Senate debates

Monday, 30 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

12:14 pm

Photo of Christopher BackChristopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I certainly hope that they do do it well, Senator Farrell, as I hope that you do. I make this point as a person who has come out of the emergency services industry: the Australian and New Zealand standard on risk management is pertinent to this debate. What is that? It simply looks at the question of what the risk is in this particular issue. The risk is that we make a mistake; that we get it wrong. That is why I have sat here for four days, because I am concerned about the risk of us getting wrong. This is legislation that, if passed, can never be revoked. We cannot get it back. With every other piece of legislation that has come before this parliament, however long it has been debated, it is always possible for a future parliament to reverse it. This one, because it relates to international carbon trading permits, can never be reversed once passed. Remember that: we cannot reverse it.

When we come to look at the issue of risk and risk management, there are two issues that we consider. The first on one axis of a graph is, ‘What is the likelihood of us getting it wrong?’ On the other axis the question is, ‘What will be the impact on our country if we do?’ If the likelihood of us getting this wrong is high, then we must look at it more closely. If the impact of getting it wrong—

Comments

No comments