|
senate vote 2014-07-10#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-07-11 13:12:30
|
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, 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]; in Committee- Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and related bills - In Committee - Emissions trading scheme
Description
<p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>The question is that the amendments on sheet 7506 be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Lisa Singh</p>- The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-07-09.35.2 amendment (3)] introduced by Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Lisa_Singh&mpc=Senate&house=senate Lisa Singh], which would have provided for the introduction of an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading_scheme emissions trading scheme].[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)].
- The Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013 (No. 2) was previously rejected in the Senate at second reading stage.[5]
- ''References''
- * [1] Read Senator Singh's explanation of the amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-07-09.35.2 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].
- * [5] See that division [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2014-07-09&number=6&dmp=3&house=senate here].
<p>Yesterday I raised with Senator Cormann as to why the Liberal Party would not be supporting these amendments, because they bring in a market based mechanism to deal with carbon pollution—something that Liberal Parties usually support. However, Senator Cormann made it clear that, obviously, the government is not supporting this market based mechanism despite the number of conservatives across the globe that are urging the government to do so—that is, people on their own side asking this government to recognise that it is denying its own policy of supporting market based mechanisms by not supporting this amendment for an emissions trading scheme.</p><p>Beyond asking Senator Cormann why the Liberal Party will not support a market based mechanism, I now ask: why will the Liberal Party not support the science? The science tells us clearly why we need an emissions trading scheme. The science goes back to before 1990 when we had the first IPCC report and we have had subsequent reports—I think there have been five since that time, all of which have the support of over 100 countries who make it clear that there have been observed changes in the climate system and that we need to respond as governments across the globe to those observed changes.</p><p>What are those observed changes? I am sure Senator Cormann knows, but he needs to be reminded because this is, I have to say, a day where this country is going to go backwards on climate policy. These are the reasons Labor acted strongly, because carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40 per cent since pre-industrial times—primarily, from fossil fuel emissions and, secondly, from net land-use change emissions. The oceans have absorbed around 30 per cent of that emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide causing ocean acidification.</p><p>Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change requires substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The best way for a country to address a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions has been made very clear by economists and scientists: through an emissions trading scheme. We are debating this amendment, because it is so important for this country to play its part internationally in trying to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by putting a legal cap on carbon dioxide pollution. That is what an emissions trading scheme does and that is why it is so surprising that Senator Cormann provided comment yesterday as to why the Liberal Party, the coalition, will not support a market based mechanism. I am still baffled as to why the Liberal Party does not support market based mechanisms.</p><p>On top of that, though, the Liberal Party is ignoring the will of the Australian community. The number of people who came out this week, last week—since this debate was put on the table for this parliament—against having no legal limit on carbon pollution and against there being no price on carbon, has become stronger and stronger. This government cannot ignore those voices. The voices of some 20 civil society groups, ranging from youth, health, community, emergency services, trade unions and faith based groups have made themselves heard very loudly this week. I ask Senator Cormann: is he aware of this huge list of growing community groups who have made their dissent and their views known about this government's policy when it comes to climate change?</p><p>I could not say it more succinctly than they have said it, when they said in their statement: 'We support Australia having a price and a limit on carbon pollution. This is the fairest and most cost-effective way for Australia to address our economy's dependence on carbon pollution and reduce its impacts on our climate, our health, the environment, the economy and national security.' Therein lies the full breadth of what these repeal bills mean. Yes, they mean something for our environment, but they mean so much more than that. They mean something for our health, they mean something for our economy and they mean something for our national security.</p><p>This is a holistic policy issue. It is a holistic policy issue that commenced decades and decades ago when the science made it very clear—through the work of the IPCC and its associated hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed scientists who have contributed to its reports—that the world needs to act swiftly on reducing carbon pollution, on reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are continuing to have a huge effect in changing our climate, which has of course has had thrown-on effects to do with natural disasters and the like. That is why it is important beyond just our environment. That is why it is important for our health. That is why it is important for our national security, our economy and those issues that have been raised by those 20 civil society groups.</p><p>So I ask Senator Cormann if he is aware of those 20 strong community groups of various persuasions, including, as I said, emergency service workers and firefighters—some of whom were here yesterday out the front of Parliament House making it very clear that they want this parliament to act on climate change, to have a price on carbon pollution and to have a legal limit on carbon pollution. How can Senator Cormann ignore those 20 community groups? How can he ignore the 200 young people I joined earlier in the week? How can he ignore the science? And how can the Liberal Party ignore a market based mechanism to deal with a reduction in carbon pollution?</p><p>I understand it has been reported this morning that both the United States and China have signed eight partnership pacts on climate change, bringing the two powers—which both have extensive emissions trading schemes in place at different levels—closer together. So, as I said yesterday, it is a complete furphy for Prime Minister Abbott to claim that the world is not acting on emissions trading schemes. The world is acting strongly on them. This is made clear in the Parliamentary Library's work on the number of emissions trading schemes that have been in place in China, the US and elsewhere in the world—China, most notably, being the country proposing new schemes and with a network already of seven pilot schemes. They want to reduce their carbon emissions. They want to act on climate change.</p><p>After today, Australia will be the only country in the world moving backwards—going backwards. Yes, that will have an effect with respect to our international standing. How we are addressing this increase in greenhouse gas emissions will of course have an effect not only on our environment but also on our health and on our well-being as a nation. So I ask Senator Cormann again: why is the Liberal Party not supporting an emissions trading scheme? Why are you not supporting a market based mechanism to put a legal cap on carbon pollution? I cannot help but think that it is anything other than pure politics—and, of course, the ideological bent of some on your side. I think Senator Macdonald fits the mould of not accepting the science. In addition, I ask Senator Cormann about his knowledge and understanding of the statement provided by those 20 community groups and how he wishes to respond to their voices.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: Senator Milne, you have the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p><p>Thank you, Mr Chairman.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>I thought we were going from side to side.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: I understand that point, but in these discussions it is often Senate practice that party leaders, ministers, the Leader of the Government in the Senate or spokespeople for the opposition take precedence.</p><p>That is not right.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: Excuse me; don't tell me it is not right, Senator Cormann. This is in <i>Senate Practice</i>, and I will refer you to the appropriate clauses if you wish. I will certainly come to you, Senator Macdonald, but both you and Senator Milne jumped at the same time and I am following what I believe is Senate practice in giving the Leader of the Australian Greens party precedence in that call.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>My understanding is that you always go from side to side—government, opposition, government, opposition, and so on. If you have a party representing an infinitesimally small part of the Australian public, claiming that because she or he is the leader of that, should not in my view interfere with the normal procedure of going government, opposition, and then third parties, if that is the case.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: For senators interested, I refer them to pages 240 to 241 of <i>Odgers' Australian Senate Practice</i>.</p> <p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p><p>I have a number of specific questions, because we are in the committee stage of this particular set of bills, and we now have a gag on it, thanks to the government, with the support of the Palmer United Party. I want to ask some very specific questions. I asked Senator Cormann last night how much of the five per cent emissions reduction target was expected to be delivered by the Emissions Reduction Fund. The government still has not responded to that. It is important that they do, because there are certain senators in here who have said they will not support the abolition of the existing emissions trading scheme unless there is something better in its place. Therefore, we need to have the government say exactly what they expect their Emissions Reduction Fund to do.</p><p>I also have some other specific questions for the minister and I will go to those now. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation were secured by the Greens through the negotiations with the former government to develop the Clean Energy Package. The allocation of funds for ARENA was in the legislation. The abolition legislation is to come here later, but the schedule to gut the funding from ARENA is part of these bills.</p><p>I understand that an agreement has been reached with the Palmer United Party to take millions out of the ARENA funding and support the government's schedule. I find it extraordinary that we do not have a single member of the Palmer United Party here, in the committee stage, when they have an amendment that I would like some answers to. I would like to know why or whether they are going to support an emissions trading scheme, as their leader has said. But I understand they have abandoned this debate on getting rid of the emissions trading scheme—and returning millions to the pockets of Mr Palmer—to go and launch a report on renewable energy. We love renewable energy, and I am very grateful for the fact—</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald on a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>The reflection on a member of another house in this parliament, that he is voting for this thing to put millions in his pocket, is clearly disorderly and insulting. I ask that you ask the senator to withdraw.</p><p>The CHAIRMAN: Senator Milne, I think you ought not reflect on members of other houses in that way.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|