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
11:23 am
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source
Recognising the divisiveness of this legislation in the Australian community at this time and also given the gaping holes in this legislation exposed through the committee stages of this debate, even with amendments seeking to address many of its flaws, the coalition believes that this legislation is still fatally flawed and remains extremely divisive within the Australian community. Action on climate change should be unifying within the Australian community, not divisive. We will present an alternative plan of action on climate change for the Australian community that is far less complicated, far more effective, far less costly and far more unifying than this ETS.
Consistent with the Liberal Party’s traditions, and reflecting the diversity of opinions in the community on this issue and on this legislation, we respect the right of any Liberal senator to cross the floor and vote other than in accordance with the party’s position. The accommodation of such decisions is, in fact, a strength of our party and contrasts significantly with the Labor Party, where the expression on the floor of the parliament of a strongly held view contrary to that of Labor means immediate expulsion.
We reject these bills as being too complex, too confusing and too costly. We reject these bills because there is no conservation dividend. We do support effective global action. We remain supportive of the five per cent target. Mr Rudd can go to Copenhagen with bipartisan support. Yvo de Boer of the UN has confirmed that legislation is not needed but that a target would be helpful. We have given Mr Rudd bipartisan support for that.
In short, we support action, but we do not support slashing jobs, exports and wealth; we do not support jeopardising power supplies; we do not support wrecking small businesses; we do not support increasing the cost of living for every household by $1,100 per annum; we do not support fatally flawed and rushed legislation; and we do not support Mr Rudd’s insatiable ego. In short, the coalition says, ‘Action, yes, but no to this ETS.’
No comments