Division Description Changes — Motions — Paris Agreement — 3rd Dec 2020

All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change Division
senate vote 2020-12-03#10

Edited by mackay staff

on 2022-07-29 11:09:26

Title

  • Motions — Paris Agreement
  • Motions - Paris Agreement - Kyoto carryover credits

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Anne Urquhart</p>
  • <p>At the request of Senator Pratt, I move:</p>
  • The same number of senators voted for and against this [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-12-03.83.1), which means it failed. Motions like these don't make any legal changes on their own but they can be politically influential as they represent the will of the Senate.
  • ### Motion text
  • > *That the Senate—*
  • >
  • > *(a) notes that the Morrison Government intends to use so called Kyoto carryover credits to meet its Paris Agreement target even though:*
  • >
  • >> *(i) no other country is planning to use Kyoto carryover credits to meet Paris Agreement commitments,*
  • >>
  • >> *(ii) nine prominent Australian environmental law experts have previously called the use of Kyoto carryover credits in the Paris Agreement 'legally baseless in international law', and*
  • >>
  • >> *(iii) the Business Council of Australia and BHP among other business groups have called on the Government not to use Kyoto carryover credits; and*
  • >
  • > *(b) calls on the Morrison Government to rule out the use of Kyoto carryover credits to meet Paris Agreement emission reduction targets.*
  • <p class="italic">That the Senate&#8212;</p>
  • <p class="italic">(a) notes that the Morrison Government intends to use so called Kyoto carryover credits to meet its Paris Agreement target even though:</p>
  • <p class="italic">(i) no other country is planning to use Kyoto carryover credits to meet Paris Agreement commitments,</p>
  • <p class="italic">(ii) nine prominent Australian environmental law experts have previously called the use of Kyoto carryover credits in the Paris Agreement 'legally baseless in international law', and</p>
  • <p class="italic">(iii) the Business Council of Australia and BHP among other business groups have called on the Government not to use Kyoto carryover credits; and</p>
  • <p class="italic">(b) calls on the Morrison Government to rule out the use of Kyoto carryover credits to meet Paris Agreement emission reduction targets.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p>
  • <p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p>
  • <p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Jonathon Duniam</p>
  • <p>The government's policy is only to use carryover to the extent necessary to meet our 2030 Paris target. It was the Labor Party which made carryover a condition of Australia signing up to the second period of the Kyoto protocol. It was under this coalition government that Australia beat its 2020 target by 459 million tonnes.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Malcolm Roberts</p>
  • <p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p>
  • <p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Malcolm Roberts</p>
  • <p>One Nation does not support this motion. The Kyoto carryover credits were created by stealing property rights from farmers without compensation. Farmers lost the right to manage their land and vegetation without compensation. The purchase of freehold land has been turned into a leasehold agreement, with government controlling the land use through overburdensome and crippling regulations. The decision by the Howard government to steal property rights without compensation remains to this day an unjust and morally reprehensible decision that the Morrison government refuses to reverse.</p>
  • <p>It has been estimated that to compensate farmers for their loss of rights would cost in excess of $200 billion, but they should be compensated. If this government is unwilling to compensate then it must immediately restore full property rights to farmers so they can recover their productive capacity. Farmers are the best custodians of the land and do not need to be brought into this mess that is climate change.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Scott Ryan</p>
  • <p>The question is that motion No. 905 be agreed to.</p>