|
senate vote 2014-07-17#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-07-23 12:08:39
|
Title
Bills — Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014, True-Up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014, True-Up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014, Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014, Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014; in Committee- Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 - In Committee - Emissions trading scheme
Description
<p class="speaker">Gavin Marshall</p><p>The committee is considering the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014 and seven related bills. The question is that, in respect of the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014, opposition amendment (3) on sheet 7527 moved by Senator Singh be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p>- The majority voted against an [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2014-07-15.135.1 amendment] moved by Labor Senator [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Lisa_Singh&mpc=Senate&house=senate Lisa Singh], which means that it was rejected. The amendment would have introduced an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading_scheme emissions trading scheme], which is a key Labor policy.
- ''Background to the bills''
- The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5311 Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014] and related bills were introduced to repeal 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.[1]
- The carbon pricing mechanism commenced on 1 July 2012.[2] 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 third time that this package of bills have been introduced. The first time, they were rejected in the Senate during the third reading stage.[3] The second time, they were rejected in the Senate during the committee stage.[4]
- The bills included in this package are the following:
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5311 Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5317 True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5316 True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5310 Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5312 Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5315 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5313 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2014]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5314 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014]
- ''References''
- * [1] 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].
- * [2] 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].
- * [3] See that division [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2014-03-20&number=2&dmp=3&house=senate here].
- * [4] See that division [http://publicwhip-rails.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2014-07-10&number=8&dmp=3&house=senate here]. Read more about this second rejection of this package of bills on ABC News [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-10/senate-rejects-carbon-tax-repeal/5586248 here] or on the World Today [http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4043242.htm here].
<p>I rise to speak in support of this amendment but also in the context of the ending of this committee debate—I anticipate, because the government has made clear that it intends to gag and guillotine this debate if it is not concluded shortly. It is very clear that the deals have been done and the government is likely, finally, to have the numbers in this chamber to end an effective response to climate change.</p><p>I was in this chamber when the CPRS, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—something which would have introduced a market mechanism, a floating price for carbon—was voted down by this Senate. The reason it was voted down on that day, the fundamental reason, is the same reason this legislation is likely to be voted down today—that is, a man called Mr Tony Abbott. He decided that it was in his political interest not to look to what was responsible, not to look to what was right, not to look to an effective, credible response to climate change, but to stake his political career, his political ambitions, on fearmongering and scaremongering. That is what this debate has been about for years. It has been about Mr Tony Abbott wanting the leadership of the Liberal Party, wanting to be Prime Minister and staking his political campaign on fearmongering. The man who told us that Whyalla would be wiped off the map now cannot even guarantee to Australians that they will get the sorts of price reductions that he campaigned on for years.</p><p>If these bills pass today, it will be a day in history where this parliament failed the test of leadership, failed the test of rising above opportunistic politics and short-term sectional interest to act in the national interest. If these bills pass, this nation will have walked away from a credible and effective response to climate change, it will walk away from reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and it will walk away from the task of transforming the Australian economy into the clean energy economy that we have to be in the 21st century. If these bills pass, this nation will be the only nation in the world going backwards when it comes to tackling climate change.</p><p>Putting a price on pollution is the most environmentally effective and economically responsible way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And I remind those opposite of the journey to populism and fearmongering that they have undertaken—a sorry tale indeed. Let us not forget there was once a bipartisan commitment in this country, half a decade ago, to act on climate change. There was a bipartisan commitment half a decade ago to do the right thing, to do the responsible thing. Those opposite talk about intergenerational responsibility. Senator Cormann talks about not giving a credit card to the next generation. That is precisely what you are doing. You are passing a credit card for all of our inaction on this serious threat of climate change to our children and our grandchildren. It is an absolute abrogation of the responsibility that we have in this place.</p><p>Let me remind those opposite of what Mr Howard said in 2007. There is a great YouTube clip that people can go back to. I am quoting:</p><p class="italic">I will also be announcing a 'cap and trade' emissions trading system that will help Australia substantially lower our domestic greenhouse gas emissions at the lowest cost.</p><p class="italic">Stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will be difficult, but not impossible. We do not have to sacrifice our economic prosperity to tackle the problem.</p><p class="italic">Australia will more than play its part to address climate change, but we will do it in a practical and balanced way, in full knowledge of the economic consequences for our nation.</p><p>So John Howard in 2007 backed in an emissions trading system, the same as the Labor Party is currently moving in this place—the same principle, the same approach, that Labor is putting to this chamber: an emissions trading scheme to give the most effective response to climate change, a cap on pollution, a price set by the market, firms able to find the cheapest and lowest cost way of reducing the pollution we put into our atmosphere.</p><p>The fundamental problem is this: as long as something is free our economy will continue to do it. As long as polluting is free, we will see more and more pollution. We understand that intuitively. We understand that in so many other areas of policy, but on this the government has chosen to go down a path which is opportunistic, which is all about fearmongering. I think future generations will look back on these bills and they will be appalled at the short-sighted, opportunistic, selfish politics of those opposite. Mr Abbott will go down as one of the most short-sighted, opportunistic, selfish and small people ever to occupy the office of Prime Minister.</p><p>What we will see and what we are seeing from those opposite are short-sighted politics to dismantle a policy which has been supported by them, by the overwhelming majority of scientists and the overwhelming majority of economists. It is easy to run a campaign against a price on carbon, because you are saying to people: 'What we are doing is polluting the atmosphere and we now have to stop doing that. We have to change how our economy works.' But it could have been done if those in the Liberal Party—Mr Turnbull and other moderates—turned their backs on a man who describes climate change as 'absolute crap' and did the right thing by the nation.</p><p>There is a lot of talk in politics today about the need to have the reform imperative—about the need to have the courage to reform. If you look back to the great economic reforms governments have implemented—and I particularly want to talk about the opening up of our economy, the liberalisation of trade, the floating of the dollar under the Hawke and Keating governments—it would have been easy to run scare campaigns on those policies. But there was a modicum of bipartisanship for the betterment of the nation—responsibility being taken at that time for future generations. Where is that now? The man who killed it is the man who occupies the Lodge—or, not the Lodge, Kirribilli. The man who killed it is the man who occupies the office of Prime Minister—a short-sighted, opportunistic scaremonger. That is this Prime Minister.</p><p>These bills dismantle a policy which has been in place for two years which is working exactly as it was intended, reducing emissions, reducing pollution while supporting the households of Australia and the competitiveness of our economy. I think future generations will look back at the people who claim the carbon price was a wrecking ball and identify the real wrecker—a Prime Minister who has practised hypocrisy, deception and destructive politics when it comes to the challenge of climate change. We on this side of the chamber accept the science. We on this side of the chamber accept the responsibility to do something in this time for the next generation and we in this chamber will never walk away from a serious and credible response to climate change.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Urquhart</p><p>Yesterday I asked the minister a question that I did not get the answer to. I will repeat that question and then I will ask it again after I have read out a couple of letters I have received. My question was: Minister, can you guarantee that average Tasmanian household costs will drop by $550 each and every year, as guaranteed by the Prime Minister? This is a question that not only myself but many Tasmanians are interested in. I received a letter via email from a small-business owner in Tasmania and I want to read it out:</p><p class="italic">Hi Senator,</p><p class="italic">Can you advise me how much I can expect to save this financial year by the abolition of the carbon tax.</p><p class="italic">I have heard that the Government has stated it should be on average $550 however Aurora Energy today advised me that their power charges will not reduce as a result of the carbon tax being taken away. I do recall this being a reason used by them for the increase in the market wholesale price of electricity.</p><p>The small-business owner also then sent me a letter that he had received from Aurora Energy, the suppliers in Tasmania:</p><p class="italic">Dear Customer</p><p class="italic">YOUR AURORA ENERGY CONTRACT PRICES FROM 1 JULY 2014</p><p class="italic">We write to you with regard to the prices in your Aurora Energy electricity supply contract that will apply from 1 July 2014, in light of the likely repeal by the Australian Government of the carbon pricing scheme.</p><p class="italic">As of 1 July 2014, there will be no change in the price of your supply contract, as the wholesale energy purchasing arrangements which underpin the provision of electricity to you have not changed. There will also be no change to prices in the event of the carbon tax being repealed, as the costs of providing energy to you will remain unchanged with the wholesale energy market having already factored in the probability of the carbon tax being repealed.</p><p class="italic">When the time comes to sign a new supply contract with Aurora Energy, the cost of carbon, if there is any, will be captured in the energy pricing that we quote you in your next contract. There will be no separate rate for carbon.</p><p class="italic">Should you have any questions relating to your contract and the impact of carbon, please do not hesitate to call our Business Sales Team … and we will be able to answer any questions you may have.</p><p>So, again, my question is: Minister, can you guarantee that average Tasmanian household costs will drop by $550 each and every year as guaranteed by the Prime Minister?</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>Firstly, in relation to the last question in terms of electricity price reductions in Tasmania: as I said yesterday, the Office of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator released a statement on 19 June 2014 that electricity prices would fall in real terms by 7.8 per cent with the removal of the carbon tax. In relation to the $550 reduction in cost of living for the average household, that assessment is based on the exact same methodology as used by the previous government when they claimed a reduction in costs of $380 on the basis of replacing the carbon tax with an emissions trading scheme. We are basing our advice to you in relation to this on the exact same methodology that the previous government did.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>I wanted to ask the minister some questions. I might ask whether he has the figures for the Queensland regulator and what prices would fall in Queensland. I also seek from the minister confirmation that I am not—and I am asking the minister this—living in another world. I heard the Leader of the Opposition filibuster for about 12 minutes at the beginning of this committee session this morning. She did not even pretend to ask a question of the minister. The debates in the Senate, particularly in the committee stage, are intended to allow senators to ask precise questions about the bill and the amendments before the chair.</p><p>We heard from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—one of the leadership group of the party which went to the 2010 election promising there would be 'no carbon tax under a government I lead' and then, when it got into government, immediately introduced a carbon tax—not a question but just a 12-minute rant to waste the time of this committee and to prevent other senators from asking questions. We got that from that senator who is supposedly the leader of a party in this chamber. You would expect that a leader might, at least, show some responsibility. That is my recollection.</p><p>After hearing the Leader of the Opposition, I have to ask the minister whether my recollection is correct in that the Australian people at the last election voted overwhelmingly against the Labor Party and the Greens political party. Is it also true—and is my recollection correct—that it was made very clear for about 2½ years before the last election that the last election would be a referendum on the carbon tax? That is my recollection. But, after hearing the Leader of the Opposition, I must have been on a different planet! Clearly, Australians went to the last election accepting this was a vote on the carbon tax or otherwise. The Australian public answered that question, giving Mr Abbott and his team an overwhelming response—an overwhelming answer—in the election held last year.</p><p>Similarly, those senators in this chamber supporting the lied-about carbon tax lost one-fifth of their number. Parties in this chamber which indicated they also opposed the carbon tax—which included the coalition, Palmer United Party, Senator Xenophon, as I recall, and I think Family First, Democratic Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats—did very, very well. And yet, if you heard the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate today, you would think that the Australian public said something else. So my question to the minister is: am I right that the last election was said to be a referendum on the carbon tax? And was the result such that the Australian public spoke?</p><p>Senator Wong gets up here and says that she and her colleagues in the Labor Party know everything and know what is best for Australia. She says there are a lot of scientists and economists who also think that this should be abandoned. In the minute I have left to me, I just want to ask again: did the Australian public clearly say at the last election they wanted to get rid of the carbon tax? For all of the economists, for all of the so-called scientists that Senator Wong quotes and for all of those people in the Labor Party who say differently, wasn't it a fact that the Australian people, voting at the last election on what was clearly a referendum on the carbon tax, gave their answer and gave it overwhelmingly?</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|