|
senate vote 2011-08-18#8
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:20:29
|
Title
Description
The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-18.83.1 amendment] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham], which means that it was unsuccessful. The motion was:''(2) Clause 122, page 154 (after line 30), after subclause (3), insert:(3A) In the case of a project which was accredited under the [http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/carbon-farming-initiative/activities-eligible-and-excluded/positive-list/positive-list-activities/greenhouse-friendly-transitioning-waste-diversion-projects Greenhouse Friendly program] at the time that program was terminated—if a methodology determination is made on or before 30 June 2012, the determination may be expressed to have come into force at the start of 1 January 2008.''Senator Birmingham explained that this amendment would provide "continuity, certainty and hopefully mak[e] sure that projects that operate under Greenhouse Friendly can continue to operate under this new scheme".(Read Senator Birmingham's full explanation of his amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-18.76.1 here], after 1:21 pm.
)''Background to the bill''The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 bill] was introduced as part of a package of three related bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.(The other two related bills were the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4535 Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011] and the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4534 Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011].
) Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest] explains that the Initiative will be "a voluntary scheme that aims to provide incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to minimise [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions carbon emissions] or maximise [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration carbon sequestration] by altering their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry forestry] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture agricultural] practices". The bill's stated objectives are:* to implement certain commitments Australia has under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] (UNFCCC) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol Kyoto Protocol] to it* to create incentives for carbon-abatement projects* to increase carbon abatement while still protecting Australia’s natural environment and enhancing resilience to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change climate change] impacts.(Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].)- The majority voted against an [amendment](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-18.83.1) introduced by Senator [Simon Birmingham](http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate), which means that it was unsuccessful. The motion was:
- _(2) Clause 122, page 154 (after line 30), after subclause (3), insert:(3A) In the case of a project which was accredited under the [Greenhouse Friendly program](http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/carbon-farming-initiative/activities-eligible-and-excluded/positive-list/positive-list-activities/greenhouse-friendly-transitioning-waste-diversion-projects) at the time that program was terminated—if a methodology determination is made on or before 30 June 2012, the determination may be expressed to have come into force at the start of 1 January 2008._
- Senator Birmingham explained that this amendment would provide "continuity, certainty and hopefully mak[e] sure that projects that operate under Greenhouse Friendly can continue to operate under this new scheme".(Read Senator Birmingham's full explanation of his amendment and the associated debate [here](http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-18.76.1), after 1:21 pm. )
- _Background to the bill_
- The [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22) was introduced as part of a package of three related bills to establish a voluntary [carbon offset](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset) scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.(The other two related bills were the [Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4535) and the [Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4534). ) Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. The [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005) explains that the Initiative will be "a voluntary scheme that aims to provide incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to minimise [carbon emissions](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions) or maximise [carbon sequestration](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration) by altering their [forestry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry) and [agricultural](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture) practices".
- The bill's stated objectives are:
- - to implement certain commitments Australia has under the [United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change) (UNFCCC) and the [Kyoto Protocol](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol) to it
- - to create incentives for carbon-abatement projects
- - to increase carbon abatement while still protecting Australia’s natural environment and enhancing resilience to [climate change](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change) impacts.(Read more about the bill in its [bills digest](http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005).)
|
|
senate vote 2011-08-18#8
Edited by
system
on
2014-10-07 16:16:41
|
Title
Description
- The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-08-18.83.1 amendment] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham], which means that it was unsuccessful. The motion was:
- ''(2) Clause 122, page 154 (after line 30), after subclause (3), insert:(3A) In the case of a project which was accredited under the [http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/carbon-farming-initiative/activities-eligible-and-excluded/positive-list/positive-list-activities/greenhouse-friendly-transitioning-waste-diversion-projects Greenhouse Friendly program] at the time that program was terminated—if a methodology determination is made on or before 30 June 2012, the determination may be expressed to have come into force at the start of 1 January 2008.''
Senator Birmingham explained that this amendment would provide "continuity, certainty and hopefully mak[e] sure that projects that operate under Greenhouse Friendly can continue to operate under this new scheme".[1]- Senator Birmingham explained that this amendment would provide "continuity, certainty and hopefully mak[e] sure that projects that operate under Greenhouse Friendly can continue to operate under this new scheme".(Read Senator Birmingham's full explanation of his amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-18.76.1 here], after 1:21 pm.
)
- ''Background to the bill''
The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 bill] was introduced as part of a package of three related bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.[2] Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest] explains that the Initiative will be "a voluntary scheme that aims to provide incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to minimise [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions carbon emissions] or maximise [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration carbon sequestration] by altering their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry forestry] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture agricultural] practices". - The [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 bill] was introduced as part of a package of three related bills to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.(The other two related bills were the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4535 Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011] and the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4534 Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011].
) Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest] explains that the Initiative will be "a voluntary scheme that aims to provide incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to minimise [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions carbon emissions] or maximise [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration carbon sequestration] by altering their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry forestry] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture agricultural] practices".
- The bill's stated objectives are:
- * to implement certain commitments Australia has under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] (UNFCCC) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol Kyoto Protocol] to it
- * to create incentives for carbon-abatement projects
* to increase carbon abatement while still protecting Australia’s natural environment and enhancing resilience to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change climate change] impacts.[3]''References''* [1] Read Senator Birmingham's full explanation of his amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-18.76.1 here], after 1:21 pm.* [2] The other two related bills were the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4535 Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011] and the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4534 Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011].* [3] Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].- * to increase carbon abatement while still protecting Australia’s natural environment and enhancing resilience to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change climate change] impacts.(Read more about the bill in its [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].)
|
|
senate vote 2011-08-18#8
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-06-20 14:37:15
|
Title
Bills — Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011, Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011; in Committee- Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 - In Committee - Greenhouse Friendly program
Description
<p class="speaker">Mark Bishop</p><p>The committee is considering the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and government amendment (1) on sheet BR247.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>- The majority voted against an amendment introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Simon_Birmingham&mpc=Senate&house=senate Simon Birmingham], which means that it was unsuccessful. The motion was:
- ''(2) Clause 122, page 154 (after line 30), after subclause (3), insert:(3A) In the case of a project which was accredited under the [http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/carbon-farming-initiative/activities-eligible-and-excluded/positive-list/positive-list-activities/greenhouse-friendly-transitioning-waste-diversion-projects Greenhouse Friendly program] at the time that program was terminated—if a methodology determination is made on or before 30 June 2012, the determination may be expressed to have come into force at the start of 1 January 2008.''
- Senator Birmingham explained that this amendment would provide "continuity, certainty and hopefully mak[e] sure that projects that operate under Greenhouse Friendly can continue to operate under this new scheme".[1]
- ''Background to the bills''
- The three bills were introduced as a package to establish a voluntary [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offset carbon offset] scheme, to be called the Carbon Farming Initiative.[2] Introducing this scheme was a Government election commitment. The Initiative will be "a voluntary scheme that aims to provide incentives for the agricultural and forestry sectors to minimise [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions carbon emissions] or maximise [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration carbon sequestration] by altering their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry forestry] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture agricultural] practices".[3] The objectives of this scheme are:
- * to implement certain commitments Australia has under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] (UNFCCC) and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol Kyoto Protocol] to it
- * to create incentives for carbon-abatement projects
- * to increase carbon abatement while still protecting Australia’s natural environment and enhancing resilience to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change climate change] impacts.[4]
- ''References''
- * [1] Read Senator Birmingham's full explanation of his amendment and the associated debate [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2011-08-18.76.1 here], after 1:21 pm.
- * [2] The three related bills are the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4543%22 Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011], the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4535 Carbon Credits (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011] and the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4534 Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Bill 2011].
- * [3] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].
- * [4] Read more in the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005 bills digest].
<p>It is good to be back here again on the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Bill 2011 and back on this amendment. The debate on this amendment was hopefully drawing to a close before we concluded our time for government business yesterday. I indicated at that time that the coalition think that this is a very important amendment and we are extremely concerned that the comments of the government senators suggest that they do not take this amendment as seriously as they should. While it is an amendment being moved by the government, it was an issue championed by the coalition. It was an amendment initially put on the list of amendments by the coalition and we welcome the fact that the government chose to embrace it, that it accepted there are genuine stakeholders interested in this amendment. The farming community and the National Farmers Federation in particular have been advocating for it. But what concerns us is that the government appears to treat the substance of this amendment with disregard. The minister came in here on Tuesday and tabled draft regulations that flow from clause 56 of the bill that this amendment is seeking to add an extra paragraph to. He tabled those regulations, which create what is known in the carbon farming bill, colloquially at least, as the 'negative list'—the list of the kinds of projects that are not allowed. And those projects are not allowed for fear of there being adverse consequences as a result of those projects going ahead. There are four different criteria in the existing bill for those adverse consequences as a result of those projects going ahead. Those criteria deal with matters such as access to water, biodiversity considerations, employment considerations and the impact on the local community. And those four criteria are very valid considerations indeed.</p><p>We sought, because stakeholders had a concern, to add a fifth criterion—that fifth criterion being this amendment to add the consideration of any adverse impacts on land access for agricultural production. We sought to do that to ensure that there was some certainty of the matter with regard to how this bill would operate and to make sure that it would not see a loss of prime agricultural land in Australia from agricultural production. We think that, as a major food producing nation, that is absolutely critical. We think that, as a country that has both an opportunity and a responsibility to grow our food production in the future, that is absolutely critical. And we think that, in terms of the original four criteria for potential adverse consequences, this fifth criterion is equal to if not more important than the other four. So I was concerned when the minister indicated that he could not point to anything in the draft regulations—</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>I've heard this before!</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Minister, I was graciously giving you time to get to the chamber!</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>This is the third time you have made this speech!</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>And I did note that I was hoping this was concluding the debate on this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>I will be quiet then.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Thank you very much, Minister. We do note that the minister has indicated that he believes the regulations do not require changing to reflect this amendment, do not need anything extra. We do not think that is good enough. We think that there is good cause to make sure that the regulations creating the negative list in this carbon farming bill reflect this paragraph (e) just as much as they reflect the other paragraphs, (a), (b), (c) and (d).</p><p>I did only want to make some remarks today on this, Minister, to ensure that in the continuity of debate our position on this was clear: we enthusiastically support this particular amendment. We hope that, as the process of finalising the regulations occurs, the government will ensure that it heeds any calls of stakeholders to make changes based on this new paragraph (e) and ensure that those changes reflect both the spirit and the intent of this new paragraph (e).</p><p>In closing, I thank the government for their support and for their moving of this amendment which the opposition had called for, but I just hope that they take it seriously from hereon in.</p> <p class="speaker">Joe Ludwig</p><p>I only want to be brief. As I indicated last time—I think a number of times—in response to the same speech, the amendments are there to both add an additional paragraph to and to clarify the legislation. But, in addition to that, the regulations are out for comment. If there are comments which go to these provisions, and people do want to provide additional material on the basis of those regulations, then comments are always well received and will be considered in due course. But we are talking about amendments at this point, and not the regulations.</p><p>Secondly, I want to highlight that we have now been spending three hours or thereabouts in furious agreement on an amendment that we all agree with. At this rate I would hate to meet an amendment that we do not agree on and see how that affects the time it takes to pass this legislation. The amount of time-wasting by the opposition in relation to the carbon farming initiative bill is now going from the sublime to the ridiculous. We are spending an inordinate amount of time on matters other than the CFI legislation. It is disappointing to see the opposition dragging their heels in relation to a bill such as this. I am not trying to be provocative to those opposite. I am simply pointing out that this bill does need to pass. It is preventing farmers and the community from enjoying the benefits of this bill and being able to access the significant advantages under it.</p><p>I understand legislation does take some time to progress in the parliament, and I think I am known as a patient man when it comes to the passage of legislation and the ability to ensure that everyone can have an opportunity to have their particular matters heard. Having sat through yesterday, I am sure most who were in the chamber or watched the chamber would agree that much of it was not about this bill; much of it was not about the amendment that was before us. On that basis, if the opposition are going to continue to take that approach, it will be disappointing to the government that the opposition have gone this far. But I would like a flag as to whether or not the opposition will continue to take this approach for the remaining amendments. I do think the opposition does need the required time to be able to consider each individual amendment in a thoughtful and considered way—I do not quibble with that. However, I do want to flag that at some point we will need to finalise this bill. If the opposition can point to additional time or hours we might be able to consider, that would be helpful, because we do not want to be sitting here at Christmas time still on the carbon farming initiative bill—and at the rate we are going we could very well be.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I was not intending to speak again on government amendment (1), but Minister Ludwig did invite my contribution, so I will make one. Let me be very clear. Some days this place proceeds through things faster than other days, some days the focus is very specific to the detail of the question before the chair and some days—due to issues and events of the day—debate is a bit more wide ranging. That occurs on all sides, from all parties and at all times, and it is well accepted and tolerated right around the chamber. We have no particular desire to delay the debate on this measure. Each time it has come up, we have come in here and made constructive contributions. The opposition seeks to work through each of these amendments systematically as best as we possibly can.</p><p>We will happily work with you. I will leave it to Senator Ludwig, who is not only the minister at the table but also the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, to negotiate with his equivalents from the other parties in this place as to hours and how this legislation is treated—that is, when we debate it. However, how we debate it and how long we debate it will of course be determined, ultimately, by the chamber. We will seek to move through as systematically and cooperatively as we can whilst giving everything appropriate airing.</p><p>I say to the government that when we went through the Senate committee process on this bill there was a lot of criticism about the way the drafting occurred and about the way consultation and engagement with stakeholders occurred. There was a lot of criticism of the time line. As we then finalised that, there was a lot of criticism that the substantial draft regulations underpinning how this bill works—in particular, the negative list to which this amendment pertains—had not been finalised and were not publicly available to be considered in tandem with this legislation. If anything has slowed down the debate this week, it is the reality that it was only on Tuesday that the government came into this place and presented those draft regulations, for which the opposition and many others had been calling for some time. That is what slowed down debate this week.</p><p>Yes, some questions and some contributions have gone more to the draft regulations than to the specific amendments we are considering. That is because we have been consistent from day one that those regulations are critically important to the way this bill works and that they should have been considered in tandem with this bill. That point has been made by many coalition speakers and was made in the dissenting report of the committee inquiry into this bill and, in fact, when this bill was first released.</p><p>So we have been crystal clear. We are pleased to finally see those draft regulations. They do of course aid us in the debate. But if those draft regulations had been released back when they should have been released—so that the full measure of the complexity and the impact of this legislation could have been considered as one—then the debate to date might well have proceeded far more smoothly. But, as I said, I think we have given extensive consideration to this amendment. I note that my colleague Senator Nash, who has a strong interest in this bill, is with us but was not with us yesterday, so I do not know whether or not she is intending to say anything on this amendment. I have said enough on it—I agree with the minister on that—and I trust that we will be able to proceed on the matter shortly.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Bishop</p><p>The question is that government amendment (1) on sheet BR247 be agreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I propose to withdraw opposition amendment (1) on sheet 7117, noting in doing so—as we did in the previous debate—that this amendment was moved by the opposition on the encouragement of stakeholders, in particular the National Farmers Federation and other farming groups. We are pleased that the government chose to adopt the amendment in a slightly modified form. Having just passed that amendment through the chamber, we now withdraw our very, very similar amendment.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Opposition amendment (1) on sheet 7117 is withdrawn. Senator Colbeck, do you wish to address opposition amendment (3) on sheet 7120?</p> <p class="speaker">Richard Colbeck</p><p>I did, but I do not intend to proceed with that amendment.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The opposition is not proceeding with opposition amendment (3) on sheet 7120 and, accordingly, consequential amendments (4) to (6) on sheet 7120. Since Senator Xenophon is not here, we might now proceed down to opposition amendment (2) on sheet 7117.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|