|
senate vote 2014-07-07#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-07-09 11:14:21
|
Title
Bills — Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], True-Up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], True-Up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2], Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013 [No. 2]; First Reading- Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and related bills - First Reading - Proceed without formality
Description
<p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.</p>- The majority voted against a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-07-07.39.14 motion] "that these bills may proceed without formality", which was introduced by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Eric_Abetz&mpc=Senate&house=senate Eric Abetz]. This means that the motion was unsuccessful.
- This motion was attempting "to skip the requirement in the standing orders for different stages to occur on different days".[1]
- ''Background to the bills''
- The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5292 Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)] and related bills were introduced to remove the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_pricing_in_Australia carbon pricing mechanism], which was introduced by the Australian Labor Party while in government. The Coalition described the mechanism as a “carbon tax” and removing it was a key policy platform during the 2013 election.[2]
- The carbon pricing mechanism commenced on 1 July 2012.[3] It is an emissions trading scheme that puts a price on carbon emissions. It applies to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon is fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market, though the Labor Government did announce plans to bring this forward to 1 July 2014 just before they were defeated by the Coalition in the 2013 election.
- This is the second time that this package of bills has been introduced, after they were rejected in the Senate during the third reading stage the first time round.[4]
- The other related bills that were introduced along with the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5292 Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)] are:
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5296 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5295 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5293 True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5294 True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5297 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5291 Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5290 Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5298 Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5299 Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013 (No. 2)].
- ''References''
- * [1] See the Senators' Guide to Procedure [http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/senguide/c01 here].
- * [2] You can read more about the Coalition's policy to remove the carbon price [http://www.liberal.org.au/scrapping-carbon-tax-and-reducing-cost-living here].
- * [3] For more information on the carbon pricing mechanism and how it works, please see the Clean Energy Regulator’s [http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Pricing-Mechanism/About-the-Mechanism/Pages/default.aspx website].
- * [4] See that division [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2014-03-20&number=2&dmp=3&house=senate here].
<p class="speaker">Claire Moore</p><p>Mr President, congratulations on your appointment. The opposition will be asking that you put the question separately on the procedural element of this motion, 'that these bills may proceed without formalities', and I wish to speak to that procedural motion.</p><p>We have a particular issue here before the chamber about the whole consideration of the important elements of the carbon bills. We all know that there is major interest in this process. We read in the media every day that this is going to be the most important element that comes—</p> <p class="speaker">Government Senators</p><p>Government senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Order!</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Moore</p><p>We read in the media about the interest that has been placed on this process. We have now heard that there is going to be a meeting of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee this afternoon to consider the process. We all know that, in the last sitting of this chamber, there was a motion passed by this Senate that there would be a consideration of this package of bills through the environment committee. There was a process put in place that there would be a report provided to this place on 14 July to allow there to be consideration of these issues. That process has not occurred.</p><p>We are here today, on the first sitting day of a new Senate, and we have a whole range of people in this place who have not had the opportunity to have any consideration of this legislation. The process that this Senate put in place was that there would be a committee process where we would have the opportunity to consider the range of issues that have occurred over the last period of months. We are not only looking at issues that were previously discussed in this place. The situation internationally and also nationally has changed considerably around the whole issue of this legislation about carbon pricing and the process that we are going to put in place to look at this significant range of legislation. That process has not occurred. There has not been the opportunity for people to put forward their views. There has not been the opportunity for people to listen to the range of views that we know are held, that continue to be held and that continue to be examined.</p><p>It is so important that we start together in this place with appropriate consideration of the legislation that is before us. We talk nobly about what should happen in this place. We heard this morning about the independence of the Senate and how important it is for every single senator to understand fully, to question and to be involved in the votes that they will take on legislation before the chamber. I do not believe, the opposition does not believe and many people in the community do not believe that that is allowed by the current process of bringing forward this package of legislation today, without a recommendation from the committee that was charged by the Senate to consider it, without an opportunity for people to have current evidence before them, although I know the government will say that there has been considerable process around these carbon bills.</p><p>It is important that there is considerable effort put into looking at this legislation that we have. It is not simple. It is complex. There are a range of issues here that we all need to understand and consider before we vote. There needs to be the opportunity in this place to have the process. We do not think it is appropriate, in the first matter of core business before us, to say: 'We'll bring the whole carbon tax legislation before this place, we will expect that that process will take place and we will go straight into the full debate without having the evidence from the committee that we set up.'</p><p>We consider that this is an important element of the operations of the Senate. We believe it is important for all of us to have the time and the opportunity to hear from not just each other across the august chamber of the Senate. It is not just a debate for us in this place. The important thing is that when we come here we come here we come with the information, concerns and support or otherwise of the people in the wider community who care deeply about this issue. Only this morning, outside this parliament, we had the opportunity to meet with a whole group of young people who have a passionate concern about the future of our environment and the future of carbon pricing in Australia. I believe that every senator in this place was provided with an invitation to go and meet with these young people about this legislation. We had that opportunity to go down there this morning. Some of us took it, and what we heard from the people there was that that it was our decision but their future.</p><p>We need to ensure that those voices are heard in this place, through the whole range of the committee process. That has not been completed. We have not had that process concluded. And yet we are here being asked to accept a blanket proposition from the government which says that the bills have to come through straightaway. I do not believe that has given us the chance to have the debate we need to have, not just here but outside.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>Do you believe in democracy? There has been an election.</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Moore</p><p>I think that to do duty to our job as senators, to do duty to our process, we need to ensure that we have further opportunity to consider what has been said by the community. Other people will have more comments, but I do not believe, as a member of this Senate, that the process that we have taken to date has given due consideration to the role of the Senate. The Senate committee process, which is the background to what we do, has not been allowed to function fully. There was no attempt to talk to community members. I think it is important that we understand that what we are being asked to do is actually shortcutting the process. What we have been asked to do by the government today is to cut through, to shortcut the process, to ensure that the debate does not reflect the wider information that we must have before we come to this place. It is not a worthy process to rush this through in this way. It is not a worthy process to dismiss the concerns of people in the community who want to hear this debate fully. It does not fulfil those same promises that we heard earlier today about ensuring that this place actually does listen and care and that when we come into this place we do not just bring our own personal opinions; we bring consideration of committee process and recommendations that we have come to expect.</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>I rise on a point of order, Mr President. My point of order is: I take exception to being told I am not—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>That is not a point of order, Senator Heffernan.</p> <p class="speaker">Bill Heffernan</p><p>I did not see anyone over there at the 'Bin the budget' rally yesterday, at which I spoke, which concerns—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>That is a debating point. That is not a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Moore</p><p>In terms of the process that Senator Heffernan has just outlined, indeed the role of all the senators is to ensure that they do listen to the community. However, the process yesterday was not about the bills that are in front of us. The community meeting that we went to this morning was. The whole process of that community meeting of young people from across the country was specifically on the bills that the government now wants us to rush in to debate straightaway.</p><p>I have heard the comments from across the way that we have had an election. Indeed we have. We are all aware of that election. But, just because we have had an election, the role of this place does not stop. If you think back to the discussions we had less than an hour ago, when we were swearing in the new Senate, it was said that we were going to ensure that the Senate would be a place where there would be independent, full debate. That is our job. What the government wants us to do now, as the first element of the business for the new Senate—and many senators have not have the opportunity to be in debates about this before—is to rush through a debate on bills for which we have not had the most up-to-date committee recommendations.</p><p>Getting committee recommendations should be the way we work. I think that would be evident to all of us. Those of us who have been lucky enough to be here for a while should have seen it in practice. The new senators would have heard about the way the Senate operates, which ensures that there is the opportunity for people to have information. We have a committee structure, in which committees are tasked to go out with legislation and seek the opinions of the people in the community on that legislation. The committee's job is to consider that evidence, have it all recorded and then come back into this place with recommendations.</p><p>We all know that, in legislation processes, many of us use the committee reports as the basis for what we are going to say. We look at what has gone on, we look at the submissions that have been received and we look at the concerns. We most particularly do not rely on things that have happened exclusively in the past. When the government brought forward these bills to the last Senate, we recommended that, before they be considered, they would go through the committee process. The committee process crossed over the conclusion of the last Senate and the beginning of this Senate. We now are faced with looking at legislation to be debated in this place. We had a Senate committee process in place which was considering this legislation—the standard process. The standard process is that the committee has the opportunity to present its report and then, on the basis of that report, we then flow into the debate in this place.</p><p>That is not an unusual situation. The way that that operates is clearly identified in the standing orders. So it is particularly important that, when we move into this first debate, we have the authority of the standing practice of the Senate behind us so that we move forward with confidence. That can only enhance the debate; it does not delay the debate. We have no intention of delaying the debate. I remember many times in this place when senators on the other side were making passionate declarations about how important it was for us to have the committee process in place. We heard that. We were reminded of our job, our responsibility to ensure that Senate practices were put in place. I but ask the same thing: if we are going to have legislation brought into the chamber, it is our job to expect that we have all the information available to the senators, that the committee process be fully concluded and that we would have the opportunity to give due consideration to those processes. It is not an unusual request; it is certainly not a groundbreaking request. It is simply asking that the process of the Senate run as we expect it to, the process of the Senate run as it should do and, in fact, the process of the Senate run as it does best—providing information for senators to consider what is important in the legislation, providing opportunities for the senators to ask questions about the legislation and providing opportunities for the senators to respond to their responsibilities as senators in this chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>Let us just be very clear about one issue here. What this government is seeking to do is to have the carbon tax repealed. That was the bipartisan position of Prime Minister Gillard and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, at the 2010 election. We were promised there would be no carbon tax in 2010. Then, in 2013, Prime Minister Rudd and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, were once again on a unity ticket—and I have exhibit A here: a Labor Party brochure authorised by George Wright, in which he tells us, 'Kevin Rudd and Labor have removed the carbon tax.'</p><p>So why on earth is my good friend Senator Moore—recently resworn as a representative of the people of Queensland, having been elected on the policy of removing the carbon tax, and her colleagues before her having been elected on a policy of never having a carbon tax—now standing here seeking to frustrate the will of the Australian people? I do not think anyone could argue with the proposition that the carbon tax was one of the key issues at the last election.</p><p>The reason the Australian people wanted to see the back end of the carbon tax was that they knew it was impacting on their cost of living—$550 for the average household in Australia each and every year. And, courtesy of the Greens-Labor majority that used to preside in this place, the carbon tax ratcheted up yet again on 1 July to increase that impost on Australian families even further. And, if the cost-of-living impost is not bad enough, we know it destroys jobs. The carbon tax is a blot on the economic landscape of our nation. It attacks the cost of living of families and it is destroying jobs as we speak.</p><p>We all know the example of Fuji chemicals, which wanted to set up in Australia with $1 billion worth of infrastructure capital investment and 150 jobs, as an ongoing concern and replacing imports. They decided to set up in China instead, simply because of the carbon tax. Do you know what they will do in China? They will emit more greenhouse gases in their production than they did in a pre-carbon tax environment in Australia. And that is where you see the absolutely perverse environmental outcome of the carbon tax. Not only does it destroy Australia's economy and the cost of living; it actually ensures that clean production companies in Australia have to move offshore to countries where they do not have as strong an environmental regime as we do in Australia.</p> <p class="speaker">Opposition Senators</p><p>Opposition senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Order! On my left.</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>This is the classic lose-lose scenario that was inflicted upon the Australian people by the Australian Greens and the Labor Party in that marriage that they undertook with Senator Bob Brown and Prime Minister Gillard.</p><p class="italic">Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Order! Senator Whish-Wilson.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|