|
senate vote 2021-10-20#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-10-29 15:47:15
|
Title
Regulations and Determinations — Fuel Security (Fuel Security Services Payment) Rule 2021; Disallowance- Regulations and Determinations - Fuel Security (Fuel Security Services Payment) Rule 2021 - Disallow
Description
<p class="speaker">Slade Brockman</p><p>Pursuant to order agreed yesterday, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of a disallowance motion.</p>-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2021-10-20.129.2) to disallow a particular rule, which means the motion failed. Had it been successful, it would have meant that the rule would no longer have legal force. The rule relates to a fuel security service payment.
- ### Motion text
- > *That the [Fuel Security (Fuel Security Services Payment) Rule 2021](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2021L01011), made under the Fuel Security Act 2021, be disallowed [F2021L01011].*
<p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>At the request of Senator Rice, I move:</p><p class="italic">That the Fuel Security (Fuel Security Services Payment) Rule 2021, made under the <i>Fuel Security Act 2021</i>, be disallowed [F2021L01011].</p><p>I would like to ensure that we can have some considerable debate on this. I understand it's limited to 30 minutes, but I would like to get on with it.</p> <p class="speaker">Slade Brockman</p><p>You have the call, Senator Hanson-Young.</p> <p class="speaker">Sarah Hanson-Young</p><p>Great. Thank you, Mr President. This disallowance motion is an important one because we know that this government—despite telling the Australian people that they want to reduce pollution to zero by 2050 and despite begging their Nationals colleagues to allow this—right here, right now, today, want to hand $2 billion of taxpayers' money over to the fossil fuel companies. This is more money in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry—more subsidies, more taxpayers' money and more rorts for the fossil fuel industry, designed to prop them up.</p><p>Let me tell you that there is no way this government will ever be taken seriously when it comes to climate action and reducing pollution while it continues not just to give a nod and a wink to the fossil fuel industry to keep expanding and growing but to actually prop them up and pay for them to keep expanding and growing. We know that this is another $2 billion to the government's mates in the fossil fuel industry. It's a total of almost $10 billion in subsidies in this financial year alone, the 2021 financial year. It is just extraordinary that this type of money is being handed out willy-nilly by this government yet we're all meant to believe that somehow the Prime Minister has found his path to Damascus on climate change and everything's going to be okay. You can't be taken seriously on climate action and reducing pollution if, on one hand, you're saying you won't even legislate targets and, on the other hand, what you are legislating is tax windfalls and cash handouts for the fossil fuel industry to keep polluting day after day after day.</p><p>What else have we got from this government in terms of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry beyond this $2 billion? Well, there's the $226 million in subsidies for the Beetaloo basin. There's the approval for more coalmines. In the last month alone, we've seen four new coalmines approved by Mr Morrison's own environment minister—four, and we know there are 72 new coal mines on the books, ready to go, ready to be approved—tick, tick, tick—by this government, along with another 44 gas projects. You could not imagine the hypocrisy from the government—the hypocrisy that smacks us in the face every day when they talk about wanting to take climate action yet, at the same time, they continue to give a green light to the polluting industries to keep going harder, faster and more and more.</p><p>We know from the International Energy Agency that not one new fossil fuel project can be approved or allowed to open if we want to get to net zero. That's not the Greens saying that. That's not the Australian people saying that. That's the International Energy Agency saying that. Yet, time after time after time, on one hand the Prime Minister says he understands that climate change is here, and on the other hand the government not only approve these developments but are now handing out cash, Australian taxpayer money, to prop them up and to allow the industry to keep expanding.</p><p>This particular slush fund for the fossil fuel industry consists of $2 billion of Australians' money being spent to continue to pollute through what the government have called the fuel security services payment. That sounds nice, doesn't it? This is taxpayer money continuing to allow more and more pollution in this country. We're being told by the minister in charge that this is needed to provide fuel security in this country. Well, do you know what this government should have done? This government should have, indeed, invested in a strategy to make sure we had proper transport security in this country by investing in a plan to deliver electric vehicles on our roads and investing in public transport. How about some emissions standards in this country for vehicles? That is the type of plan and action that would deliver security to Australians and to our climate.</p><p>The fuel security framework could have been used as an opportunity to address emissions from the transport sector, which, by the way, we know is one of the fastest growing sectors in terms of emissions in this country at 17.6 per cent, and it's growing faster and faster at the exact time that we are meant to be reducing the pollution that is choking our planet. So we could have had an opportunity to invest in reducing pollution in the transport sector, but, instead, we have this on our books. We could have had an opportunity to reduce pollution and to invest in the security of our fuel future in this country. Instead, we have a taxpayer fund propping up an industry that is already struggling.</p><p>Even if you don't accept that we need to reduce pollution, this fuel security service payment doesn't actually do what it's supposed to do. It doesn't reduce dependency on fuel. In fact, what it does is keep refineries open past their expiry date, propping them up and making them more and more unsustainable, with no accompanying plans to support a transition away from dirty fuel to cleaner types of emissions and energy to power our transport networks across the country. It's actually increasing and deepening the insecurity here in Australia. This $2 billion would have been better spent investing in an electric vehicle strategy for this country.</p><p>The transport sector, as I said, is one of the fastest growing when it comes to emissions in this country. It already accounts for 17.6 per cent of the total pollution, and that's growing faster every day. We need a national electric vehicle strategy. It was promised by the government, but we still haven't seen anything delivered. It could have included financial incentives to encourage consumer uptake, like there have been in other parts of the world. We could have charging infrastructure to ensure that there is security and assurance and confidence in the consumer market when it comes to electric vehicles. And, of course, it would be very helpful in this country if we had fuel emission standards, like every other comparable country in the world, regulatory changes and a plan that would drive our nation to be one where we invest in electric vehicles and have low-emission standards.</p><p>Australia is lagging, just like we are in so many other parts in relation to climate action, behind the rest of the world. We are lagging behind when it comes to the transition away from fossil fuels to renewable fuel options, and this is just another blatant example. In other countries where they have actually invested and put in place plans to ensure that there are vehicle emission standards and where there is a vision from their governments to drive down pollution and to ensure that consumers have a choice that is cleaner, greener and safer not just for our streets but actually for our planet, we have seen the uptake of EV and electric vehicle sales skyrocket. Norway is up to 74.8 per cent and the UK is at 10.7 per cent. The global average is 4.2 per cent. Australia lags behind at well below one per cent at 0.78 per cent. The facts speak for themselves. Australia is again lagging behind.</p><p>Overall, who loses out? It's our climate, our environment and the consumer. If we were to invest properly in this nation in the infrastructure, the policies and the regulatory framework, we could be driving down pollution and we could be putting faster, cheaper and more sustainable vehicles on our roads. Think about the amount of money that Australian households could save if they were able to purchase an affordable electric vehicle. We're talking about saving up to $5,000 per household per year. That's a massive windfall for any Australian household. Just compare the fuel costs: 12c per kilometre versus 5c per kilometre. That's the type of comparison that we're talking in running an electric vehicle versus running a vehicle that spews out pollution, powered by dirty fossil fuels.</p><p>But we'd need a plan and a vision from this government. We'd need a government that cared deeply about the state of our climate and the state of our environment. All we get at the moment is weasel words and greenwashing. We've got a fake fight going on between the Liberal Party and the National Party over something that actually means zilch when you compare it to what the rest of the world is confronting and will be debating in two weeks time when the Prime Minister goes to Glasgow. He wants to make this whole debate about net zero by 2050, when that is well past its use-by date. We are already in the grips of the final decade we have to cut pollution, to make the changes necessary, and that is why comparable countries and world leaders are meeting in two weeks time to debate and discuss how collectively their countries and the world will be cutting pollution by 2030.</p><p>If we don't start doing it in that time frame, we risk mass extinction of animals, of species, and terrible, intense events like bushfires and massive storms ripping through our cities, our towns and our regions. If we don't make the changes we need in the next decade, we will miss the boat when it comes to reducing pollution and stopping runaway climate change. The science is very clear. The facts are very clear. Rather than doing what the government proposes today, which is handing $2 billion to the fossil fuel industry, to the big petrol companies, the government should be investing that $2 billion into types of transport and vehicles that are cleaner, greener and smarter for Australian consumers and households—the types of vehicles we want to see on our roads.</p><p>So I urge the Senate to support this disallowance, because this is just dumb policy by a thick government and by a sneaky Prime Minister. You say one thing over here and look like you have even learnt how to say the words 'climate change', while on the other hand you continue to dip into taxpayers' money to pay your mates in the fossil fuel industry. It is a tricky Prime Minister who, on one hand, says he cares about the environment and, on the other hand, tells the big polluters to go rip on the taxpayers' dollar.</p> <p class="speaker">Murray Watt</p><p>Labor strongly supports the transition to low-emissions vehicles. We've announced our own electric car discount, which will cut more than $200 million in inefficient taxes from battery, electric and fuel cell cars. But the reality is that most of Australia's fleet and many other sectors, such as agriculture and aviation, remain reliant on fuel. The payment that the Greens party is seeking to disallow is designed to ensure the operation of Australia's two remaining refineries until at least 2027. The government introduced the payment too late, after half of Australia's refineries had announced their closures. Nonetheless it is a welcome measure to improve our fuel security, and Labor supported the legislation under which this rule has been made. Unlike the Greens party, Labor understands the importance of fuel security for Australia and will therefore not support this motion.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I won't be supporting this motion either. Whilst I do agree with many of the good ideas the Greens are putting forward and the need for us to move to electric vehicles as soon as possible, we do have a fuel security issue in Australia. We only have something like 25 to 30 days of fuel. This does something to remedy that and make sure that we do have some onshore processing. I recall a couple of years ago Exercise Pitch Black, in the Northern Territory, in which the Air Force basically ran out of fuel. We can't have that sort of situation. I recognise that we need to move to a low-carbon society and move away from fossil fuels, but we have got to do so in a responsible manner.</p> <p class="speaker">Slade Brockman</p><p>The question is that the disallowance motion be agreed to.</p> -
-
|