|
senate vote 2009-11-30#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-04-10 15:05:13
|
Title
Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Customs) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — Excise) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges — General) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Cprs Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Cprs Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 [No. 2]; Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009 [No. 2] — In Committee- Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 [No. 2] and related bills - In Committee - Limit overseas permits
Description
<p class="speaker">Alan Ferguson</p><p>I will now put the second part of that group of amendments, Australian Greens amendments (25), (33) and (54) on sheet 5786. The question is that the clauses stand as printed.</p> - The majority voted against [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2009-11-30.258.1 amendments] introduced by Greens Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Christine_Milne&mpc=Senate&house=senate Christine Milne].
- Senator Milne explained that "these amendments go to whether or not there should be a restriction on the number of overseas payments that can be bought and used in Australia. The government’s scheme as it stands allows for the unlimited purchase of overseas permits, and we seek to amend this to restrict the purchase of overseas permits to 20 per cent."[1]
- ''Background to the bills''
- The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4221 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 (No. 2)] was introduced as part of a package of six bills along with five other related bills to introduce the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme]. They reflect the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4127%22 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009] and its related acts, as amended in the House of Representatives before it was negated in the Senate.[2]
- The scheme is an [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading emission trading scheme] designed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas greenhouse gases] in an effort to address [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_chnage climate change]. It gives effect to Australia's obligations under the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol Kyoto Protocol].
- The design of the scheme has been criticised by the business community for threatening jobs and by environmentalists for not going far enough with its emission reduction targets.[3]
- The six bills that were introduced as a package are called:
- * the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4221 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009 (No. 2)]
- * the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4215 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 (No. 2)]
- * the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4213 Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority Bill 2009 (No. 2)]
- * the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4218 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges-Customs) Bill 2009 (No. 2)]
- * the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4219 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges-Excise) Bill 2009 (No. 2)]
- * the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4216 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Charges-General) Bill 2009 (No. 2)]
- The five other related bills are called:
- * the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4220 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 (No. 2)]
- * the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4220 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2009 (No. 2)]
- * the [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4217%22 Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 (No. 2)]
- * the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4214 Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2009 (No. 2)]
- * the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4223 Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009 (No. 2)]
- References
- * [1] Read the whole explanation of these amendment [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?id=2009-11-30.31.2 here], starting from 7:30pm.
- * [2] See that division [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/division.php?date=2009-08-13&number=4&dmp=7&house=senate here].
- * [3] Read more about these criticisms [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_Pollution_Reduction_Scheme#Criticism here].
<p>Question agreed to.</p><b><p>Sitting suspended from 6.30 pm to 7.30 pm</p></b> <p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (8), (35) and (36) on sheet 5786 together:</p><p class="italic">(8)    Clause 5, page 16 (after line 19), after the definition of <b><i>generation unit</i></b>, insert:</p><p class="italic"><b><i>Gold Standard certified</i></b> has the meaning given by subsection 145A(3).</p><p class="italic">(35)  Clause 144, page 190 (after line 7), after the first dot point, insert:</p><ul><li>There are restrictions on the registration of certain emissions units in the Registry.</li></ul><p class="italic">(36) Page 191 (after line 18), after clause 145, insert;</p><p class="italic">145A  Restrictions on registration of certain emissions units in the Registry</p><p class="italic">        (1)    The Authority must ensure that, of the total of all Australian emissions units, Kyoto units and non-Kyoto international emissions units registered in the Registry, no more than 20% cumulatively are:</p><p class="italic">             (a)    certified emission reductions (including temporary certified emission reductions and long-term certified emission reductions) generated by projects in countries classified as “least developed” by the United Nations; and</p><p class="italic">             (b)    emission reduction units; and</p><p class="italic">             (c)    any other type of eligible international emissions unit prescribed for the purpose of this section.</p><p class="italic">        (2)    The Authority must not register in the Registry any certified emission reductions (including temporary certified emission reductions and long-term certified emission reductions) and emission reduction units which are not Gold Standard certified.</p><p class="italic">        (3)    For the purposes of this Act, <b><i>Gold Standard certified</i></b> means certification by the Gold Standard Foundation in accordance with the Gold Standard methodology for carbon offset project development.</p><p>For the benefit of those who are unaware of the specifics, these amendments go to whether or not there should be a restriction on the number of overseas payments that can be bought and used in Australia. The government’s scheme as it stands allows for the unlimited purchase of overseas permits, and we seek to amend this to restrict the purchase of overseas permits to 20 per cent. I will go into it in a bit more detail. The Greens are saying that there are two things that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme has to do: one is to reduce the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere—in other words, reduce emissions—and the other is to transform the Australian economy. The proposition is to transform the economy away from a high-carbon economy to a low-carbon, and then ultimately zero-carbon, economy. From the Greens’ perspective, for this scheme to be a success it has to do both of those things.</p><p>On the first proposition of reducing emissions it does not matter where in the world emissions are reduced so long as emissions are reduced, and so that is the proposition, I assume, that the government puts: that if you have a carbon pollution reduction permit worth a certain amount of carbon then it is transferable around the world and you are removing that much carbon from the atmosphere. That is a true proposition if all the carbon pollution reduction permits are actually valid and measurable and truly additional and so on. It is a little bit difficult to know where REDD is going to go and there is really quite a genuine concern that the permits are not all of the same validity, as it currently stands, in being able to be sure that they genuinely represent a reduction in carbon. That is my first point.</p><p>That is why the Greens amendments also make it very clear that the overseas permits we would allow for the Australian system should be of a gold standard. The gold standard means certification by the Gold Standard Foundation in accordance with the gold standard methodology for carbon offset project development. That gold standard is the world’s only independent standard for creating high-quality emission reduction projects in the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation and voluntary carbon market. It was designed to ensure that carbon credits are not only real and verifiable but that they make measurable contributions to sustainable development worldwide. The objective of the gold standard is to add a branding label to existing and new carbon credits generated by projects which can then be bought and traded by countries that have a binding legal commitment according to the Kyoto protocol. Our proposition is that the overseas permits that we would allow from the Clean Development Mechanism and JI would meet the gold standard.</p><p>The second proposition is in relation to the transformation of Australian industry, and that is one of the compelling reasons why we would want to restrict the number of imported permits. We have also said, however, that the permits that come from overseas ought to be coming from the least developed countries. So the only acceptable permits will be those generated by CDM projects in countries classified as least developed by the UN. In that way we make sure that those overseas permits we do buy come from the least developed countries and that therefore the transfer of income goes to those countries which need it the most. It is a happy coincidence that many of those least developed countries are in our region.</p><p>The second reason, in terms of the transformation of the Australian economy, is that we have to ensure that we transform our industries. We cannot just let them buy overseas permits and allow them to continue to do so. They need to transform themselves in the context of a low-carbon or zero-carbon economy, and there is a real risk that that will not occur unless we put a restriction on the amount of permits that can be purchased offshore.</p><p>We hope this explains to the chamber exactly what is being proposed here in terms of an amendment: that there is a 20 per cent restriction on permits from overseas; that those permits that are permitted in the 20 per cent are to be gold standard; that they come from the least developed countries; and that the rest of the effort has to be made within Australia.</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>I have some general questions—</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Senator Abetz tells me he has more general questions. We have had a lot of general questions, Senator Abetz.</p> <p class="speaker">Trish Crossin</p><p>The minister has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>As you anticipated, Senator Milne, the government is not supporting this amendment. Under the government’s scheme, there is a regulation-making power in proposed section 129(7) of the primary bill which enables a regulation-making power to be made outlining what can be surrendered—that is, what international permits can be used domestically. I think you and I have had this discussion before, Senator, but I make this point: we do absolutely believe that part of the plan that will enable the globe to meet this challenge of climate change is to have a properly functioning global carbon market. What does that mean? It means that we get the right market incentive for private sector firms to invest in abatement and we enable that to occur wherever that abatement can be found in the world, because this is a global problem.</p><p>If there is a concern about the international CERs—certified emissions reductions—then the international community should have to deal with that. That is an issue of quality, and we are absolutely of the view that these international units must be credible, measurable, reportable and verifiable. We are working closely with Indonesia, for example, on the reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation aspect of the Bali roadmap—known as REDD. We have made, I think, two joint submissions—I could be wrong, but my recollection is two—with Indonesia to the international negotiations. So we are serious about working with a developing country on our doorstep to put in place the mechanisms and the systems that ensure that emissions reductions from these activities are ones in which the world can have confidence.</p><p>The government disagrees with the Greens on asserting that once that threshold is met there should be some additional requirements placed on the trade in international permits. My view is very simple: if, through this policy, we can give Australian firms an incentive to reduce emissions in developing countries then I think that that is a good thing. We need to ensure that those investments are in relation to emission reductions which are real, transparent and verifiable. But I think that is a good thing because we have to change the market failure that has caused climate change—where people have had an incentive to pollute. Instead we need an incentive to reduce emissions. We are strongly of the view that this is a sensible way forward and we do not support the amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>As I indicated both to Senator Milne and, just before, to the minister, I have some general questions. That is why I thought it appropriate to try to bring them up at the beginning of a new, fresh amendment and not intervene in amendments that have been discussed at some length. The first in my series of questions relates to the government’s future planning in relation to the size of Australia’s population. Mr Rudd has this grand vision of 35 million people. Given that we have an emissions cap and we intend, in general terms, to increase our population by 50 per cent over the next couple of decades, that must surely come with a huge impact on the amount of emissions from our country. So I am just wondering whether the policy that was put to Treasury—as part of all the modelling that we had provided to us—was that we were dealing with a potential population of, as I understand it, 35 million people by the year 2050.</p> <p class="speaker">Trish Crossin</p><p> Just before you speak, Senator Wong, I am just going to advise Senator Abetz that it is my call as chair that, if he is not asking questions about the amendments Senator Milne has moved, we will move Senator Milne’s amendments and then I will go back to him for general questions about the bill. We might deal with these; I will get the minister to answer your question, Senator Abetz.</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>If I may briefly intervene, to me that makes eminent good sense, and that is why I was seeking the call before the amendment was moved. I am happy to vacate the space for the time being, allow this amendment to be dealt with and then come back into the debate before the next amendment is moved. I am more than happy to facilitate that. Officially, I indicate on behalf of the opposition that we will not be supporting this tranche of Greens amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>If I may answer Senator Abetz’s questions, it may make this a little easier to progress. Yes, we did assume population growth in the Treasury modelling and the advice I have is that the assumption was of some 33 million. So the Treasury modelling which shows the impact of the continued growth in the Australian economy and the continued growth in the number of jobs did assume that.</p><p>I will make a brief comment about population. I assume that the senator, from his previous comments, does support the previous government’s and the current government’s policies—for example, to help families and parents in terms of the assistance for mothers on the birth of a child and in relation to family tax laws. So I assume he is not making reference to those issues.</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>I am just asking a question—</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I am just trying to work through these. In terms of immigration issues, which I think were referenced, I would make the point that given that this is a global challenge, as Mr Turnbull said on <i>Q&A</i>, if people are elsewhere in the world they will also be contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that they are in Australia or not in Australia does not alter the fact that they will continue to have a carbon footprint no matter where they are in the world.</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>Will we have a national cap?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Well, if you pass this bill we may. I am asked if we will have a national cap. I think it is important when we discuss issues of sustainability to be very clear about this: we are one of the highest per capita emitters in the world, if not the highest; therefore, reducing our per capita emissions would enable us to continue to grow our economy and our population without necessarily growing our emissions or growing them along the same trajectory as they have been growing.</p><p>In relation to the Treasury modelling, again, I am advised that the modelling did project an increase in population out to mid-century.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|