Division Description Changes — Motions — Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013; Dissent from Ruling — 21st Nov 2013

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

View division | Edit description

Change	Division
representatives vote 2013-11-21#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-10-09 15:37:37	Title Description The majority voted for a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1) _that the question be now put_. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [Christopher Pyne](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives), Leader of the House. The question referred to is contained in a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3) put by Opposition Labor MP [Tony Burke](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives) _that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from_. ~~_Background to the Motion_~~ The [Speaker](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives)’s [ruling](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1) referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.(Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [website](https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx). ) The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).(For more information about standing orders, see this [fact sheet](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html).) ~~The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.~~ ~~References~~ The majority voted for a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1) _that the question be now put_. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [Christopher Pyne](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives), Leader of the House. The question referred to is contained in a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3) put by Opposition Labor MP [Tony Burke](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives) _that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from_. _Background to the Motion_ The [Speaker](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives)’s [ruling](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1) referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.(Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [website](https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx). ) The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).(For more information about standing orders, see this [fact sheet](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html).) The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.
representatives vote 2013-11-21#2 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:21:26	Title Description The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House. The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''. ~~''Background to the Motion''~~ The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.(Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website]. ) The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).(For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].) ~~The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.~~ ~~References~~ The majority voted for a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1) _that the question be now put_. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [Christopher Pyne](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives), Leader of the House. The question referred to is contained in a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3) put by Opposition Labor MP [Tony Burke](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives) _that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from_. _Background to the Motion_ The [Speaker](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives)’s [ruling](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1) referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.(Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [website](https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx). ) The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).(For more information about standing orders, see this [fact sheet](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html).) The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills. References
representatives vote 2013-11-21#2 Edited by system on 2014-10-07 16:16:56	Title Description The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House. The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''. ''Background to the Motion'' The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2] The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.(Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website]. ) The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).(For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].) The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills. References * [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website]. * [2] For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].
representatives vote 2013-11-21#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-01-02 14:02:54	Title Description The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House. The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''. ''Background to the Motion'' The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2] The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2] The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills. References * [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website]. * [2] For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].
representatives vote 2013-11-21#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-01-02 13:58:08	Title Motions - Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013; Dissent from Ruling Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 - Motion to Dissent from Ruling - Put the question Description The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House. The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''. ''Background to the Motion'' The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2] The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills. References * [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website]. * [2] For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].
representatives vote 2013-11-21#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-01-02 13:56:48	Title Description The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House. The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''. ''Background to the Motion'' The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2] The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2] The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills. * [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website]. * [2] For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].
representatives vote 2013-11-21#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-01-02 13:42:46	Title Description The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House. The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''. ''Background to the Motion'' The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2] The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills. * [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price: https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx * [2] For more information about standing orders, see: http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html * [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website]. * [2] For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].
representatives vote 2013-11-21#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-01-02 13:39:34	Title Description ~~The majority voted for a motion "that the question be now put". The motion was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, Leader of the House.~~ The question referred to is contained in a motion put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] "that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from". The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House. The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''. ''Background to the Motion'' The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2] The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills. * [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price: https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx * [2] http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html * [2] For more information about standing orders, see: http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html
representatives vote 2013-11-21#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-01-02 13:34:49	Title Description The majority voted for a motion "that the question be now put". The motion was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, Leader of the House. The question referred to is contained in a motion put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] "that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from". ~~' 'Background to the Motion' '~~ ''Background to the Motion'' The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2] The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills. * [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price: https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx * [2] http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html
representatives vote 2013-11-21#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-01-02 13:34:25	Title Description The majority voted for a motion "that the question be now put". The motion was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, Leader of the House. The question referred to is contained in a motion put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] "that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from". ~~"Background to the Motion"~~ ' 'Background to the Motion' ' The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2] The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills. * [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price: https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx * [2] http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html
representatives vote 2013-11-21#2 Edited by mackay staff on 2014-01-02 13:33:45	Title ~~Motions — Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013; Dissent from Ruling~~ Motions - Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013; Dissent from Ruling Description ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>I move:</p>~~ ~~<p>That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.</p>~~ The majority voted for a motion "that the question be now put". The motion was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, Leader of the House. The question referred to is contained in a motion put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] "that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from". "Background to the Motion" The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2] The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills. * [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price: https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx * [2] http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html <p>Madam Speaker, it is extraordinary for us now to be having a conversation about whether or not the parliament is allowed to debate what has been debated throughout Australia for so long. It is extraordinary, after all the conversation that has happened up until now about the shift to emissions trading and making sure that there is actually a limit on pollution rather than pollution being unlimited that we are now being told in this new parliament that that is a conversation you are not allowed to have. We thought it was bad enough for the debate to be gagged. Now this parliament is not to be allowed to consider these amendments at all. Your ruling, Madam Speaker, is not that the debate gets gagged; it is that the debate is not allowed to occur at all.</p> <p>If there is a duty of the Speaker in this House, it has to begin with the concept of facilitating debate. If there is a view that you think amendments that have been circulated are in fact contrary to standing orders and you know full well that the debate has already had a gag put on it by the government, you know full well that there might not be time for redrafting to occur unless you provide the opposition with notice.</p> <p>What would possess you, Madam Speaker, in those circumstances to wait until the commencement of the debate before we were told? In doing so, you guarantee that the debate cannot occur on the floor of this chamber. You guarantee the opposite of what is generally understood to be the role of the Speaker. You guarantee not that a vigorous debate will occur but you guarantee that a vigorous debate will be ruled out.</p> <p>I have been critical of the Leader of the House for the gag resolutions that he has brought down in this chamber. I have been critical of the Leader of the House for the idea that debate on amendments would be limited to an hour. It never occurred to anyone on this side of the chamber that the Speaker would view one hour of debate as too long and say that the figure of one hour needed to be reduced to zero for the purpose of discussing these amendments.</p> <p>Madam Speaker, it should be within the remit of this parliament to be able to debate the issues which have been discussed and flagged well in advance with the knowledge of the one-hour deadline already applying to the conduct of this debate. The precedent which you quoted, I have to say, is a real stretch because in that debate, even though as you say it was not brought to your attention until the beginning of the proceedings, I hazard a guess that there was not a one-hour limit on consideration in detail that day. I hazard a guess that we do not have those circumstances.</p> <p>Most importantly, you refer to standing order 179(a) and (b) as though part (c) is not on the page—just not there. The reason that you will not refer to standing order 179(c) is that it would allow the amendment. That is exactly why we have a circumstance, Madam Speaker, where you are consciously and knowingly ignoring one of the standing orders. If (a) and (b) were the only standing orders which were there, the ruling that you have made would at least be arguable, notwithstanding the fact that the process you have followed restricts debate in an unacceptable way in this chamber. But you ignore the words of 179(c):</p> <p class="italic">A Member who is not a Minister may move an amendment to the proposal which does not increase or extend the scope of the charge proposed beyond the total already existing under any Act of Parliament.</p> <p>The amendments which are to be before the House, and which have been circulated by the member for Port Adelaide, fall entirely within that standing order. Madam Speaker, you have put the House in a situation where we do not get a written copy of your ruling. I think it would be more helpful if you were provided with a written copy of the standing orders because a written copy of the standing orders, I believe, would have led you to a circumstance where no reasonable person could have made the ruling that you have just made. It cannot be justified under the standing orders and it certainly cannot be justified if you have the slightest part of belief in having debate in this chamber.</p> <p>I must say it is the first time I can recall that I have had a Speaker refer to the government's position using the pronoun 'we'. That was an extraordinary part of the way you sought to explain yourself to the chamber. If it was not enough for us to have a Speaker physically brought to the chair by a Prime Minister and a Leader of the House, to then have rulings that are governed by the term 'we' referring to yourself and the government as one, changes the role of your chair entirely and changes the role of the high office you occupy entirely.</p> <p>Madam Speaker, we were told that you would be an independent Speaker. This ruling is entirely inconsistent with that. The timing you have given on this ruling is entirely inconsistent with that. The lack of notice you have given to the opposition is entirely inconsistent with that. We were told that things would be transparent. I have to say, you have delivered on that one because this is entirely transparent! These amendments would force those opposite to actually vote squarely on the question of the tax alone and change it to a circumstance where you could get rid of the tax but pollution could not be unlimited. That is exactly what these amendments would do. Now government members, because of you shielding them from that question, get to avoid that.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ ~~<p>That is a reflection on the chair and I ask you to withdraw.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>It is a dissent motion. I have moved the motion because I think your ruling is wrong. I do not resile from that for one moment.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ ~~<p>I am not referring to that.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p>~~ ~~<p>Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I think that the point that the Speaker is making is not that you should not be able to dissent from her ruling—</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">Mr Mitchell interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p>Be quiet, you buffoon.</p>~~ ~~<p>An opposition member: What is the standing order?</p>~~ <p>Disorderly conduct. Check it out. Look it up. The point is in the member's dissent he is perfectly entitled to disagree with the Speaker's ruling, but he is not allowed to reflect personally on the Speaker and her impartiality. That is what the Speaker is asking you to withdraw, and I would ask you to do so on behalf of the Speaker.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ ~~<p>I ask you to withdraw the reflection on the chair that was made.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p>~~ <p>I withdraw. On saying that they would be transparent, they have delivered in spades. We have a situation now where all of this means one very simple thing: the government get to avoid a vote and this parliament avoids a debate. What does it say about how they feel about the strength of their arguments when this is where we end up? Had there been early notice, I have no doubt this would have been able to be rectified to your satisfaction, Madam Speaker. I have no doubt there would have been a way. Notwithstanding the interjections opposite and notwithstanding the shaking of your head, Madam Speaker, when I said that this could be rectified, you did refer to the opportunity for things to be redrafted and I take those words of yours in good faith.</p> <p>In turn, I acknowledge that the timing of this makes it impossible. The timing of it, the manner of delivery, the ruling itself, the ignoring of standing order (c), within the very section you chose to refer to, have put this parliament in a situation where debate is being silenced. And it is not like through the amendments we were about to form a majority of the chamber. It is not like that was about to happen. It is not like they needed to be running scared from the outcome. It should be reasonable that there is never a culture of secrecy here on the floor of the chamber. Madam Speaker, when you ask for things to be withdrawn, when you make different rulings and when you have asked us to quieten down at different points when you get on your feet, we will respect your role. Madam Speaker, but you need to abide by the standing orders—</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ ~~<p>And I am—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>and on this occasion you have not.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ ~~<p>Again, that is a reflection on the chair and I ask you to withdraw.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>May I speak to the point of order?</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ ~~<p>You can disagree with my ruling, but you cannot say that I am not abiding by the standing orders?</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p>~~ <p>Then how can I move dissent? I am not presuming any ill will on your part, but I do not know how I can move dissent without saying that you were wrong on the standing orders. I do not know how else a dissent motion can take effect.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ ~~<p>You are correct to disagree with my ruling on the standing orders. That is not to say, at large, that I do not comply with the standing orders. That is a reflection on the chair.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p>~~ ~~<p>Madam Speaker, your ruling must be dissented from. I presume on this occasion—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ ~~<p>Your time has elapsed.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Mark Butler</p>~~ ~~<p>Since your ruling, Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p>~~ ~~<p>Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the member for Port Adelaide seconding the motion?</p>~~ ~~<p class="italic">Mr Butler interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p>He needs to say so.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ ~~<p>Is the member seconding the motion?</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Mark Butler</p>~~ <p>I second the motion. Since your ruling, Madam Speaker, I have been able to read your written statement. As the Manager of Opposition Business pointed out, the statement appears to rely particularly on standing order 179(a) and 179(b)—</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ ~~<p>As I said.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Mark Butler</p>~~ ~~<p>but does not refer expressly to the provisions in 179(c), which provides:</p>~~ <p class="italic">A Member who is not a Minister may move an amendment to the proposal which does not increase or extend the scope of the charge proposed beyond the total already existing under any Act of Parliament.</p> <p>What is the question here at issue? The question here at issue is what is the effect of the amendment moved by me on the existing act that is proposed to be amended or repealed by the government? The effect of the amendment proposed by me is to change the way in which carbon pricing works in the financial year 2014-15. What is the way in which it will change? The way in which it will change is that it will move from the fixed price that is currently set out in the legislation, described by the opposition over a long period of time as the carbon tax, to a floating price. So it moves to an emissions trading scheme. It does not bring in any additional liable entities. There is no change to scope. The only way 179(c) can be activated is an argument that it increases the charge—the charge currently set, I think, at $24.15 per tonne. That is a judgement to be made and it is a judgement that you have made, Madam Speaker, from which we greatly dissent.</p> <p>This is not a new set of amendments. These are the set of amendments that we released when in government as an exposure draft before the 7 September election. The draft was subject to public consultation, and it was released with very clear statements—from then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, from then Treasurer Bowen and from myself—about Treasury's advice on the impact in 2014-15 of moving from a fixed price—the carbon tax, as the now government like to call it—to a floating price under an emissions trading scheme. Treasury's advice was very clear. Treasury's advice was that the price would move from around $24 to around $6, that it would be reduced by 75 per cent. It seems to me, although the now government refuses to release any information about the basis of their current policy; they will not release the incoming brief, which Alan Kohler has told us this morning apparently indicates that Direct Action, their policy, will cost $10 billion per year—</p> ~~<p>A government member interjecting—</p>~~ ~~<p>Release your incoming brief and we will know whether or not it is false. The only thing we have to go on is articles from Alan Kohler.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Christopher Pyne</p>~~ <p>Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Port Adelaide needs to be arguing why your ruling should be dissented from. He should not be arguing about the substance of the amendment or the bill. He has had that opportunity, and in consideration in detail he could have the opportunity again.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ ~~<p>The Leader of the House makes a very valid point and I would ask the member to return to the substance of the motion.</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Mark Butler</p>~~ ~~<p>The point I was trying to make, with the greatest of respect, was that your ruling has sought to make an assessment about the financial impact of the change in 2014-15—</p>~~ ~~<p>A government member interjecting—</p>~~ <p>No, not the scope, the financial impact. There is no change to the scope, there is no change to the liable entities. What is changed is the way in which the price per tonne is fixed. Treasury's advice was that that price would reduce by three-quarters—</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ ~~<p>You are now not debating the question as to why my ruling should be dissented from—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Mark Butler</p>~~ ~~<p>I am directly debating it, because—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Bronwyn Bishop</p>~~ ~~<p>No, you are not—</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Mark Butler</p>~~ <p>Madam Speaker, with the greatest respect, your ruling makes an assessment that a change from a fixed price to a floating price in 2014-15 will increase that price. That is the only way in which standing order 179(c) cannot apply and cannot cover my amendments.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

Change

Division

representatives vote 2013-11-21#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-10-09 15:37:37

Title

Description

The majority voted for a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1) _that the question be now put_. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [Christopher Pyne](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives), Leader of the House.
The question referred to is contained in a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3) put by Opposition Labor MP [Tony Burke](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives) _that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from_.
~~_Background to the Motion_~~
The [Speaker](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives)’s [ruling](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1) referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.(Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [website](https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx). ) The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).(For more information about standing orders, see this [fact sheet](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html).)
~~The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.~~
~~References~~
The majority voted for a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1) _that the question be now put_. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [Christopher Pyne](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives), Leader of the House.
The question referred to is contained in a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3) put by Opposition Labor MP [Tony Burke](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives) _that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from_.
_Background to the Motion_
The [Speaker](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives)’s [ruling](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1) referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.(Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [website](https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx). ) The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).(For more information about standing orders, see this [fact sheet](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html).)
The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.

representatives vote 2013-11-21#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:21:26

Title

Description

The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House.
The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''.
~~''Background to the Motion''~~
The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.(Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website]. ) The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).(For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].)
~~The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.~~
~~References~~
The majority voted for a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1) _that the question be now put_. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [Christopher Pyne](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives), Leader of the House.
The question referred to is contained in a [motion](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3) put by Opposition Labor MP [Tony Burke](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives) _that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from_.
_Background to the Motion_
The [Speaker](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives)’s [ruling](http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1) referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.(Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [website](https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx). ) The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).(For more information about standing orders, see this [fact sheet](http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html).)
The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.
References

representatives vote 2013-11-21#2

Edited by system

on 2014-10-07 16:16:56

Title

Description

The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House.
The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''.
''Background to the Motion''
The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2]
The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.(Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website]. ) The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).(For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].)
The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.
References
* [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website].
* [2] For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].

representatives vote 2013-11-21#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-01-02 14:02:54

Title

Description

The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House.
The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''.
''Background to the Motion''
The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2]
The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because the amendment may possibly result in liability under the scheme exceeding what is provided under the current law, which would therefore be contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2]
The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.
References
* [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website].
* [2] For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].

representatives vote 2013-11-21#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-01-02 13:58:08

Title

Motions - Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013; Dissent from Ruling
Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 - Motion to Dissent from Ruling - Put the question

Description

The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House.
The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''.
''Background to the Motion''
The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2]
The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.
References
* [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website].
* [2] For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].

representatives vote 2013-11-21#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-01-02 13:56:48

Title

Description

The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House.
The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''.
''Background to the Motion''
The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2]
The [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Bronwyn_Bishop&mpc=Mackellar&house=representatives Speaker]’s [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.34.1 ruling] referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2]
The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.
* [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website].
* [2] For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].

representatives vote 2013-11-21#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-01-02 13:42:46

Title

Description

The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House.
The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''.
''Background to the Motion''
The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2]
The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.
* [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price: https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx
* [2] For more information about standing orders, see: http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html
* [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price. For more information on the difference between a flexible price and a fixed price, see the Clean Energy Regulator's [https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website].
* [2] For more information about standing orders, see this [http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html fact sheet].

representatives vote 2013-11-21#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-01-02 13:39:34

Title

Description

~~The majority voted for a motion "that the question be now put". The motion was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, Leader of the House.~~
The question referred to is contained in a motion put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] "that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from".
The majority voted for a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.41.1 motion] ''that the question be now put''. The motion was introduced by Liberal MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christopher_Pyne&mpc=Sturt&house=representatives Christopher Pyne], Leader of the House.
The question referred to is contained in a [http://www.openaustralia.org/debate/?id=2013-11-21.39.3 motion] put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] ''that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from''.
''Background to the Motion''
The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2]
The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.
* [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price: https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx
* [2] http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html
* [2] For more information about standing orders, see: http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html

representatives vote 2013-11-21#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-01-02 13:34:49

Title

Description

The majority voted for a motion "that the question be now put". The motion was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, Leader of the House.
The question referred to is contained in a motion put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] "that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from".
~~' 'Background to the Motion' '~~
''Background to the Motion''
The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2]
The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.
* [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price: https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx
* [2] http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html

representatives vote 2013-11-21#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-01-02 13:34:25

Title

Description

The majority voted for a motion "that the question be now put". The motion was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, Leader of the House.
The question referred to is contained in a motion put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] "that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from".
~~"Background to the Motion"~~
' 'Background to the Motion' '
The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2]
The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.
* [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price: https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx
* [2] http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html

representatives vote 2013-11-21#2

Edited by mackay staff

on 2014-01-02 13:33:45

Title

~~Motions — Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013; Dissent from Ruling~~
Motions - Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013; Dissent from Ruling

Description

~~Tony Burke~~
~~I move:~~
~~That the Speaker's ruling be dissented from.~~
The majority voted for a motion "that the question be now put". The motion was introduced by Liberal MP Christopher Pyne, Leader of the House.
The question referred to is contained in a motion put by Opposition Labor MP [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Tony_Burke&mpc=Watson&house=representatives Tony Burke] "that the Speaker's ruling be dissented from".
"Background to the Motion"
The Speaker’s ruling referred to in Burke MP’s original motion was to prevent the Opposition from introducing amendments that related to bringing forward the date of the commencement of the flexible price stage of the carbon pricing mechanism.[1] The Speaker’s ruling was made because it 'would be legally possible that the amendments would have the effect that the liability would exceed that provided under the current law', which is contrary to standing orders 179(a) and 179(b).[2]
The amendment was going to be introduced during the consideration in detail stage of debate about the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 and ten related bills.
* [1] Currently the carbon pricing mechanism, which is an emissions trading scheme, has a fixed price: https://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx
* [2] http://www.peo.gov.au/students/fact_sheets/standing_orders.html
Madam Speaker, it is extraordinary for us now to be having a conversation about whether or not the parliament is allowed to debate what has been debated throughout Australia for so long. It is extraordinary, after all the conversation that has happened up until now about the shift to emissions trading and making sure that there is actually a limit on pollution rather than pollution being unlimited that we are now being told in this new parliament that that is a conversation you are not allowed to have. We thought it was bad enough for the debate to be gagged. Now this parliament is not to be allowed to consider these amendments at all. Your ruling, Madam Speaker, is not that the debate gets gagged; it is that the debate is not allowed to occur at all.
If there is a duty of the Speaker in this House, it has to begin with the concept of facilitating debate. If there is a view that you think amendments that have been circulated are in fact contrary to standing orders and you know full well that the debate has already had a gag put on it by the government, you know full well that there might not be time for redrafting to occur unless you provide the opposition with notice.
What would possess you, Madam Speaker, in those circumstances to wait until the commencement of the debate before we were told? In doing so, you guarantee that the debate cannot occur on the floor of this chamber. You guarantee the opposite of what is generally understood to be the role of the Speaker. You guarantee not that a vigorous debate will occur but you guarantee that a vigorous debate will be ruled out.
I have been critical of the Leader of the House for the gag resolutions that he has brought down in this chamber. I have been critical of the Leader of the House for the idea that debate on amendments would be limited to an hour. It never occurred to anyone on this side of the chamber that the Speaker would view one hour of debate as too long and say that the figure of one hour needed to be reduced to zero for the purpose of discussing these amendments.
Madam Speaker, it should be within the remit of this parliament to be able to debate the issues which have been discussed and flagged well in advance with the knowledge of the one-hour deadline already applying to the conduct of this debate. The precedent which you quoted, I have to say, is a real stretch because in that debate, even though as you say it was not brought to your attention until the beginning of the proceedings, I hazard a guess that there was not a one-hour limit on consideration in detail that day. I hazard a guess that we do not have those circumstances.
Most importantly, you refer to standing order 179(a) and (b) as though part (c) is not on the page—just not there. The reason that you will not refer to standing order 179(c) is that it would allow the amendment. That is exactly why we have a circumstance, Madam Speaker, where you are consciously and knowingly ignoring one of the standing orders. If (a) and (b) were the only standing orders which were there, the ruling that you have made would at least be arguable, notwithstanding the fact that the process you have followed restricts debate in an unacceptable way in this chamber. But you ignore the words of 179(c):
A Member who is not a Minister may move an amendment to the proposal which does not increase or extend the scope of the charge proposed beyond the total already existing under any Act of Parliament.
The amendments which are to be before the House, and which have been circulated by the member for Port Adelaide, fall entirely within that standing order. Madam Speaker, you have put the House in a situation where we do not get a written copy of your ruling. I think it would be more helpful if you were provided with a written copy of the standing orders because a written copy of the standing orders, I believe, would have led you to a circumstance where no reasonable person could have made the ruling that you have just made. It cannot be justified under the standing orders and it certainly cannot be justified if you have the slightest part of belief in having debate in this chamber.
I must say it is the first time I can recall that I have had a Speaker refer to the government's position using the pronoun 'we'. That was an extraordinary part of the way you sought to explain yourself to the chamber. If it was not enough for us to have a Speaker physically brought to the chair by a Prime Minister and a Leader of the House, to then have rulings that are governed by the term 'we' referring to yourself and the government as one, changes the role of your chair entirely and changes the role of the high office you occupy entirely.
Madam Speaker, we were told that you would be an independent Speaker. This ruling is entirely inconsistent with that. The timing you have given on this ruling is entirely inconsistent with that. The lack of notice you have given to the opposition is entirely inconsistent with that. We were told that things would be transparent. I have to say, you have delivered on that one because this is entirely transparent! These amendments would force those opposite to actually vote squarely on the question of the tax alone and change it to a circumstance where you could get rid of the tax but pollution could not be unlimited. That is exactly what these amendments would do. Now government members, because of you shielding them from that question, get to avoid that.
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
~~That is a reflection on the chair and I ask you to withdraw.~~
~~Tony Burke~~
~~It is a dissent motion. I have moved the motion because I think your ruling is wrong. I do not resile from that for one moment.~~
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
~~I am not referring to that.~~
~~Christopher Pyne~~
~~Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I think that the point that the Speaker is making is not that you should not be able to dissent from her ruling—~~
~~Mr Mitchell interjecting—~~
~~Be quiet, you buffoon.~~
~~An opposition member: What is the standing order?~~
Disorderly conduct. Check it out. Look it up. The point is in the member's dissent he is perfectly entitled to disagree with the Speaker's ruling, but he is not allowed to reflect personally on the Speaker and her impartiality. That is what the Speaker is asking you to withdraw, and I would ask you to do so on behalf of the Speaker.
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
~~I ask you to withdraw the reflection on the chair that was made.~~
~~Tony Burke~~
I withdraw. On saying that they would be transparent, they have delivered in spades. We have a situation now where all of this means one very simple thing: the government get to avoid a vote and this parliament avoids a debate. What does it say about how they feel about the strength of their arguments when this is where we end up? Had there been early notice, I have no doubt this would have been able to be rectified to your satisfaction, Madam Speaker. I have no doubt there would have been a way. Notwithstanding the interjections opposite and notwithstanding the shaking of your head, Madam Speaker, when I said that this could be rectified, you did refer to the opportunity for things to be redrafted and I take those words of yours in good faith.
In turn, I acknowledge that the timing of this makes it impossible. The timing of it, the manner of delivery, the ruling itself, the ignoring of standing order (c), within the very section you chose to refer to, have put this parliament in a situation where debate is being silenced. And it is not like through the amendments we were about to form a majority of the chamber. It is not like that was about to happen. It is not like they needed to be running scared from the outcome. It should be reasonable that there is never a culture of secrecy here on the floor of the chamber. Madam Speaker, when you ask for things to be withdrawn, when you make different rulings and when you have asked us to quieten down at different points when you get on your feet, we will respect your role. Madam Speaker, but you need to abide by the standing orders—
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
~~And I am—~~
~~Tony Burke~~
~~and on this occasion you have not.~~
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
~~Again, that is a reflection on the chair and I ask you to withdraw.~~
~~Tony Burke~~
~~May I speak to the point of order?~~
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
~~You can disagree with my ruling, but you cannot say that I am not abiding by the standing orders?~~
~~Tony Burke~~
Then how can I move dissent? I am not presuming any ill will on your part, but I do not know how I can move dissent without saying that you were wrong on the standing orders. I do not know how else a dissent motion can take effect.
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
~~You are correct to disagree with my ruling on the standing orders. That is not to say, at large, that I do not comply with the standing orders. That is a reflection on the chair.~~
~~Tony Burke~~
~~Madam Speaker, your ruling must be dissented from. I presume on this occasion—~~
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
~~Your time has elapsed.~~
~~Mark Butler~~
~~Since your ruling, Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity—~~
~~Christopher Pyne~~
~~Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the member for Port Adelaide seconding the motion?~~
~~Mr Butler interjecting—~~
~~He needs to say so.~~
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
~~Is the member seconding the motion?~~
~~Mark Butler~~
I second the motion. Since your ruling, Madam Speaker, I have been able to read your written statement. As the Manager of Opposition Business pointed out, the statement appears to rely particularly on standing order 179(a) and 179(b)—
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
~~As I said.~~
~~Mark Butler~~
~~but does not refer expressly to the provisions in 179(c), which provides:~~
A Member who is not a Minister may move an amendment to the proposal which does not increase or extend the scope of the charge proposed beyond the total already existing under any Act of Parliament.
What is the question here at issue? The question here at issue is what is the effect of the amendment moved by me on the existing act that is proposed to be amended or repealed by the government? The effect of the amendment proposed by me is to change the way in which carbon pricing works in the financial year 2014-15. What is the way in which it will change? The way in which it will change is that it will move from the fixed price that is currently set out in the legislation, described by the opposition over a long period of time as the carbon tax, to a floating price. So it moves to an emissions trading scheme. It does not bring in any additional liable entities. There is no change to scope. The only way 179(c) can be activated is an argument that it increases the charge—the charge currently set, I think, at $24.15 per tonne. That is a judgement to be made and it is a judgement that you have made, Madam Speaker, from which we greatly dissent.
This is not a new set of amendments. These are the set of amendments that we released when in government as an exposure draft before the 7 September election. The draft was subject to public consultation, and it was released with very clear statements—from then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, from then Treasurer Bowen and from myself—about Treasury's advice on the impact in 2014-15 of moving from a fixed price—the carbon tax, as the now government like to call it—to a floating price under an emissions trading scheme. Treasury's advice was very clear. Treasury's advice was that the price would move from around $24 to around $6, that it would be reduced by 75 per cent. It seems to me, although the now government refuses to release any information about the basis of their current policy; they will not release the incoming brief, which Alan Kohler has told us this morning apparently indicates that Direct Action, their policy, will cost $10 billion per year—
~~A government member interjecting—~~
~~Release your incoming brief and we will know whether or not it is false. The only thing we have to go on is articles from Alan Kohler.~~
~~Christopher Pyne~~
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Port Adelaide needs to be arguing why your ruling should be dissented from. He should not be arguing about the substance of the amendment or the bill. He has had that opportunity, and in consideration in detail he could have the opportunity again.
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
~~The Leader of the House makes a very valid point and I would ask the member to return to the substance of the motion.~~
~~Mark Butler~~
~~The point I was trying to make, with the greatest of respect, was that your ruling has sought to make an assessment about the financial impact of the change in 2014-15—~~
~~A government member interjecting—~~
No, not the scope, the financial impact. There is no change to the scope, there is no change to the liable entities. What is changed is the way in which the price per tonne is fixed. Treasury's advice was that that price would reduce by three-quarters—
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
~~You are now not debating the question as to why my ruling should be dissented from—~~
~~Mark Butler~~
~~I am directly debating it, because—~~
~~Bronwyn Bishop~~
~~No, you are not—~~
~~Mark Butler~~
Madam Speaker, with the greatest respect, your ruling makes an assessment that a change from a fixed price to a floating price in 2014-15 will increase that price. That is the only way in which standing order 179(c) cannot apply and cannot cover my amendments.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~