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

10:51 pm

Photo of Guy BarnettGuy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have a question for Senator Xenophon and/or the minister. I cannot see the merit of proceeding with this type of legislation before us prior to Copenhagen and prior to legislation in place from our major trading partners. If this amendment is passed and the bill is passed, locking us into at least 20 per cent—based on the amendment before us—what are the consequences for Australia, hypothetically, if another target is locked in in the US under the Waxman-Markey bill? What are the consequences if China and India do not act in a consistent or largely consistent manner? Surely Australia will suffer a competitive disadvantage, whether it be in agriculture, manufacturing or any of our export industries? These are the questions I ask. I will not be long. I just want to ask those questions and see if there is an answer to say, ‘Yes, we can guarantee that Australian industry, Australian jobs and Australian families will not be put at a disadvantage as a result of locking that amendment into this legislation.’ I guess you can say the same with respect to the government’s bill.

So I ask that question. I am not sure if I will get an answer, but I think it is a fair question. I know Senator Xenophon has put a lot of work into this, and I do appreciate that and the amendment before us. Can you provide a guarantee that Australian families, Australian small business and Australian workers will not be disadvantaged as a result of locking in this amendment, this legislation, prior to Copenhagen, prior to the US legislation, prior to China, India and our other major trading partners locking in like legislation? That is the question I have. I stand to be convinced.

Comments

No comments