|
representatives vote 2023-03-30#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-03-31 11:39:34
|
Title
Bills — Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023; Consideration of Senate Message- Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 - Consideration of Senate Message - Agree with Senate amendments and so pass bill
Description
<p class="speaker">Chris Bowen</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the amendments be agreed to.</p><p>Agreeing to these amendments will enable the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 to become the law of Australia, following royal assent. These are sensible amendments which are in keeping with the government's election mandate and our agenda. As has been said many times in this House—I don't propose to detain the House—this enables us to get on with our important task of reducing emissions in our country and creating the jobs of the future, creating the jobs in a decarbonised economy. This is an important piece of legislation. It is unusual to interrupt the business of the House to do this on a Thursday afternoon, but it's vital that we do so we let industry get on with the task ahead of them.</p><p>I want to thank those members of good faith who worked with the government. The amendments reflect the discussions that have been held, very intensively, over recent weeks. I want to thank the senators and members of the Australian Greens, particularly the leader, the honourable member for Melbourne, who has focused with the government on those areas in which we could agree. There's been public commentary about the areas in which we disagree. We were able to focus our conversation on the areas in which we can agree and come together to provide an important piece of legislation for our country. I recognise the member for Melbourne and the Greens.</p><p>I want to recognise Senator Pocock, who is particularly concerned about carbon credits and integrity. We were able to have discussions with him.</p><p>I want to recognise Senators Lambie and Tyrrell, who are passionate about manufacturing jobs, particularly in Tasmania. We were able to reflect those conversations in the amendments and in the regulation.</p><p>I want to thank Senator Thorpe, who is particularly interested in the role of First Nations peoples in carbon trading. I particularly enjoyed my conversation with her about sea country and the involvement of sea country in carbon trading. I appreciate her support.</p><p>Far too much is spoken sometimes in this parliament about differences, and we have many, but it's important that parties and individuals of good faith can come together. I also thank the crossbench in the House, who've had many conversations with me and who have reflected views. I thank them for their support.</p><p>To achieve net zero, we cannot start in 2040 or 2045; we must start today. The best time would have been 10 or 15 years ago; the second-best time is today. This is an important day. The amendments are important.</p><p>I want to thank, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, the Safeguard Taskforce in my department, led by Kath Rowley and Edwina Johnson. I want to thank my chief of staff, Andrew Garrett, and my senior adviser, Peter Nicholas, for their very intensive efforts on this most important task.</p> <p class="speaker">Ted O'Brien</p><p>Well, today this chamber will cast a vote on a carbon tax that the Labor Party has been looking for now for years. Today, again, we see a broken promise from the Australian Labor Party. We see a broken promise from the now Prime Minister, who assured the Australian people he would not do dodgy deals with the Greens. We see a dodgy deal with the Greens that leads to a carbon tax, a tax that will be imposed on Australian industry, a tax that will be passed through to Australian consumers. This is a tax that will see prices go up. In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, where every household across this country is feeling the pain of prices going up, the solution of the Albanese government is to introduce another tax that drives prices up. Not only will we see prices go up as a result of these reforms to the safeguard mechanism but we will also see investment go down.</p><p>We hear from a Labor government that seek to spruik their credentials about building manufacturing in Australia but now they introduce a tax on manufacturing. This is a government that talks about decarbonisation but in fact introduces a policy of de-industrialisation. This is not a policy to decarbonise the Australian economy but to decapitate the Australian economy. It comes at a time when Australia can least afford it. But don't just listen to me, let's see what Credit Suisse say about it. They say: 'The new reforms agreed with the Greens are going to be inflationary—'</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>Order! The minister for immigration and the Assistant Treasurer.</p><p>The Assistant Treasurer is warned.</p> <p class="speaker">Ted O'Brien</p><p>I will repeat that word for those opposite who cannot hear it—inflationary.</p><p class="italic">The new reforms agreed with the Greens are going to be inflationary and risk jobs by hindering investment and restricting offset use across all of Australia's heavy industry.</p><p>How about APIA? Chief executive, Samantha McCulloch, said:</p><p class="italic">New gas supply investment needs policy and regulatory certainty but instead, the Labor-Greens deal creates additional barriers to investment, further diminishing the investment environment and adding to the growing list of regulatory challenges facing the sector …</p><p>Then how about Australian Pipelines and Gas Association, whose CEO said '… there are questions over whether the flow-on effects of any additional restrictions on gas supply will be borne by Australian households and businesses who are already facing major increases to energy bills due to the transition.'</p><p>So what we have here today is apparently Labor's centrepiece for decarbonising the Australian economy. They have their own minister claiming this is as big a move as the entire de-industrialisation or, let's say, the industrial revolution. So the minister thinks this is as big as the industrial revolution. You would think that the Labor Party may have done one thing—some economic modelling. What we've found out and confirmed in the Senate over the last 24 hours is that this government has not done any economic modelling on the impact of this policy on jobs, on regional communities, on manufacturing. There is no economic modelling from Treasury, no economic modelling from the department. What does this mean? What we are voting on today is a policy they have not researched. They've done no modelling on it. It will be paid for by Australians. Prices will go up. Investment will go down. Emissions will go offshore and they'll multiply. It's a disgrace, and it's not the pathway to decarbonising the Australian economy. <i>(Time expired.)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>Over there, we have a bunch of Eeyores. The world's always going to end. It's always bad. It's always completely devastating. They channel Francis Ford Coppola. Their motto is not so much <i>Apocalypse Now</i> as 'Apocalypse soon'! 'If you do this, it's going to be just a shocker.' But you've got to address some of the comments that have been put forward by—it's hard to follow, I've got to say—the last minister for energy. I reckon he had a say in who was chosen as the shadow minister. He said, 'Find someone who's less coherent than me,' and they've managed to do it.</p><p>The safeguard mechanism that is before this parliament was introduced by the Abbott government. It's the Abbott government's model. It's not a model that we came up with. What we've done is make sure that it works. On investment, you have a plan that's supported by the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Energy Users Association and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, all of whom are saying that what they want is investment certainty. They want a mechanism to be certain going forward, and that's what this provides. That's what a majority of this parliament have accepted.</p><p>I give credit to those people on the crossbenches who didn't get everything that they wanted but who had the courage to say, 'Yes; the good is better than the perfect,' from their perspective. That's why this is an achievement of this parliament. But those opposite just choose to be irrelevant to the parliament and irrelevant going forward. When in government they stood and announced 22 different energy policies but didn't land one. Even policies that went through their party room multiple times never made it to the floor, because they'd rather knock off two sitting prime ministers than actually implement a policy.</p><p>At the last election, a decisive majority of Australians voted to put an end to the delay and inaction and take action on climate policy. Australians had seen the devastating impact of climate change. It's not something that's theoretical. The bushfires and the floods—the science told us there would be more extreme weather events and they would be more intense, and that has tragically played out. There are older Australians determined to do the right thing by the next generation, farmers who know the pain and hardship of drought and young people demanding that their voices be heard. Today is a big step towards repaying that faith. Passing this legislation has put Australia on a realistic path to net zero emissions by 2050 and a 43 per cent reduction by 2030. This legislation is a big part of how we do it. What's more, what it will do is get more renewable energy, which is the cheapest form of energy, into our grid.</p><p>Overall, what it does is provide that certainty and stability that the business community have been crying out for. I want to congratulate the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and all who participated constructively, including the crossbench in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The fact is that we had to get this done. I was elected to do this. The member said that somehow this was contrary to our policy. This is spot on our policy. It's spot on our policy, Powering Australia, which we released well before the election for all to see. The people of Australia voted for action on climate change. Today, the parliament will do the same thing.</p> <p class="speaker">Bob Katter</p><p>I think the relevant comment here is from a minister opposite. In saying this, I must praise the government, because the CopperString proposal has already resulted in a vanadium mine announcing its operations and Eva, a big copper mine, announcing it's starting up operations. That is the sort of thing that government does.</p><p>I've said previously in this place that I sit under a picture of the great founder of the labour movement in this country, 'Red Ted' Theodore. He wrote to Chifley that the object, the most important function, of government is to provide meaningful work for its people. Now, this is something that takes away meaningful work from our people. The Boyne smelter, it was announced, was going to be duplicated; they have now taken that proposal away.</p><p>This is from Madeleine King:</p><p class="italic">We will not meet our commitment to net zero without the resources sector.</p><p class="italic">…   …   …   </p><p class="italic">Taxes and royalties paid by the resources sector make an essential contribution to the services that Australians rely on.</p><p class="italic">…   …   …   </p><p class="italic">… it also contributes to community services, emergency services, roads and train lines …</p><p class="italic">…   …   …   </p><p class="italic">Some fail to acknowledge this, but Australia's coal and gas resources are essential for energy security, stability and reliability …</p><p class="italic">No gas—</p><p>and no coal—</p><p class="italic">means no processing of critical minerals …</p><p>For those in this place who are not familiar with this, there is no process by which you can extract a mineral without smelting and there is no way you can smelt, really, without coal. So you must understand the implications for industry that are being called upon here. My colleagues who sit on the cross benches want action to happen, and, in fairness to the government, the CopperString proposal will lead to the biggest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere. So you are doing good things—right? But this is not a good thing. It's heading in the opposite direction.</p><p>I'll conclude by saying that two of the six biggest bridges in Australia are named after the great Leo Hielscher. Whether it was Bjelke-Petersen or Leo Hielscher, one of them created the coal industry, the tourism industry and the aluminium industry. They were created because they built the biggest power station in the world at Gladstone and because we had a reserved resource policy where the coal was supplied for zero cost. We said, 'If you want to mine coal here, you'll give a percentage to the people of Queensland.' So we had the cheapest electricity in the world. That led to the establishment of the great aluminium industry. I seriously think that you're placing it in jeopardy. Not just by this—I agree with the Prime Minister that this may be a small move—but it's a move very much in the wrong direction. It sends out a signal that you're going to continue to move in this direction.</p> <p class="speaker">Ted O'Brien</p><p>Since the Prime Minister found it very hard to comprehend, as he was saying, let me try to simplify it for him. Here's the big tip—are you ready? Are you ready for it? When taxes go up, costs go up. When costs for businesses go up, they pass them on to consumers. And then guess what happens to prices! Have a guess! Guess which direction they go!</p><p>An opposition member: They go up.</p><p>Up! The second point the Prime Minister made was to suggest that the policy Labor is introducing was in fact a coalition policy. No, it was not. At what point, Mr Speaker, have you seen a coalition government stand before the Australian people and say they want to introduce a carbon tax? That is not our policy. It never has been our policy. All that government has done is to take an existing coalition framework, unwrap it, reuse the wrapping and hide a punitive carbon tax inside it. That carbon tax is going to impact every single business within that scheme—all 215—and the cost will be passed on, of course. This is the exact problem that we have pointed out.</p><p>The third point I'll make in response to the Prime Minister's comments—</p> <p class="speaker">Milton Dick</p><p>The member for Hume and the Treasurer will cease interjecting so I can hear the member for Fairfax.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of agreeing with the [amendments made by the Senate](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fsched%2Fr6957_sched_b7cf3574-7a3c-41e0-b20c-339582e6cb40%22;rec=0) to the bill. This means that the bill has now been agreed to in its final form by both houses of parliament and so will now [become law](https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/).
- ### What does the bill do?
- The [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2223a/23bd048), which is a document put together by the parliamentary library, sets out the following key points:
- * *Proposed revision of the existing ‘Safeguard Mechanism’ applying to Australia’s largest emitters is a central element of the Australian Government’s commitment to achieve a 43% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and net zero by 2050.*
- * *The Safeguard Mechanism commenced operation on 1 July 2016 and has, to date, operated as a greenhouse gas emissions reporting mechanism for around 212 of Australia’s largest industrial facilities.*
- * *The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 amends relevant Acts to alter the Safeguard Mechanism so that covered facilities must reduce their scope 1 (direct) emissions in future.*
- * *The primary amendments to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 and Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Act 2011 establish the administrative architecture to create ‘safeguard mechanism credit units’ (SMCs). The amendments provide for dealings in SMCs in the same manner as Australian Carbon Credit Units (ACCUs).*
- * *Key elements of the revised scheme will be implemented via amendments to existing legislative instruments (rules) made by the Minister. The Clean Energy Regulator (CER) will also be able to make key determinations, as provided for in these instruments.*
- * *Stakeholders have expressed concern about the limited timeframe for consultation and staggered release of key documents (including legislative instruments and the Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units (Chubb Review)), which they regard as limiting a fulsome consideration of the proposed amendments.*
- * *Moreover, whilst environment and climate focused groups have argued that amendments are insufficient, key industry stakeholders acknowledge the need for change but have expressed concern about particular aspects of the proposed amendments.*
-
-
|