|
senate vote 2011-11-07#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-02-06 11:58:09
|
Title
Bills - Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge - General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge - Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge - Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges - Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges - Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011; In Committee- Clean Energy Bill 2011 and related bills - In Committee - Report progress
Description
- The majority voted against an amendment that progress be reported,[1] moved by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Cory_Bernardi&mpc=Senate&house=senate Cory Bernardi].
- Senator Bernardi intended to subsequently seek leave to meet at a later hour so they could continue to debate the bills. He did this in order to extend the amount of time spent discussing the bills.[2]
- The bills being debated were a package of eighteen bills to implement a carbon pricing mechanism, which is a key policy of the Australian Labor Party while in Government.
- The eighteen bills were:
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4653 Clean Energy Bill 2011]
- * [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4655 Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011]
- * [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4647%22 Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011]
- * [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4662 Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011]
- * [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4649%22 Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011]
- * [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4651 Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011]
- * [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4648%22 Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011]
- * [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4650 Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4661 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4664 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011]
- * [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4660 Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4658 Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4659 Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011]
- * [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation%2Fbillhome%2Fr4656 Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4654 Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4665 Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4657 Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011]
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4663 Climate Change Authority Bill 2011]
- Background to the bills
- The carbon pricing mechanism would commence on 1 July 2012. It is an emissions trading scheme that will put a price on carbon emissions. It will apply to “liable entities” (a group that includes companies that emit a high level of greenhouse gases). Initially the price of carbon will be fixed by the mechanism but from 1 July 2015 the price will be set by the market.
- 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].
- References
- * [1] See [http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/link.aspx?_id=DE8C9D42F0B74C93A8AA5C680A617E0C&_z=z here] for more information about these procedural motions.
- * [2] Read Senator Bernardi's reasoning for his motions [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-11-07.313.1 here].
- Senator BERNARDI
- I move:
- That progress be reported.
- Question put.
- The committee divided. [21:52]
- (The Chairman—Senator Parry)
- Question negatived.
- The CHAIRMAN: It being after 9.50 pm, I shall report progress to the Senate.
Progress reported. - Progress reported.
|
|
senate vote 2011-11-07#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-02-06 11:28:58
|
Title
Bills — Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge — General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge — Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges — Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011; in Committee- Bills - Clean Energy Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge - General) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge - Auctions) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge - Fixed Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges - Customs) Bill 2011, Clean Energy (Charges - Excise) Bill 2011, Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011, Climate Change Authority Bill 2011; In Committee
Description
<p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>by leave—I have a series of amendments to move and I would like to get on with it and move them together. I know that time is short because the debate has been truncated, which is very unfortunate—</p><p class="italic">An opposition senator: Gagged.</p><p>'Gagged' would be a good word, but I have to make the best of a very bad situation. I move amendments (2) and (3) on sheet 7165:</p><p class="italic">(2)   Clause 3, page 5 (before line 14), before subparagraph (c)(i), insert:</p><p class="italic">(ia)   take action directed towards reducing Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions to at least 10% below 2000 levels by 2020; and</p><p class="italic">(3)   Clause 3, page 5 (line 17), omit "that action", substitute "those actions".</p><p>I will be ruthlessly efficient with these amendments because I know time is incredibly short. These amendments introduce a target reduction of emissions to 10 per cent less than 2000 levels by 2020. Under the government's legislation, the only specified target is a reduction to 80 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050, but we have heard earlier today that the amendments will lead to a five per cent target by 2020. It is important to note that this target is more ambitious than the government's own target. It is important to note that this target is based on modelling undertaken by Frontier Economics, commissioned by me and the opposition back in 2009, showing that there is an alternative approach that is more economically efficient and can achieve this target of 10 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020.</p><p>Having said that, it is very important that any legislation that is of this significance to the economy must be dealt with in the context of giving the people of Australia a say on this issue. That is a non-negotiable position, from my point of view. But it is also important that we have a debate about the policy. My concern is that the coalition's Direct Action Plan just does not do that. It is a simplistic plan that will not deliver the best outcome in terms of reducing greenhouse gases and doing so in the most economically efficient way. An intensity based scheme will see economic cost savings because the scheme will result in lower energy price rises, and this will make the low-carbon transition more acceptable to consumers. Furthermore, through a range of additional efficiency initiatives, the Renewable Energy Target and a white certificate scheme, which I have amendments to introduce to establish, I believe that having a higher target will actually drive investment and drive supplementary emissions reduction targets to support it.</p><p>This is not a criticism, but I think it is interesting to note that, when this was being debated two years ago, the Greens moved for an unambiguous 25 per cent cut by 2020. I did not support that; I did support a 20 per cent cut based on Frontier Modelling data. But I think it is important to note that right now all this bill will deliver is a five per cent cut by 2020, and that to me is not satisfactory. I also want to make the following points. Frontier Economics used the same modellers, the Monash University Centre of Policy Studies, and the same model, the Monash Multi-Regional Forecasting model. What has been modelled here means less impact on small businesses. The problem is that you have a situation where the big end of town, the big emitters, will be compensated but the small and medium enterprises will not. I do not believe the coalition's Direct Action Plan deals with that. We will see a massive spike in electricity prices. We will see enormous uncertainty, and my concern is that, if you do not push up prices as much, you do not need to compensate as much and as such you have less revenue churn, and less revenue churn is the key here to having an efficient scheme.</p><p>I think it is also worth noting that recycling involves a tax interaction effect. I would welcome a contribution in this debate from Senator Sinodinos, for instance, who has long experience in issues of policy in his former role as chief of staff to the Prime Minister's office in the Howard government. But I think it is very important that we look at the tax interaction effects. We also need to look at the impact that this will have on the small business sector. The small business sector will be hit very hard by this, and there is a better way of getting a much better outcome.</p><p>This is a fundamental issue. This is, in a sense, a litmus test about having an efficient scheme. The difficulty here is that this scheme involves a combination of carrot and stick. The government scheme seems to involve a lot more stick and less carrot. Once you recycle revenue, you will have distortions in the economy. You will have a situation where you will cause, I believe, significant damage given the design of this scheme, and I think we can do better. The Frontier scheme provides that way forward. I know the coalition will not be supporting it at this stage, but I ask that you keep your options open.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>They did for a brief period.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>Sorry?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>For a brief period they did.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>For a brief period they did—thank you, Senator Wong—but they walked away from it. But this is still good policy. Senator Wong admires me for my loyalty and she accuses me of my loyalty to Danny Price of Frontier Economics. But I am loyal to good public policy, and I think it is important that we put this in perspective. In terms of the breadth and magnitude of economic effects, this scheme is arguably the most significant policy change in Australia's history, and as such there is a substantial onus on the government to demonstrate that, whatever policy is introduced, it is the best that can be developed. I believe we have not done that in relation to this scheme. If we look at the distortionary effects of such a scheme and at the impact on taxes then I think we will see a significant flow-on effect on the economy which will be negative.</p><p>Let us look at what the Obama administration proposed at the beginning of this year: having a clean energy standard. That is consistent with the Frontier scheme. That is consistent with a more efficient approach to achieving a better outcome. That is why I would urge my colleagues in the coalition to at least consider this—if not now, some other time. The fact is that the direct action scheme will not cut it. The direct action scheme will not provide the long-term benefits and a much more efficient way of dealing with this policy problem. But, again, I make it clear that I move these amendments against the backdrop of ensuring that the Australian people have a say before any such scheme is implemented.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>As a matter of courtesy I thought I should just put the government's position on the record, but if Senator Joyce wishes to indicate the opposition's first then I am happy to go afterwards.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>No, I have questions with regard to the amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>On the amendments before the chamber that Senator Xenophon has spoken to, the government does not support these amendments. The government does stand by its 2020 target range of five to 15 or 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 on the terms that we have previously indicated. The senator would be aware from earlier discussions that the architecture in this legislation does differ from the CPRS in a number of important respects. The first is in relation to the fixed-price period, which is obviously a three-year period. The second is that these bills create the Climate Change Authority and task it with providing independent advice on pollution caps and carbon budgets that must be considered by the minister administering the legislation when setting the initial and subsequent pollution caps by regulation, which of course are disallowable instruments. I think we have discussed that issue earlier. So, for those reasons, the government will not be supporting Senator Xenophon's amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>On this amendment pertaining to carbon reduction, the minister said agriculture is not included. Is she aware of anywhere in her legislation—noting that at this point in time I have asked her three questions and been unable to get an answer on any of them—where there is any future review period for the inclusion of agriculture?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>The government's position is that agriculture is excluded permanently.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>So you categorically say to this chamber that nowhere in your legislation is there the suggestion that there will be at a future date—maybe around 2030—a situation where there is, by a range of other agreements, the inclusion of agriculture?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>The reference to 2030 may be that the Treasury modelling assumed that other nations—or some other nations—will cover agriculture at 2030. I am advised that that was not assumed for the revised modelling, which reflected the government's position of permanent exclusion here in Australia.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>So it is now saying that there is no future inclusion of agriculture. I will take your word for that. I want to go now to schedule 1, part 2, section 278, subsection 7, where you talk about carbon dioxide equivalence. It is on page 54. Minister, to your knowledge, in your carbon dioxide equivalence, is methane from organic sources such as grass scientifically the same multiplier as methane from mineral sources such as coal?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Senator, first, I am not sure of your reference, because proposed section 278 of the Clean Energy Bill is a different proposition. It may be the explanatory memorandum. But methane is methane.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>Is it?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>It is CH4 from memory.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>That is interesting. I direct you, then, to the Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011, on page 54: proposed section 278, amending section 7 of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. Since methane is methane, as you stated, do you therefore disagree with the PhD thesis of a number of people from Sydney university who say the multiplier of methane from organic sources is completely different, as far as greenhouse gas emissions go, to that of mineral sources?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I am having difficulty extrapolating from clause 278, which substitutes a definition of carbon dioxide equivalence, to the proposition you are making about someone's PhD. I am sorry if I am not able to make that leap, but I am having some difficulty.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>What is the multiplier on carbon dioxide—that is, the uplift factor that you give to methane?</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I am not sure that that is in the legislation. That is a question of scientific fact, so I will see if I can get some advice on that. I am not sure that that is prescribed in the legislation.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>- Senator BERNARDI
- I move:
- That progress be reported.
- Question put.
- The committee divided. [21:52]
- (The Chairman—Senator Parry)
- Question negatived.
- The CHAIRMAN: It being after 9.50 pm, I shall report progress to the Senate.
- Progress reported.
|