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

9:53 pm

Photo of Nick XenophonNick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

In less than two minutes can I speak to the amendments. My position is to support the Greens amendments. I agree that we need to treat this as a serious issue. I agree that this is an issue of risk management. I urge my colleagues and my friends who say that they have doubts about the science to think of this in terms of risk management—there is no plan B, no planet B, if you are wrong and the scientists are right. That is why it is important that we have effective action. My difference with the government is that I do not think the targets are anywhere near high enough and I believe the scheme design is fundamentally flawed. I think there is a better way forward in terms of a scheme that is much more economically responsible and it is important that we avoid those tipping points that Senator Milne has mention, from which there is no return.

The reports of the World Meteorological Organisation, WMO, of just three days ago indicate that concentrations of greenhouse gases are at their highest levels ever recorded. There is a debate about anthropogenic climate change, but the issue is that there are so many credible scientists and peer reviewed articles saying that there is anthropogenic climate change that it would be an act of monumental folly not to consider that in formulating effective policy.

Finally, the minister made reference to Mr Turnbull’s speech and Margaret Thatcher saying 20 years ago that you need prudent action. I agree. ‘Prudent’ does not mean ‘cautious’; being prudent means doing what needs to be done to deal with the problem—in this case, to absolutely minimise the risks inherent in anthropogenic climate change in terms of the scientific evidence. That is why I support this amendment.

Comments

No comments