senate vote 2017-09-11#10
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-10-10 17:45:55
|
Title
Bills — Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017, Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017, Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017, Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017; in Committee
- Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017 and three others - in Committee - Motor vehicles
Description
<p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p>
<p>by leave—I move Australian Conservatives amendments (1), (2) and (3) together on sheet 8249:</p>
<p class="italic">(1) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 4), after the definition of <i>mark</i>, insert:</p>
<p class="italic"><i>  motor vehicle</i>:</p>
<p class="italic">  (a) means a vehicle that uses, or is designed to use, volatile spirit, gas, oil, electricity or any other power (not being human or animal power) as the principal means of compulsion; and</p>
<p class="italic">  (b) includes a vehicle not designed for use on public roads or not permitted to be used on public roads.</p>
<p class="italic">(2) Clause 7, page 5 (lines 7 to 10), omit the definition of <i>product</i>, substitute:</p>
<p class="italic"><i>  product</i> has the meaning given by subsection (5).</p>
<p class="italic">(3) Clause 7, page 6 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add:</p>
<p class="italic">(5) Subject to subsection (6), a <i>product</i> means a thing (including a substance or mixture of substances) that is:</p>
<p class="italic">  (a) manufactured; or</p>
<p class="italic">  (b) prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this definition.</p>
<p class="italic">(6) A product does not include a motor vehicle.</p>
<p class="italic">Note: For the regulation of emissions in relation to road motor vehicles, see the <i>Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989</i>.</p>
<p>I won't delay the Senate unnecessarily. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the government is true to its word in only intending to apply the scope of this bill to whipper-snippers, lawnmowers, outboard motors and other areas it has expressly identified, but expressly excluding vehicles. Vehicles are the highest source of emissions, but the government has sworn off regulating vehicle emission during this term of government. This amendment is to find out whether those are weasel words or a carved-in-stone position for both the government and the opposition.</p>
<p>If the coalition are so clear there is not going to be a carbon tax on cars, despite their consultation underway on noxious emissions, they can support this amendment. Similarly, colleagues in the Labor Party who attacked the government in July for proposing a carbon tax on cars can join the Australian Conservatives today in putting that concern to bed. Similarly, I would say to the Nick Xenophon Team: the auto industry is also advocating for certainty. What better certainty than contractual certainty? That is what we will help. I'm well aware that the Motor Vehicle Standard Act relates to road vehicles. This is the proper place, therefore, should the government wish so, to regulate emissions from on-road vehicles. Due to the act not concerning off-road vehicles, be they tractors, earth-moving equipment, mining equipment and the forklifts prolific throughout warehouses in Australia, they're not necessarily captured by the Motor Vehicle Standard Act. We want to make it absolutely clear that this act that we're debating today cannot be applied to them either.</p>
<p>In short, the Australian Conservatives do not trust a government, this one or an alternative government, responsibly using the minister's power to impose regulations on low-cost goods that might have health-effecting emissions. The government might say that the proper course is disallowance. Well, by its rhetoric in June, when they invoked the ghost of the king of pop Elvis Presley, the only way to ensure a carbon tax on cars is dead, buried and cremated, or the closest thing to it, is to put it in law—that it will not be coming through in this regime. We cannot allow carbon taxation or emissions regulation by stealth, given how hotly contested the political space has been on this topic.</p>
<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>
<p>As the government has been clear in the explanatory memoranda and in all the explanations to this, this legislation is to apply to non-road spark ignition engines and products, as defined. There is separate legislation that applies exclusively to motor vehicles in the transport portfolio. This legislation is very clearly only to apply to the non-road spark ignition engines and equipment, as outlined in the explanatory memoranda and elsewhere. Therefore, the government believes this amendment is not necessary and is saddened by Senator Bernardi's lack of trust.</p>
<p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p>
<p>I'm pleased that the minister has had a chance to put the government's position on record. That is a helpful contribution with which we agree. And we also oppose the amendments.</p>
<p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p>
<p>I seek the minister's advice. He said that this bill applies to non-road spark engines—or however you described it. But, Minister, does that specifically prohibit the extension of the regulations to non-road-going vehicles, such as tractors, farm vehicles, off-terrain vehicles or unregistered vehicles? If I recall, Minister Frydenberg said that there was more chance of Elvis coming back than a carbon tax on cars. This would appear to me to be an opportunity for you to impose what is effectively a carbon tax, an emissions standards scheme, on non-road vehicles, which you have specifically said does fall within the gambit of this. Are you with Minister Frydenberg in saying that Elvis Presley is not coming back, or do I hear the warblings of the great man in this chamber?</p>
<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>
<p>I'm pleased to advise Senator Bernardi and all senators that you won't be hearing my warblings. That is the last thing you would want to hear. I'm not so pleased to advise, but I am happy to make a ministerial confirmation, that Elvis is dead.</p>
<p class="italic">Senator Smith interjecting—</p>
<p class="italic">Senator Dastyari interjecting—</p>
<p>I'm sorry to disappoint Senator Dastyari. I think Senator Smith quietly behind me just made reference to 'Suspicious Minds'<i>.</i> Perhaps there are some suspicious minds at play in relation to the intent behind this legislation or indeed Elvis's existence or otherwise. Senator Bernardi, I can be very clear that the government will not extend any provisions under this legislation—should there even be any scope to do so, which I don't necessarily believe there is—to the types of vehicles that you have outlined in your question.</p>
<p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p>
<p>I thank the minister for his assurance and the element of doubt about whether the scope is there to do that. However, to ensure the Australian people can be completely satisfied that there is not going to be an increase in regulation and a carbon tax by stealth and to prevent a more enthusiastic carbon-taxer than Minister Frydenberg and yourself—if that's possible, Senator Birmingham—from assuming the ministerial benches and imposing this by regulation, why is it that the government won't support these amendments, which at the very least will do no harm?</p>
<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>
<p>Senator Bernardi, as I outlined, we don't believe that your amendments are necessary. There are quite tight prescriptions within the bill in terms of comebacks to the chamber or to the parliament should there be any attempt to extend the scope or reach of the legislation in any particular way, and we don't see the need to further delay passage of the legislation through adopting unnecessary amendments.</p>
<p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p>
<p>I'm just a little concerned, because you yourselves don't seem to know. So why don't we put a safety net in here? Why don't you support Senator Bernardi's amendments? You are over there tap-dancing all over the show, and it is quite embarrassing for you that you don't know your own bill. When it comes to what you don't know, you are certainly not assuring me or anybody else here or the Australian people. So let's go back to the amendments and put them through?</p>
<p class="speaker">David Leyonhjelm</p>
<p>I indicate that the Liberal Democrats support Senator Bernardi's amendments. Governments can't be trusted. A 'trust me' statement is only as good as today, and governments do change over time. In terms of proof, can I indicate that Elvis might be dead but 'Halal Elvis' is alive! I saw his picture just recently. So you really cannot believe anything that you hear from anybody.</p>
<p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p>
<p>The Australian Greens will not be supporting Senator Bernardi's amendments. Very sadly, Elvis is a very, very long way from the building. In fact, we would like him to be rather closer because I think in terms of vehicle emissions, the government is not currently proceeding at the rate that the Australian community would like it to proceed in order to have cleaner vehicles, but it is clear that they are not covered by this legislation. This is the leaf blower and lawnmower legislation essentially, and I think that it's not realistic of Senator Bernardi to claim that it is.</p>
<p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p>
<p>I ask the minister whether he can categorically rule out that this legislation will be used in its current form, at any stage, to impose an emissions standard on, say, farm tractors?</p>
<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>
<p>On behalf of the government, I am happy to give that categorical assurance.</p>
<p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p>
<p>Let me just confirm that, Minister. Your categorical assurance is that this legislation cannot be used by this government or successive governments to impose regulations on emissions for farm tractors? Not that this government's not going to, but just that this legislation does not allow it to happen.</p>
<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>
<p>My categorical assurance is that the government would not ever seek to do so, Senator Bernardi. In relation to what future governments may seek to do, that is a matter for future governments. Of course, there are powers and opportunities for the Senate to deny future governments the potential to do so, were they ever to seek to do so.</p>
<p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p>
<p>What I think we've just experienced is one simple example whereby the minister is prepared to offer an assurance for this government, but not that this legislation cannot be used to impose these emissions standards, or the carbon tax by stealth, outside of the leaf blowers, the whipper-snippers and the outboard motors that have been mentioned. This legislation is in essence a carbon tax opportunity for governments. They can impose additional standards and additional costs on a whole range of vehicles because they are not protected under this act.</p>
<p>Our amendments will simply provide some certainty and some surety and, if the government has the confidence in its own statements that it will not be applied to off-road motor vehicles and other vehicles that I've identified, then they need to support these amendments. If they won't, it means their words are as hollow as the words they've said in the last five or six years. They are as hollow as the words the Labor Party said when they were in government: 'There will be no carbon tax in the government that I lead.' 'There will be no carbon tax on cars,' as the rhetorical flourish from Minister Frydenberg said.</p>
<p>This is an opportunity for the government to impose the equivalent of a carbon tax on vehicles that are not road registered. If the Australian people have any doubt that that is what it is, they have to look at what the minister has said in refusing to rule it out categorically, that this legislation can be used in that manner. And it is a flaw in the legislation, it is a flaw in the bill. But, if the government wants to close that door and say, 'We're not even opening it up,' they will support these amendments. If they fail to support these amendments, not only are they betraying farm communities and off-road enthusiasts, the motor drag racers and a whole range of other people who might cross the green gods in pursuit of enjoyment or economic benefit, but they will be opening themselves up to another headline of the carbon tax by stealth. The carbon tax is coming for your vehicles. They will open themselves up to the accusation in every regional electorate of Australia that the government is going to start taxing their fuel, their vehicles and their recreational vehicles.</p>
<p>I have never said it before, but I wish Ricky Muir were here today. Former Senator Muir would be cheering this amendment on because he understands the importance of recreational vehicles for off-road use. This is—</p>
<p class="speaker">Honourable Senator</p>
<p>An honourable senator interjecting—</p>
<p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p>
<p>Yes, with all apologies to Senator Hinch. We could have both of you perhaps. Minister, it's as simple as providing assurances that this is not some sort of secretive stealth deal which you're going to expand; they come for the whipper snippers today and next time they come for something better—an all-terrain vehicle—or they come for something broader like a farm tractor.</p>
<p class="speaker">Richard Di Natale</p>
<p>Could be a chainsaw.</p>
<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.197.1) introduced by South Australian Senator [Cory Bernardi](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/cory_bernardi) (Australian Conservatives), which means they failed.
- Senator Bernardi [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.197.1):
- > *The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the government is true to its word in only intending to apply the scope of this bill to whipper-snippers, lawnmowers, outboard motors and other areas it has expressly identified, but expressly excluding vehicles. Vehicles are the highest source of emissions, but the government has sworn off regulating vehicle emission during this term of government.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 4), after the definition of mark, insert:*
- >
- >> *motor vehicle:*
- >>
- >> *(a) means a vehicle that uses, or is designed to use, volatile spirit, gas, oil, electricity or any other power (not being human or animal power) as the principal means of compulsion; and*
- >>
- >> *(b) includes a vehicle not designed for use on public roads or not permitted to be used on public roads.*
- >
- > *(2) Clause 7, page 5 (lines 7 to 10), omit the definition of product, substitute:*
- >
- >> *product has the meaning given by subsection (5).*
- >
- > *(3) Clause 7, page 6 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add:*
- >
- >> *(5) Subject to subsection (6), a product means a thing (including a substance or mixture of substances) that is:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) manufactured; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this definition.*
- >>
- >> *(6) A product does not include a motor vehicle.*
- >>
- >> *Note: For the regulation of emissions in relation to road motor vehicles, see the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989.*
-
-
|