|
senate vote 2022-09-08#8
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-09-17 08:48:07
|
Title
Bills — Climate Change Bill 2022, Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022; in Committee- Climate Change Bill 2022, Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 - in Committee - Transparecy and ARENA loopholes
Description
<p class="speaker">David Pocock</p><p>by leave—I move Climate Change Bill 2022 amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 1621 and Climate Change (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2022 amendment (1) on sheet 1620 together.</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-09-08.52.1) introduced by ACT Senator [David Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/david_pocock) (Independent), which means they were successful and will now form part of the bills. Once the bills in their new form are passed in the Senate, they will return to the House of Representatives for their agreement.
- ### What are the amendments?
- Senator Pocock [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2022-09-08.52.1):
- > *The first amendment on sheet 1621 requires that the annual climate change statement consider the risks presented by climate change. Climate change presents unparalleled risks to the systems that support life on this planet and all the people and places we love, including the future of the young people observing us today.*
- >
- > *[...]*
- >
- > *Amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 1621 require that there is public consultation before the annual statement on climate change. These amendments will allow the scientific community and the broader Australian community to make clear the risks of inaction and the benefits of action.*
- >
- > *Amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 1621 require advice from the Climate Change Authority be made public before or at the same time as the annual statement on climate change. The explanatory memorandum to this bill uses the words 'accountability' and 'transparency' 18 times. This amendment means that if advice is not accepted, the government can be called out. This is fundamental to transparency and accountability.*
- >
- > *The amendment on sheet 1620 relates to ARENA. During the inquiry into the bill, concerns were raised in relation to the scope for ARENA to fund non-renewable energy sources and other problematic technologies. This amendment closes potential loopholes that could allow ARENA to fund such technologies.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *CLIMATE CHANGE BILL 2022*
- >
- > *(1) Clause 12, page 7 (line 24), at the end of subclause (1), add:*
- >
- >> *; and (f) risks to Australia from climate change impacts, such as those relating to Australia's environment, biodiversity, health, infrastructure, agriculture, investment, economy or national security.*
- >
- > *(2) Clause 14, page 8 (line 24), after "subsection (1)", insert "in relation to the first annual climate change statement".*
- >
- > *(3) Clause 14, page 8 (after line 25), after subclause (3), insert:*
- >
- >> *(3A) In considering advice to be given to the Minister under subsection (1) in relation to:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) the second annual climate change statement; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) a subsequent annual climate change statement;*
- >>
- >> *the Climate Change Authority must make provision for public consultation.*
- >
- > *(4) Clause 14, page 9 (line 5), after "website", insert "no later than the day the annual climate change statement to which the advice relates is tabled in a House of the Parliament in accordance with subsection 12(3)".*
- >
- > *(5) Clause 14, page 9 (lines 7 and 8), omit "Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the advice to the Minister", substitute:*
- >
- >> *Parliament:*
- >>
- >>> *(i) within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the advice to the Minister; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(ii) no later than the day the annual climate change statement to which the advice relates is tabled in that House in accordance with subsection 12(3).*
- >
- > *CLIMATE CHANGE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2022*
- >
- > *(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 2, insert:*
- >
- >> *2A At the end of section 8*
- >>
- >> *Add:*
- >>
- >>> *Note: Paragraph (f) allows additional functions to be prescribed related to renewable energy technologies as well as electrification technologies or energy efficiency technologies.*
<p class="italic">CLIMATE CHANGE BILL 2022</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 12, page 7 (line 24), at the end of subclause (1), add:</p><p class="italic">; and (f) risks to Australia from climate change impacts, such as those relating to Australia's environment, biodiversity, health, infrastructure, agriculture, investment, economy or national security.</p><p class="italic">(2) Clause 14, page 8 (line 24), after "subsection (1)", insert "in relation to the first annual climate change statement".</p><p class="italic">(3) Clause 14, page 8 (after line 25), after subclause (3), insert:</p><p class="italic">(3A) In considering advice to be given to the Minister under subsection (1) in relation to:</p><p class="italic">(a) the second annual climate change statement; or</p><p class="italic">(b) a subsequent annual climate change statement;</p><p class="italic">the Climate Change Authority must make provision for public consultation.</p><p class="italic">(4) Clause 14, page 9 (line 5), after "website", insert "no later than the day the annual climate change statement to which the advice relates is tabled in a House of the Parliament in accordance with subsection 12(3)".</p><p class="italic">(5) Clause 14, page 9 (lines 7 and 8), omit "Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the advice to the Minister", substitute:</p><p class="italic">Parliament:</p><p class="italic">(i) within 15 sitting days of that House after giving the advice to the Minister; and</p><p class="italic">(ii) no later than the day the annual climate change statement to which the advice relates is tabled in that House in accordance with subsection 12(3).</p><p class="italic">CLIMATE CHANGE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2022</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 6), after item 2, insert:</p><p class="italic">2A At the end of section 8</p><p class="italic">Add:</p><p class="italic">Note: Paragraph (f) allows additional functions to be prescribed related to renewable energy technologies as well as electrification technologies or energy efficiency technologies.</p><p>The first amendment on sheet 1621 requires that the annual climate change statement consider the risks presented by climate change. Climate change presents unparalleled risks to the systems that support life on this planet and all the people and places we love, including the future of the young people observing us today.</p><p>Climate change is already affecting Australian farmers. ABARES data shows that the average broadacre farmer in Australia has lost 22 per cent of their profits since the year 2000 due to the impacts of climate change. Proper consideration of these risks leaves us with no option but bold action to reduce emissions. This amendment will allow the Australian people to hold the government to account if it fails to mitigate against the risks of climate change.</p><p>Amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 1621 require that there is public consultation before the annual statement on climate change. These amendments will allow the scientific community and the broader Australian community to make clear the risks of inaction and the benefits of action.</p><p>Amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 1621 require advice from the Climate Change Authority be made public before or at the same time as the annual statement on climate change. The explanatory memorandum to this bill uses the words 'accountability' and 'transparency' 18 times. This amendment means that if advice is not accepted, the government can be called out. This is fundamental to transparency and accountability.</p><p>The amendment on sheet 1620 relates to ARENA. During the inquiry into the bill, concerns were raised in relation to the scope for ARENA to fund non-renewable energy sources and other problematic technologies. This amendment closes potential loopholes that could allow ARENA to fund such technologies.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Thank you, Senator Pocock. We support these amendments, which improve the Climate Change Bill and are consistent with our intention to both legislate the targets and make the government accountable for meeting them. We consider that the risks to Australia from the impacts of climate change are real. We have to reduce emissions to avoid the worse of these impacts. But we're already living with the impacts of climate change, and making progress on climate adaptation is one of the key issues that I will be progressing for the government. The amendments also ensure that the authority must consult on climate change statements, while recognising that consultation for this year is difficult in the time available. They also ensure that the authority's advice on the annual statement is not hidden when the statement is delivered to the parliament.</p><p>Finally, we also support the amendment that you have circulated on sheet 1620 in relation to the prescribed functions of ARENA. We established ARENA when last in government to support renewable energy, and we have opposed numerous attempts by the previous government, first, to abolish ARENA and then to make regulations to force ARENA to invest in the then government's pet projects such as fossil fuel-based hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. Your amendments are important in clarifying the functions of that organisation. More broadly, we thank you for your engagement—or I should say, through the Chair, we thank Senator Pocock for his engagement with us and his work to improve the bills.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>I just have a few questions for the minister around the issues that Senator Pocock's amendments go to, which is increasing the transparency and accountability for not just this government but future Australian governments in ensuring that our ambition on climate change and lowering emissions is reflected in measurement and accountability pieces throughout the government's systems so that Australians can be very clear on where the benefits of action on climate change occur and where there are clearly 'disbenefits', to quote some of the mayors from the mining communities' submission to the inquiry on this bill.</p><p>Minister, when I look at the nationally determined contribution, which was changed rightfully on your government winning the election and having a mandate to change our ambition as a nation on climate change, one of the first things you did was remove from that document a five-yearly review of the impacts of our climate ambition on rural and regional Australia. We have heard time and time again, in the inquiry and in this place and out in our communities, that, yes, on a pathway to net zero by 2050 there will be opportunities for our communities and our industries. But you're kidding yourselves if you don't think there are going to be challenges for these industries and these communities. It is not just the National Party that is saying it; it's the union movement as well.</p><p>Part of our role as legislators is to think about, when we implement these policies, making sure we mitigate some of the negative impacts on those communities. We all know who they are, and we all know where they are. It is why our government, in securing a pathway to net zero, combined that with over $20 billion of new money to support these communities, to seize the opportunities that a pathway to net zero by 2050 would bring, but to help them overcome the challenges. You are choosing to legislate your target, which you didn't have to do. You yourselves have admitted that it is unnecessary and largely symbolic. It'll cause a whole heap of unintended consequences, and I outlined some of those in my second reading speech last night.</p><p>But in setting that ambitious target without putting in place significant support and programs and projects to support rural and regional communities, you're setting them up to fail and you are causing an incredible amount of stress and concern in our mining communities, our agriculture communities, our manufacturing communities. So, my question to you—and I have a range of them—is: why did you remove the five-yearly clause that we got written in so that future governments, before they update our nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement, have actual data, not just on the benefits but on the impact? Even if you look at Europe and what they're going through at the moment, it's not all going to be plain sailing, so we need to be cognisant and aware of that so we can assist our communities on this journey.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>Thank you for your question, Senator McKenzie. I find myself unable to agree with your characterisation of the regime that is being legislated. The Paris Agreement in fact requires signatories to update their contributions every five years; it is baked into the Paris Agreement. The regime that we are implementing requires government to seek independent advice on every occasion, in each of those five-year intervals, when we seek to update our agreement. So it meets the objective that you establish, which is that the benefits and impacts of the targets that are adopted by the Australian government be independently considered and advice be provided, both to the minister and publicly. That is the nature of the regime that is being proposed in the bill before you today.</p><p>What is most curious, though, about this is that when a specific proposition was put in the other place, your colleagues in the Liberal and National Party not only voted against it, but called for a division so they would be on the record voting against the amendments put in the other place to ensure that the interests of rural and regional communities were considered in that advice. I find that very strange, actually almost incomprehensible. So, yes, we do think that regional economic development is important, and our policies are expected to result in an additional 604,000 jobs to 2030, with five out of six of those jobs in the regions.</p><p>What is harder to understand is why the National Party and the Liberal Party teamed up in the other place to prevent an examination of those issues in the reports provided by the Climate Change Authority to the parliament.</p> <p class="speaker">Bridget McKenzie</p><p>Minister, that wasn't my question. Somebody had to come in and help the Albenese government appreciate that their ambition was going to impact the regions. You needed to just check with the AWU; they would have been very, very happy to tell you what that impact would have been. You raced off to update our nationally determined contribution, and I'm happy to table your 2022 change to our NDC where you explicitly remove what we had put in, which was the five-yearly updated review.</p><p>You stand up here today and you make an argument like it was all Albo's and Bowen's kind of plan the whole time to make sure that rural and regional Australia impact would be part of your plan, but it wasn't. Getting the Climate Authority to do this and only look at the benefits is the concern of mining communities, Labor towns, around the country have with your bill. A much more rigorous, authentic and genuine way to address that concern would be to have a five-yearly review by the Productivity Commission. So if you were serious about actually genuinely understanding the impact, and therefore ponying up on levels of support for those communities, then you would be supporting our amendment around the Productivity Commission. I think it's the height of cheek to come here into this chamber and make out like it was always the Labor Party's plan, because it wasn't, because if you read what you put forward in our nationally determined contribution, there is no mention of a review, there is no mention of analysis specific to rural and regional communities, and that's just a fact.</p><p>My second question to you is: given that the impact is unquestionable, the desire to move on a pathway to net zero by 2050 is occurring, what guarantee will rural and regional Australians have in your October budget around the programs that our government put in place to support those communities around the country—over $21 billion of new money? What guarantee do those communities have that your government recognises that there will be benefits and challenges for different places in our country?</p> <p class="speaker">Helen Polley</p><p>Before I call the minister, I just remind you, Senator McKenzie, to use the titles of people from the other place. Show them that respect. I didn't pull you up, but I will in future.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|