Page 5063 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 26 October 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Climate Change (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Targets) Bill 2008 (No 2)
Debate resumed from 10 December 2008, on motion by Mrs Dunne:
That this bill be agreed to in principle.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Before I call Mr Corbell, I remind members that this bill was debated cognitively with the previous bill.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.52): I do not know exactly how people are going to vote on this because I have not actually spoken to it but I was looking forward to hearing directly from Mr Corbell. I assume from that earlier discussion that they will not be supporting our bill.
Mr Assistant Speaker, it is worth just going back a step and talking about the differences and why we believe this is the better path. We have heard a lot in this debate, particularly from Mr Corbell and also from Mr Rattenbury, about this magic number that is 40 per cent. We had Mr Rattenbury sort of drawn out more on it. He was right. When he finally actually got down to the facts, the fact is that the IPCC has not said that the magic number is 40 per cent. Despite what Mr Corbell claimed, the IPCC has not said that for developed nations. In fact, for developed nations the IPCC has said between 25 and 40 per cent.
To pursue a target of 30 per cent, as the Canberra Liberals have proposed, is within the range for developed countries that the IPCC itself has recommended is necessary. You cannot claim that the science says that you must have a 40 per cent target because the science simply does not say that. The IPCC does not say it and to suggest otherwise is simply wrong.
What we have is choices to make. We have choices to make even if we accept the IPCC’s recommendations. We then have a choice. We take into account what is going on internationally and nationally. What we have seen nationally is the debate lead to a situation where it looks as though a five per cent target is on the table. That may go higher but I do not think anyone would be suggesting that the national target anytime soon is going to be up at the 40 per cent mark. It simply will not happen.
We must debunk what has been put out there in this debate by the Labor Party and the Greens—that is, that there is a magic number, that if you get 40 per cent then you are correct and you will achieve the emissions reductions that are necessary to prevent dangerous global warming. It is simply not the case. It is not a magic number. We as policy makers have decisions to make. We take into account not just what is going on elsewhere but also the costs that are associated with these targets.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video