|
senate vote 2014-07-10#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2014-07-11 11:32:16
|
Title
Bills — Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], True-Up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], True-Up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2], Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013, Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2], Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]; Declaration of Urgency- Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and related bills - Declaration of Urgency - Declare bills urgent
Description
<p class="speaker">Mitch Fifield</p><p>I declare that the following bills are urgent bills and I move:</p><p class="italic">That these bills be considered urgent bills:</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2014-07-10.5.3 motion] introduced by Liberal Senator [http://publicwhip-test.openaustraliafoundation.org.au/mp.php?mpn=Mitch_Fifield&mpc=Senate&house=senate Mitch Fifield], which means that it was successful. The motion was:
- ''That these bills be considered urgent bills:''
- * ''Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [N0. 2]''
- * ''True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]''
- * ''True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]''
- * ''Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]''
- * ''Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]''
- * ''Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]''
- * ''Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2]''
- * ''Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]''
- Background to the bills
- The [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5292 Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)] and related bills were introduced to remove 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 second time that this package of bills has been introduced, after they were rejected in the Senate during the third reading stage the first time round.[3]
- The other related bills that were introduced along with the [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5292 Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)] are:
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5296 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5295 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5293 True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5294 True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5297 Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5291 Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5290 Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5298 Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013 (No. 2)];
- * [http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5299 Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013 (No. 2)].
- ''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].
<p class="italic">Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [N0. 2]</p><p class="italic">True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]</p><p class="italic">True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]</p><p class="italic">Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]</p><p class="italic">Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]</p><p class="italic">Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]</p><p class="italic">Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2]</p><p class="italic">Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I seek leave to make a five-minute statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Leave is granted.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Today the government will use its numbers with the support of some members of the crossbench to deny this Senate its opportunity to fully consider the carbon price. It will truncate debate and it will put all of the remaining questions at 11.50 this morning. So after just two days of debate in the current Senate, the government is forcing debate on this package of nine bills to an end. Let us just reflect, if we may, before this motion is put, about the events of this week. On three or four sitting days this week, this government has moved motions without notice, seeking to cut short debate on these bills. At the end of this morning's procedural votes, the new crossbench will have been asked to vote five times—</p><p class="italic">Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Order on my right!</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>in their first week to stop senators doing what we were sent here to do which is to debate legislation. Having already forced this Senate to sit in July, just days after new senators took their seats, and having already brought forward debate on the carbon bills from 14 July, what we have seen is this government bullying, cajoling, and pressuring the crossbench into shutting down debate after just two days.</p><p>I indicated yesterday that the opposition had on Tuesday offered to give up our time not only this morning but also this afternoon for further debate on the carbon price bills. This Leader of the Government in the Senate did not do me, the opposition or any senator, as far as I am aware, the courtesy of even responding to that offer. The response that we did get was the motion moved yesterday, without notice, in which the government sought unsuccessfully to bring the debate to an end by lunchtime that day. So I say this to the crossbench: we accept your right to have different views on the substantive issues before the chamber—and you will have different views on the substantive issues. We accept your right to debate them; we accept your right to vote the way you wish to vote. What I say to the crossbench is: the chamber does not need to operate in this way. The chamber does not need in the first week of the sitting of the new Senate to have no less than five votes to shut down debate and to have three or four days of procedural debate because the government wants to shut down debate. It is not because they have to get the bill through; the bill would have got through. All of you, or your staff, were at the meeting of leaders and whips and you know that the bill would have passed this fortnight—</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>On a point of order, Mr President. I draw the Senate's attention to standing order 194, which says:</p><p class="italic">(1) A senator shall not digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion, or anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper.</p><p>My point of order, Mr President, is that Senator Wong is clearly anticipating a discussion on something that is on the <i>Notice Paper</i> for discussion later today. She is suggesting that different senators may vote a particular way, and in so doing I think she breaches the provisions of standing order 194.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>There is no point of order, Senator Macdonald. Senator Wong has been given leave by the Senate to speak for five minutes concerning these bills.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Again, I say to the crossbench: the chamber should not operate this way. Just because this government has no respect for the Senate does not mean that you have to accept this. I say to you: do not let the events and the practices of this week become the norm. Do not let the Prime Minister's office and its enforcers lean on you to shut down debate, to deny scrutiny, to turn this place into an arm of the Prime Minister's press office by telling the media what you will do before you tell them—</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>On a point of order, Mr President. I raise for your attention and the Senate's attention standing order 193, relating to use of offensive words et cetera. The bit I want to draw to your attention, Mr President, is this:</p><p class="italic">… all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on those Houses, members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly.</p><p>The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is suggesting that some senators who are not members of the coalition are part of, I think she said, the Prime Minister's media campaign or media group.</p><p>Opposition senators interjecting—</p><p>I hear the interjections of Senator Bilyk. She has never even read the standing orders and would not know how to if she did.</p><p class="italic">Senator Bilyk interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Senator Macdonald, stay with the point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>I ignore the interjection, Mr President, and suggest that Senator Wong is imputing improper motives to those who might have a different view from her on the subject.</p> <p class="speaker">Claire Moore</p><p>Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I want to make the point that Senator Wong was in the process of making her statement in response to the lead that was given. It is interesting that Senator Macdonald, in calling a point of order on a point about casting reflection in the chamber, needed to use the same point of order against one of the senators on this side of the chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>You are starting to debate, Senator Moore. Order! Senator Macdonald has the right to raise a point of order. In this case there is no point of order. Senator Wong has been given leave.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>I say to the crossbench: do not let the events of this week become the norm with the Prime Minister's office and its enforcers and others leaning on you to shut down debate, to deny scrutiny, to turn this place into an arm of the Prime Minister's press office. As I said, the media are told what you will do before you tell the chamber, and the conclusion of this debate is timed so as to accord with the Prime Minister's schedule for his media conference. I say this to the crossbench: do not let this Senate become Mr Abbott's rubber stamp.</p> <p class="speaker">Ian Macdonald</p><p>On a point of order, Mr President. Not only is that an imputation against senators, but it is also an imputation against a member of the other House, namely the Prime Minister—</p><p>Opposition senators interjecting—</p><p>and the allegations that he is leaning on senators and that senators are going to become part of his rubber stamp are imputations of improper motives.</p><p class="italic">Senator Conroy interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Senator Conroy, it will be quicker if you allow the debate to proceed correctly. On the point of order, Senator Macdonald, you possibly have a technical correction in your point of order, but if I were to apply that point of order to every senator in this chamber, debate would be completely stifled. However, could I remind all senators, not just Senator Wong, that standing orders do exist to run orderly and respectful debate.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>This government has turned on the people who elected it and only this chamber can stand up to them. So I say again to the crossbench: do not let this Senate become Mr Abbott's rubber stamp and do not allow the events of this week to become the norm. There is a better way to run this chamber. We are prepared to be reasonable up front and negotiate. We do not need the stealth-attack approach to running the Senate chamber.</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Eric Abetz</p><p>Thirty-three hours and 52 minutes of debate, plus that which has occurred this week, has already taken place on these measures. Fifty-two bills were guillotined in this place without a single syllable spoken, courtesy of Senator Wong and the Greens—let's keep that in mind. The urgency of this is that the markets need to react to the decision of the Senate in relation to the carbon tax. Given that the Labor-Greens carbon tax, which we were promised would not be introduced, ticked over again on 1 July with another rate increase, power companies need to know whether or not to charge the extra tax imposed by Labor. The urgency of this is so that we can do the will of the Australian people and remove this toxic tax, which is a burden on the cost of living and which has been destroying jobs without doing anything for the environment.</p> <p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Christine Milne</p><p>What has gone on here this week is that the government has abused process by bringing the Senate back in the first week. The Greens opposed that decision at the time and said clearly that the Prime Minister wanted to ram through his political agenda in this first week with people who were new to the Senate. What we are now experiencing is the logical extension of his intention to show such contempt for the Senate and for new senators. Since the government are intending to cut this debate short and deny much time to speak on it, I urge the minister to stop filibustering in the committee part of this debate, so that we can get questions answered in the very short time we have.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>I seek leave to make a short statement.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>Leave is granted for one minute.</p> <p class="speaker">Nick Xenophon</p><p>In the six years I have been here I have always hated the guillotine. I hate the gag. I hate the fact that this time last year there were something like 50 bills rammed through without any debate. We need to have a better way of doing things. I appreciated very much yesterday that Senator Milne gave an opportunity to at least extend the debate by several hours. That was at least some improvement in the process. This is the Hobson's choice I have. I cannot in good conscience support a guillotine. Where I stand in this debate is another issue, but I urge my colleagues to consider that there must be a better way of managing the business of this place. Maybe earlier this week we should have agreed to sit extra hours so there could be extra debate. That motion was not forthcoming. In the circumstances, I expect these bills will be dealt with today. It would have been better if we had had much more time.</p> <p class="speaker">Stephen Parry</p><p>The question is that the motion moved by Senator Fifield that certain bills be considered urgent be agreed to.</p><p class="italic"> <i>An incident having occurred in the gallery—</i></p><p>Order in the gallery!</p>
|