|
senate vote 2017-09-11#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-10-10 17:51:05
|
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 - Don't consider climate change
Description
<p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>For the benefit of the Senate, the great frustration is that I have an amendment to move. Perhaps someone would like to stand up and make a contribution in the interim. Senator Leyonhjelm is on his way. Senator Leyonhjelm, the committee is considering the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017. We haven't had any amendments moved.</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.190.1) introduced by NSW Senator [David Leyonhjelm](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_leyonhjelm) (Liberal Democratic Party), which means they failed.
- Senator Leyonhjelm [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2017-09-11.190.1):
- > *Amendment (1) limits the objective of this scheme to the improvement of air quality, rather than the improvement of air quality or contributing to the Australian government meeting its obligations under climate change conventions. Amendment (2) is consequential to this in that it removes the redundant definition of 'Climate change conventions'.*
- >
- > *As I outlined in my contribution in the second reading debate, it may on occasion be appropriate to ban a product because of its detriment to air quality, but products should not be banned just to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Until other major emitters, like China, Russia, India and Brazil, which emit more emissions in a day than Australia emits in a year, are prepared to act to reduce their emissions and not just talk about them, it amounts to economic suicide for Australia to go down this path. No matter what you believe about climate change, economic suicide is just plain dumb.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 17 to 22), omit paragraph (b) (including the note), substitute:*
- >
- >> *(b) in doing so, to contribute to improving air quality in Australia in order to deliver associated health and environmental benefits.*
- >
- > *(2) Clause 7, page 4 (lines 10 to 22), omit the definition of Climate Change Conventions (including the note).*
<p class="speaker">David Leyonhjelm</p><p>by leave—I move Liberal Democrats amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8238:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 17 to 22), omit paragraph (b) (including the note), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(b) in doing so, to contribute to improving air quality in Australia in order to deliver associated health and environmental benefits.</p><p class="italic">(2) Clause 7, page 4 (lines 10 to 22), omit the definition of <i>Climate Change Conventions</i> (including the note).</p><p>Amendment (1) limits the objective of this scheme to the improvement of air quality, rather than the improvement of air quality or contributing to the Australian government meeting its obligations under climate change conventions. Amendment (2) is consequential to this in that it removes the redundant definition of 'Climate change conventions'.</p><p>As I outlined in my contribution in the second reading debate, it may on occasion be appropriate to ban a product because of its detriment to air quality, but products should not be banned just to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Until other major emitters, like China, Russia, India and Brazil, which emit more emissions in a day than Australia emits in a year, are prepared to act to reduce their emissions and not just talk about them, it amounts to economic suicide for Australia to go down this path. No matter what you believe about climate change, economic suicide is just plain dumb.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>I just want to place the opposition's opposition to these amendments on record. We believe that the amendments moved by Senator Leyonhjelm run counter to the purpose of the bill and, indeed, remove its legal powers. We are opposing them.</p> <p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>I also want noted that the Australian Greens will not be supporting the amendments of Senator Leyonhjelm. This bill is taking a small step forward in terms of reducing pollution from the technologies that it covers. Senator Leyonhjelm's amendments would, in fact, take us a long way backwards, rather than taking a small step forward.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Senator Leyonhjelm, thank you for your amendments. I understand the intent of your amendments, and I note in some ways the intent of your amendments is not dissimilar to some of the comments that Senator Roberts made in his contribution, highlighting what the actual focus of the bill is. But, in relation to the particular provisions that you seek to omit from the legislation, it is the government's view that, because they provide part of the basis for the constitutional underpinning of this bill—namely, the external affairs power—it is important that the provisions remain as printed.</p> <p class="speaker">Cory Bernardi</p><p>It is my intention and the intention of the Australian Conservatives to support the amendments moved by Senator Leyonhjelm. I put that on the record. I also understand, Senator Leyonhjelm, that you would like to call a division on this. That being the case, I will lend my voice to the division should it be required.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I thank Senator Bernardi for his contribution. As I was indicating, I did note in the concluding speeches at the second reading stage that Senator Roberts made a contribution that particularly highlighted the types of matters that are sought to be regulated under the Production Emissions Standards Bill. This related to particulates that can clearly be harmful to human health under certain circumstances. They are particulates that we do seek to regulate in other ways. The overwhelming priority and objective of this bill is absolutely to ensure that those particulates, carbon monoxide and others, are controlled in a safe and appropriate way to create a circumstance in which we can have confidence that, whether it be motor vehicles or small petrol engines, which were the subject of some of the discussion, we have standards to ensure their quality and the safety of Australians.</p><p>Of course, like all legislation passed through this place, it is important that there also be clear constitutional underpinning for such legislation. In this case, one of the powers upon which the legislation stands is the external affairs power as a constitutional basis for the bill. As a result of that, the government has cited in clause 7, lines 10 to 22 of page 4, definitions of some of the conventions through which that external affairs power is sourced, whilst, of course, also then identifying, within the objects of the bill, the reference to some of those conventions. The circumstances that we have here are such that the government believes the bill needs to stand as printed. <i>(Quorum formed)</i></p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Leyonhjelm on sheet 8238 be agreed to.</p> -
-
|