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]

Third Reading

10:22 am

Photo of Steve FieldingSteve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

Firstly, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is very difficult. Why is it difficult? Because it polarises people. It is divisive and political, but there should be a policy based decision-making process. It is an economic issue and it also is an environmental issue. There are people in Australia that have serious concerns, and those concerns should be looked into before we make any decision in this parliament. Secondly, I believe I am one of the few parliamentarians that have taken an open mind to this whole issue of climate change. I, like many Australians, started out believing that the scientists must be right and that, without a doubt, carbon dioxide must be driving climate change. But people came to me, and my own staff said, ‘Are you sure?’ When I reached the point where I said, ‘I’m not 100 per cent certain,’ I decided to go on a self-funded trip to the United States to hear both sides of the debate.

When I came back from that trip I brought back with me a couple of key questions that I think the Australian public are also interested in. I engaged with the Rudd government for a week before they decided that they wanted to disengage because they were having trouble answering the questions. It may be an inconvenient fact, but carbon dioxide emissions have been going up rapidly over the last 15 years while the corresponding global air temperatures, on the data that is also used by the IPCC, have not been going up as predicted. Someone has to answer that question, and the Rudd government failed. Those questions are on my website for all to see.

Where are we at? We have time to get it right. There is a growing concern in Australia about rushing ahead. For what benefit? Should we rush ahead and ignore genuine community concerns? When I talk to people on the street, there are three genuine concerns that a lot of them have. One of them is about rushing ahead and committing Australia to targets before we know what the rest of the world is doing. This will clearly put up the cost of doing business in Australia compared to other places. It will also drive down our competitive advantage. It will impose a massive tax on ordinary Australians. For what benefit? Going alone is risky, and Australians are getting more and more concerned about rushing ahead. That is one issue that many have.

Another issue that others have is in regard to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and its costs and benefits compared to any other scheme. That debate has not really even been had. The third concern that many Australians have is about the science and the question that I have just put forward. As more and more people start to grapple with this issue, they want to make sure there is a decent debate about the science and the pros and cons. All too often in this debate someone questioning the science is immediately labelled as a sceptic. How does that help the situation? How does that help to have a genuine debate in Australia?

Comments

No comments