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

10:53 pm

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

You were there, of course. I think it is fair to say that Senator Heffernan, as he often does, was looking at the big picture in terms of the potential catastrophe we face. This is about risk management. Whether you want to take that quote from Mr Turnbull or Margaret Thatcher, you can take your pick. But it is important to think about what the consequences will be if we do not act decisively in relation to this. It is a question of fundamental risk management and avoiding a tipping point. In relation to the matters that Senator Barnett raised, these higher targets are predicated on having an intensity based level with respect to the electricity, which, on the basis of the Frontier modelling, I believe is a much more effective way of achieving these targets. I will be moving amendments on the whole issue of an intensity based scheme later on.

I am very mindful of sticking to the point, to be as strictly relevant as possible so that these matters can be dealt with expeditiously, but I would urge Senator Barnett to consider the bigger picture of what the impact will be. If you are going to manage the risk then you should manage the risk on the basis of lower costs to the economy whilst you maximise the environmental benefits. I appreciate that the government disagrees with me on the Frontier approach, but that is my motivation for moving this amendment and it should be considered in the context of the other amendments with respect to having an intensity based scheme.

Comments

No comments