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

Support for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is dropping by the day. Every day there is another group coming out saying there is no need to rush this through recklessly. Look at what happens when this government rushes things through. Look at the batty batts program—rushing it through. It is embarrassing. Lives are at risk and up to $1 billion has been wasted, and all because you rushed it through. It is wise and prudent to take the time, especially when community support for a carbon pollution reduction scheme is dropping by the day. They are also getting nervous about this government being able to implement things. It is wise and prudent to use this time to look at the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2010 and related bills through a Senate inquiry.

We have to also realise that this Senate has already agreed that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme bills will be considered in May. That is the earliest they are going to be considered. So why would you stand idly by and not support this Senate inquiry? Anyone who does not support this inquiry is not fair dinkum about making sure we are doing the right thing by the Australian public. These bills are scheduled to come back to the Senate in May. The Senate has agreed to that, so we should use this time wisely and prudently to look at these new bills. Rushing ahead is risky, especially with this government, as proven by the batty batts program. Look what happened with the NBN: 17 million bucks in a tender went belly up—and you are asking us to trust you on implementation. We are all getting nervous, so why not have the Senate look at these new bills to make sure that we are taking the time to consider the matter fully?  At the end of my speech, I will move the amendment which has already been circulated in the chamber. It says in part that the committee of this inquiry:

... must invite the Productivity Commission to make:

(a)

a detailed submission to the committee setting out viable alternative schemes to the CPRS and the cost and benefits under those schemes of achieving the targets that are contained in the bills ...

Let us look at other schemes. Let us have the Productivity Commission look at this rather than have the government saying, ‘Other schemes aren’t worthy.’ Subparagraph (b) of my amendment—I will not read the whole lot out as I will move the amendment at the end of my speech to add paragraph (4)—proposes that we look at ‘the potential costs to the Australian economy by committing to the targets contained in these bills before all other major world economies’, such as China, the United States of America, India and Russia, commit to targets that are lower than those that have been set out by the Rudd government. How will that impact on our economy? These are questions that need to be answered, and I think we must invite the Productivity Commission to provide a detailed submission on the matter.

I will be supporting this motion, albeit with the amendment that I have put forward, because it is wise and prudent to do so. It is not stalling the legislation, because the Senate has already agreed that the legislation is not coming up to be debated until May. So why do we not use this time prudently to have a Senate inquiry looking into the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and invite the Productivity Commission to look at two other details that I think this Senate needs to have answers to before we start debating the bills in May? I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

“(4)   In undertaking the inquiry, the committee must invite the Productivity Commission to make:

(a)

a detailed submission to the committee setting out viable alternative schemes to the CPRS and the cost and benefits under those schemes of achieving the targets that are contained in the bills; and

(b)

a detailed submission to the committee setting out the potential costs to the Australian economy by committing to the targets contained in these bills before all other major world economies (including China, the United States of America, India and Russia) commit to at least the emission reduction targets, and before we know what those targets are, this detailed submission should also include the potential costs to the Australian economy if other major world economies do commit to lower emissions reduction targets and any impacts resulting from the reliance of other major economies on nuclear power sources”.