Senator BROWN (8:49 PM) —Then why not say so? The purposes of the account set out in schedule 1 item 65D(b) are, firstly, funding the ozone-depleting substances phase-out programs, which is fine; and, secondly, funding emission minimisation programs for ozone-depleting substances and SGGs. But it does not mention the natural refrigerants; that is left unspoken. I am saying that these are a reality and that they are the best option. The SGGs are damaging to the environment; the natural refrigerants are not. It should be stated explicitly in the bill that that is the purpose of the account. It is not and it ought to be. We ought to be supporting this amendment, and the opposition ought to be supporting this amendment too. It is very inconsistent with our aspiration to reduce global warming that this amendment, which would give explicit intent to the people who are dealing with that account, is not written into the bill. If the minister has no problem with it then I appeal to him to accept the amendment.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

OZONE PROTECTION (LICENCE FEES—IMPORTS) AMENDMENT BILL 2003

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.

Bill agreed to.

OZONE PROTECTION (LICENCE FEES—MANUFACTURE) AMENDMENT BILL 2002

Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.

Bill agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment or request; report adopted.