Senate debates
Thursday, 22 September 2011
Committees
Selection of Bills Committee; Report
11:56 am
Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I present the 13th report of 2011 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
The report read as follows—
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
REPORT NO. 13 OF 2011
1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 21 September 2011 at 6.58 pm.
2. The committee resolved to recommend—That the provisions of the Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 23 November 2011 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral).
3. The committee resolved to recommend—That the following bills not be referred to committees:
The committee recommends accordingly.
4. The committee considered proposals to refer the provisions of the following bills to each of the Senate legislation committees, but was unable to reach agreement on whether the bills should be referred (see appendices 2 to 9 for statements of reasons for referral to each committee):
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
5. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting:
Chair
22 September 2011
Appendix 1
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill: Consumer Credit and Corporations Legislation Amendment (Enhancements) Bill 2011 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
To determine whether the proposed protections for consumers who enter into small amount credit contracts (including a cap on the maximum amount credit providers can charge under these contracts) are adequate.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Consumer Action Law Centre
CHOICE
Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS)
The Centre for Credit and Consumer Law - Queensland Consumers Health Forum
Consumer Utilities Advocacy Centre Ltd
Financial and Consumer Rights Council Inc
Not Good Enough
Public Interest Advocacy Centre Ltd
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Economics Legislation Committee
Possible hearing date(s):
December 2011 / January 2012
Possible reporting date:
3rd sitting day of 2012
(signed)
Senator Siewert
Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 2
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Clean Energy Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011
Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011
Climate Change Authority Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Impacts of the legislative package on families and other households, carers, not-for-profit volunteer organisations and the charitable sector, including but not limited to the adequacy or otherwise of compensation measures
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Australian Council of Social Service, Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association, Australian Taxation Office, Federation of Ethic Communities' Councils of Australia, National Disability Services, Uniting Justice Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs
Possible hearing date(s):
October, November, December 2011 & January 2012
Possible reporting date:
Second sitting day of 2012
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 3
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Clean Energy Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) BM 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011
Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011
Climate Change Authority Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Impacts of the legislative package on the Australian economy, including but not limited to its impacts on Australia's competitiveness with reference to emissions activities and emissions reduction measures being taken by Australia's trade competitors, as well as energy security and costs and transport and other infrastructure costs
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of the Treasury, Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Australian Industry Group, Energy Supply Association of Australia, National Generators Forum
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Economics
Possible hearing date(s):
October, November, December 2011 & January 2012
Possible reporting date:
Second sitting day of 2012
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 4
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Clean Energy Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011
Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011
Climate Change Authority Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Impacts of the legislative package on employment and jobs, including but not limited to impacts related to energy security and costs, transport and other infrastructure costs and also Australia's competitiveness with trade competitors
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Australian Council of Trade Unions, Business Council of Australia, Minerals Council of Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations
Possible hearing date(s):
October, November, December 2011 & January 2012
Possible reporting date:
Second sitting day of 2012
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Clean Energy Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge Auctions) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011
Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011
Climate Change Authority Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
The effectiveness or otherwise of the legislative package in achieving claimed environmental outcomes, including its contribution towards meeting Australia's stated emissions reduction targets.
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Industry Greenhouse Network, Clean Energy Council, Climate Institute, Sustainable Business Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications
Possible hearing date(s):
October, November, December 2011 & January 2012
Possible reporting date:
Second sitting day of 2012
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 5
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Clean Energy Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011
Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011
Climate Change Authority Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Impacts of the legislative package on Australian trade and international relations, including but not limited to implications arising from the treatment of emissions activities and emissions reduction measures in other major economies and Australia's trading competitors, as well as the status of international agreements and the operation of the international carbon market
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Financial Markets Association, Carbon Farming and Trading Association, Centre for Independent Studies, Institute of Public Affairs, Minerals Council of Australia, National Farmers' Federation
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
Possible hearing date(s):
October, November, December 2011 & January 2012
Possible reporting date:
Second sitting day of 2012
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 7
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Clean Energy Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011
Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011
Climate Change Authority Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Budgetary implications, both short- and long-term, of measures within the legislative package Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of the Treasury, Department of Finance and Deregulation, Australian National Audit Office, state governments
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration
Possible hearing date(s):
October, November, December 2011 & January 2012
Possible reporting date:
Second sitting day of 2012
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 8
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Clean Energy Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge Fixed Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011
Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011
Climate Change Authority Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Household. Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Impacts of the legislative package on property rights, customs duties and related matters
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Attorney-General's Department, Australian Trade Commission, state governments, Law Council of Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Possible hearing date(s):
October, November, December 2011 & January 2012
Possible reporting date:
Second sitting day in 2012
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Selection of Bills Committee member
Appendix 9
SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE
Proposal to refer a bill to a committee
Name of bill:
Clean Energy Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011
Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011
Climate Change Authority Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011
Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:
Impacts of the legislative package on the transport sector, including but not limited to impacts on fuel costs, and on rural and regional Australia, including but not limited to impacts on the tourism sector
Possible submissions or evidence from:
Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Department of Regional Australia, Regional Development and Local Government, Australian Automobile Association, Australian Livestock and Rural Transport Association, Australian Road Transport Industrial Organisation, National Farmers' Federation, Shipping Australia, Tourism and Transport Forum, Tourism Australia
Committee to which bill is to be referred:
Senate Standing Committee on Rural Affairs and Transport
Possible hearing date(s):
October, November, December 2011 & January 2012
Possible reporting date:
Second sitting day of 2012
(signed)
Senator Fifield
Selection of Bills Committee member
I move:
That the report be adopted.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I move an amendment to the motion that the report be adopted:
That the provisions of the:
a. Clean Energy Bill 2011
b. Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011
c. Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011
d. Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011
e. Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011
f. Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Bill 2011
g. Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011
h. Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011
i. Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011
j. Climate Change Authority Bill 2011
k. Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
l. Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011
m. Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011
n. Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011
o. Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
p. Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011
q. Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011
r. Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011
s. Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011
be referred to the following committees:
Community Affairs Legislation Committee
Economics Legislation Committee
Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee
Environment and Communications Legislation Committee
Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee
Rural Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
for inquiry and report by the second sitting day in 2012. The reasons for the referral of each these bills is set out in the section entitled “Reasons for referral”, contained in the appendices of the Selection of Bills Report 13 of 2011.
It is with a great sense of disappointment that I rise to my feet and find myself in the position of having to move an amendment to the motion to take note of the report of the Selection of Bills Committee. One of the great strengths of the Australian Senate is its committees that put partisanship aside and work cooperatively in a spirit of consensus. Those committees are the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, the Privileges Committee, the Senators Interests' Committee, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and the committee in question today, the Selection of Bills committee, all of which have traditionally operated in a consensual fashion.
The Selection of Bills Committee, as my colleagues know, operates as the clearing house for bills in this place. It ensures that, where colleagues have legitimate reason for recommending that bills be examined by a committee, this happens. Debate about time frames certainly happens within that committee. Debate about which schedules might be referred certainly happens. Debate about which committee is best placed to examine a particular piece of legislation also occurs in that committee. There is give and take, but consensus is achieved. We are very proud that the Senate runs its own race. Whether or not there are House committees or joint committees addressing the same legislation, the Senate reserves its right as an independent chamber, as a house of review, and as a result there are often concurrent inquiries.
In my time on the Selection of Bills Committee there has never been an outright no to a committee reference. In my view the committee, in facing probably its greatest test since I have been in the parliament, has failed. It failed because the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens elected to put partisanship and party ahead of supporting the Senate's role of review. I am not entirely surprised by the Australian Labor Party's behaviour, but I am gobsmacked that those great champions of the Senate committee processes, the Australian Greens, sought to deny the opportunity for Senate committees to do their job. This is something that the Australian Democrats never would have supported.
This amendment provides the opportunity for the Australian Greens and the Australian Labor Party to think again. This amendment provides the opportunity for the Senate to set things right, to see the Senate provide the sort of scrutiny that the carbon tax bills warrant and that the Senate is duty bound to provide. Rather than have 19 bills corralled in one stacked joint committee with unreasonable time frames, the coalition's proposal is for all bills to be referred to the eight Senate legislation committees to consider those provisions which are relevant for each committee's jurisdiction. The coalition proposal is also for a reasonable time frame, that committees are to report back by the second sitting day of 2012. There are eight pages of detailed reasoning, which were submitted to the committee to support our proposition.
The Prime Minister, we know, essentially committed electoral fraud with her statement before the last election that there would be no carbon tax under a government she leads. She may end up being technically correct because the carbon tax is not due to take effect until the middle of next year, and it may well be that she is no longer the Prime Minister at that time. So she may end up being technically correct.
Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Fifield has raised a term in relation to the Prime Minister which is unparliamentary, certainly in this chamber. He should withdraw.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order, I said the Prime Minister had committed electoral fraud. I do not mean that in a technical sense of breaching legislation but just in a moral sense.
Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Fifield, in that case you should withdraw.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I have used that phrase many times in this place, but I will withdraw that part which you find objectionable.
Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You may proceed.
Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The Prime Minister should not have fibbed—let's put it that way—but her day of reckoning will come. Her day of accountability will be at the next election but the place where the government is accountable between elections is in this chamber and in the committees of the Senate. The first step for those opposite to seek to regain some dignity and some honour for their government is for it to submit this package of legislation to the Australian Senate and to the full processes of scrutiny of this chamber. That is what the government should do. We on this side are giving it this opportunity to set things right, to correct the error that I believe it made in the Selection of Bills Committee last night. I commend this amendment to the chamber.
12:02 pm
Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Fifield said at the start of his speech that he was disappointed. I am also disappointed, at the attitude and the approach that, once again, the Liberal and National Party senators are taking in this chamber to try to delay and to stall action on climate change. I speak to support the Selection of Bills Committee's report. It is a sensible, reasonable and responsible approach to the bills and to the debate.
The opposition has spoken to amend the report so that the bills of the clean energy package are referred to various legislation committees for inquiries that would not conclude until next year. This is simply an attempt by the opposition senators to delay consideration of the legislation. They are hiding behind the rhetoric of scrutiny of legislation to delay these bills in the Senate when the cost of delay is so great to our economy and environment. It is worth reiterating just how much parliamentary scrutiny these bills have had in the past 12 months and how much consideration has been given to the issue of a price on carbon. It has been considered by parliamentary inquiries over the past 20 years. I will repeat that: the parliament has been considering the issue of climate change and our response to climate change for 20 years. During that time there have been no fewer than 36 parliamentary committee inquiries looking into the issue of climate change and the policy responses. This number increases to 37 inquiries if we include the current joint parliamentary inquiry looking into the clean energy package of legislation.
These inquiries have led to a vast accumulation of facts and all inquiries have led to the same conclusion—that a price on carbon is the best way of addressing climate change. Putting a price on carbon is at the heart of the clean energy package. In the past 12 months, a parliamentary committee has developed the proposals containing the clean energy package. Exposure drafts of the legislation were available many months ago.
Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: the minister is misleading the chamber if he refers to a parliamentary committee. A parliamentary committee is a committee of either chamber or of the parliament. If he can refer to which parliamentary committee developed these bills I would be quite intrigued.
Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There is no point of order.
Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Exposure drafts of the legislation were available for many months. There is a current joint select committee examining these bills, not to mention a Senate select committee examining the issue. The legislation has been scrutinised. The parliamentary committee process is already at work on these bills. I should also add that coalition members of parliament were given the opportunity of contributing and being part of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, given an opportunity to be part of drafting, given an opportunity to be involved in framing and debating, and they rejected it. They boycotted it and decided they wanted no part of it. We understand why. They do not believe in climate change or taking action on climate change, so they have boycotted the process.
Let us be clear about that. They have tried to stall it at every step of the way. We know that during the debate on the bills to enact the CPRS coalition senators time and time again attempted to filibuster the debate for days and days on end. We know where that ended. This has been the tactic of the Liberal Party and the Nationals. Once again, they come into this chamber with one tactic and one tactic alone—to delay the bills. They are not trying to delay the bills; they are trying to kill the bills because they do not believe in climate change.
We know that that is where the Liberal Party stands on this. This is a stalling tactic. There have been 36 parliamentary committee inquiries that have looked at this issue, have looked at the issue of climate change, have looked at what credible steps a government can take to fight climate change. And the stakes are high. We know the economic cost, we know the environmental cost, and at the same time as that the Australian people want the government to take action on climate change. They do not want stalling; they want action. That is exactly what these bills do. It is exactly why the government brought these bills to the chamber and it is exactly why we should support the report from the Selection of Bills Committee.
12:08 pm
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Australian Labor Party are deeply embarrassed by this carbon tax which was imposed on them by the Greens political party. It is true that in the last parliament between 2007 and 2010 when the current foreign minister, Mr Rudd, was Prime Minister we did have a series of parliamentary committees scrutinising what was then the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. I pause here for a moment to observe that at least the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, was not worried about parliamentary scrutiny. But what was the conclusion of that process of parliamentary scrutiny? What did the Senate do at the end of that parliamentary scrutiny? We voted the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme down because the Senate realised that the Rudd government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme was all economic pain for no environmental gain.
The Australian people were entitled to believe that the current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, in 2010 had reached the same conclusion. Why otherwise would she have gone to Mr Rudd and said, 'Let's kill this Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme'? Why otherwise would she have looked down the barrel of that camera and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'? After all the debate in this parliament over the last three years, given the failure of Copenhagen, given that there is no appropriately comprehensive global agreement, given that putting a price on carbon in Australia when China, the US, India and others are not will shift emissions, shift jobs and shift manufacturing to other parts of the world, people were entitled to believe that the current Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, had realised that that was not effective action on climate change but just an irresponsible and reckless act of economic self-harm. So when the Prime Minister changed her mind after the prodding by Senator Brown, after she went into the courtyard on 24 February 2011 and announced that there would be a carbon tax, we were told, 'Don't you worry. You are going to like it once you see the detail.' But guess what: once they saw the detail the Australian people still did not like it. Then she was going to wear out her shoe leather. The more she wore out her shoe leather the less people liked it.
After all the inquiries that we have had, I asked some basic questions of Senator Wong last week and earlier this week. Remember the question that goes to the core of this whole issue. I asked Senator Wong, 'What will be the net reduction in global emissions as a result of a carbon tax here in Australia?' She was unable to answer. The reason she was unable to answer is that she does not know what increases in emissions this Australian carbon tax would cause in other parts of the world as a result of making overseas manufacturers more competitive than manufacturers here in Australia, as a result of having overseas emitters who are less environmentally efficient than the equivalent businesses in Australia take market share away from businesses here in Australia. We now have revelations that even the climate change department itself is about to rent headquarters built with Chinese aluminium, which is cheaper, which just happens to be produced through a more emissions intensive process. It is already starting.
This government has got no answers. This is a government which tells us this carbon tax will not have any impact on jobs, yet when you look at the fine detail it looks like they have included that as an assumption in the Treasury modelling. But they continue to dishonestly claim that this carbon tax will not have any impact on jobs. These are the sorts of issues that the Senate committee process has a responsibility to the Australian people to properly explore and properly scrutinise. We should not send this to this sham inquiry which Senator Birmingham and I are both on, which will have three hearings at present, two in Canberra and one in Melbourne, not a single meeting in Western Australia or other parts of Australia where there are particular issues. It is one week for submissions, three or four days for hearings and a report by 7 October. This is 1,100 pages of legislation, 19 bills—on something we were promised we would not get.
If the Senate supports the recommendation from the Selection of Bills Committee we would be abrogating our responsibility to apply proper scrutiny to a fundamental economic change that this government wants to impose on the Australian people. Given the government's bad track record when it comes to implementing change, this Senate should make it its business to apply proper scrutiny. (Time expired)
12:13 pm
Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I rise to indicate that the last speaker's contribution to this debate indicates why, no matter how many hearings we had, it would appear that the coalition is incapable of grasping the detail of the bills. I just heard Senator Cormann challenge the government to say what the net reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions of the clean energy package is. I put to him: what is the net reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions of the coalition's direct action plan? What is the global net reduction in emissions?
Senator Cormann interjecting—
This is the complete nonsense—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Once again the opposition was heard in silence but now are yelling out across the chamber and interrupting Senator Milne's speech. That is against the standing orders and they should desist.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order, when referring to my contribution in this chamber, Senator Milne directly challenged me to provide a particular piece of information, so I was responding to the senator's explicit invitation to provide information, which clearly she does not want to listen to.
Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
There is no point of order. Senators are reminded that interjections are disorderly. I expect speakers to be heard in silence.
Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What we heard in Senator Cormann's contribution a moment ago was in fact a very good example of what has happened. The coalition have been running a Senate committee process around the country on these bills for some time. But the point at issue is that they have not actually engaged with the substance of the debate. They have used the Senate committee process to run a campaign to spread quite a substantial amount of misinformation concerning not only climate change but indeed the clean energy package.
I remind the Senate that the coalition were invited, with two places being made available on the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, to engage this issue. But it was a requirement that members of the committee actually believe in climate change and believe in pricing greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with market mechanisms. At that point the coalition said they did not believe in market mechanisms. They believe in the old Eastern European model of a centralised state, collecting taxes and paying out at twice the cost to the Australian economy of a market mechanism, as the Treasury officials and climate change officials pointed out yesterday.
So it would not matter how many Senate inquiries you had into this. They have an ideological view that opposes market mechanisms, which is quite an extraordinary thing for the coalition, who for years have tried to suggest they were economic rationalists. Now they have gone to the old Eastern European model. They do not believe in market mechanisms, and they are going to vote against this, anyway.
The Leader of the Opposition has said he will repeal every single climate bill. We know that that is a falsehood, because already they have said they will not repeal the Carbon Farming Initiative, which is in the package of bills, and the very first one that went through. They spent hours in this place opposing it and then stood up in the third reading and said they would not repeal it. That is going to be the fate of all of these bills, because the coalition do not have a policy on climate change that stands up. Increasingly, business is now saying: 'Sorry, your plan is going to cost us twice as much. We actually don't support it, either.' Mr Abbott, the leader of the coalition, is going to have to stand up very soon and acknowledge that he is not going to repeal all of the climate bills, after having told a convoy here and any number of people around the country that they will repeal the bills.
What is interesting about the inquiry into the bills—a joint house committee inquiry has been passed by the parliament—is that the coalition senators yesterday were much more inclined to grandstanding and shouting rather than getting to the actual substance of the bills. In fact, I would suggest that most of the coalition members did not even read the bills before going to the inquiry. They are not interested in testing the detail of the bill. This is all a sham. Talk about honour and dignity. Honour and dignity is about respecting the processes of the place. The parliament has agreed to this. Also, I note that the coalition now spends its time at every opportunity denying people leave to present amendments and points of view. So let's not have this self-righteous honour and process. Some of us were here when the Howard government had control of both houses. There was no honour and no process. There was abuse of Senate process day in, day out. We are now seeing the coalition exhibit the same abuse of process at every turn.
12:19 pm
Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I, too, would like to contribute to this debate and I indicate that I oppose the motion moved by Senator Fifield to amend the Selection of Bills Committee report. The reason I oppose the amendment is that once again this is just a delaying tactic by the opposition. They want to delay parliamentary consideration of a package of bills because, as we know, they are determined to do only one thing, and that is to never take any action on damaging climate change.
So that people understand it, the proposal here from the opposition is that the clean energy bills be referred to no fewer than eight Senate committees. The proposal is that those eight Senate committees would all be looking at the same legislation. It is a ridiculous proposition because the same legislation is currently under consideration by a joint select committee established, as Senator Milne said, by both houses of the parliament. Indeed, as we have heard, Senator Birmingham and Senator Cormann are on that committee and have an opportunity there to participate meaningfully in the debate on these bills. But they have chosen not to participate in—
Senator Cormann interjecting—
Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! Senator McEwen, resume your seat. I call Senator Cormann to order.
Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I was saying, there is already a process in place to examine this legislation. It is entirely appropriate that a significant select committee was set up by both houses of parliament to do that. It is not necessary to refer these bills to further Senate committees. That is just a delaying tactic on the part of the opposition.
As well as the bills already being considered by another committee of the parliament, we should also acknowledge that the debate about carbon emissions, carbon policy and policies to address climate change is hardly new to this parliament. It is also worth nothing that, although it may not be entirely apparent to most people, there is consensus in this parliament that we do need to do something about our carbon emissions. Both of the major parties and indeed the minor parties are signed up to reducing our carbon emissions. However, you would hardly know that from the kind of rhetoric we hear from those opposite because, of course, they do not believe in human induced climate change. They think they know better than the world's most prominent scientists in this regard and they choose to prosecute the case for, 'Steady as she goes; do absolutely nothing.' They put forward ridiculous proposals called 'direct action' which will be massively expensive for ordinary Australians and will deliver no benefits in terms of reducing carbon emissions.
The government's legislation will, once and for all time, address the fact that polluters in this country should pay for the damaging carbon pollution they put into the atmosphere. The government's position reflects what the majority of well-regarded scientists but, more importantly, well-regarded economists say—that if you want to stop a bad behaviour the best way to do it is to put a price on it. Indeed, former Prime Minister John Howard also had that view, as has been acknowledged many times in this parliament. Any sensible person would have that view as well—that, if you want to stop a behaviour, you put a price on it. The government's legislation does that.
It also includes the compensatory mechanisms that the government has worked on with the assistance of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee to ensure Australians are compensated if necessary for the effects of a price on carbon. The government are very proud of this legislation. We are not embarrassed by it, Senator Cormann. We are proud of it. Those opposite are the ones who should be embarrassed because, like a bunch of troglodytes, they come in here every time there is any debate about anything to do with climate change and oppose doing anything.
I would just like to confirm that the government will be opposing this amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report. We want to get on with examining this legislation in the parliament. It has been subject to numerous inquiries. It has been subject to a lot of debate in the community, as we know. It is time to get on with it. The government, as I said, will oppose the amendment. (Time expired)
12:24 pm
Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I want to read a few words into Hansard. They are a couple of statements, a couple of quotes. The first one says:
It is outrageous that only one week was allowed for the committee to receive submissions …
The second one says:
To make matters worse, hearings were scheduled in the week following the closing date for submissions, which did not allow enough time for the committee to properly consider the more than 5000 submissions received.
The third quote says:
In placing an unreasonable limit on the time for this inquiry, the Government has shown its disregard for the important scrutiny role performed by the Senate and its committees. It has shown no interest in taking this inquiry to the people and involving them in the work of the committee.
These are not my words; these are words from the opposition senators' dissenting report on the Work Choices legislation. These are the words of Senator Marshall, Senator Sterle and Senator Wong. You know what? Those words were right then, I am willing to say, and those words are right today as well.
The opposition, this side, understand that we made some mistakes and, for those mistakes, we were criticised and punished at the ballot box. What we see today, though, is the government repeating those mistakes that we made and that they promised never to repeat. They said they would not repeat those mistakes. They attacked those mistakes on the record in a report tabled in this parliament. These were words from people opposite, including Senator Wong. Senator Wong, who comes in here and defends the process that this government is trying to undertake at present, actually helped author these words. She put her name to these words, saying that there was an unreasonable limit on the time for that inquiry and that the government was showing disregard for the important scrutiny role performed by the Senate and its committees. Well, this government shows a disregard for the important scrutiny role performed by the Senate and its committees. This government shows a complete disregard.
The Work Choices legislation was, of course, one bill. This is a package of 19 bills. This package of 19 bills, totalling more than 1,100 pages, is far more comparable to what happened when the GST legislation was considered by this place. You know what happened with the GST legislation? We had multiple references running concurrently to multiple committees to ensure thorough analysis of those bills. Those references went to committees that were chaired either by Labor or Democrats senators with non-government majorities. That is not even what Senator Fifield is asking for here. Senator Fifield is simply asking that the standard process of a legislation committee inquiry occur in regard to these bills, that proper process is followed and that the precedent is followed for such a sweeping reform.
Those opposite tell us this is a sweeping reform. They all come in here and tell us that this is fundamental reform of the Australian economy and yet they will not let it be scrutinised in the same proper way that tax reform of the Australian economy was scrutinised. The hypocrisy of those opposite, who complained bitterly when the Senate was denied the opportunity to scrutinise legislation properly under the previous government, is that they are now coming here and repeating the mistakes themselves. That is just an astounding position that they have taken.
They are denying the proper role of the Selection of Bills Committee, which the Senate's own website says:
… considers all bills before the Senate to identify any which are complex or controversial or which senators have indicated warrant further examination by a standing committee.
It says:
Bills are usually referred to a legislative and general purpose standing committee which has responsibility for that particular portfolio area.
All Senator Fifield's motion seeks to do is follow this practice. These bills are certainly complex. They are certainly controversial. They certainly warrant further examination, and that is exactly what should happen. That is what this motion will ensure does happen, and it is astounding that those opposite would wish to oppose such basic, relevant scrutiny by the Senate of their own legislation. Question put:
That the amendment (Senator Fifield's) be agreed to.
The Senate divided. [12:34]
(The President—Senator Hogg)
Senator Wong did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan.
Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.