, if I may say.

Comments

No comments