Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (11), as circulated in my name, together:

(1)    Clause 1, page 1 (line 8), omit ‘Australian’, substitute ‘Independent’.

(2)    Clause 3, page 2 (line 15), omit ‘Australian’, substitute ‘Independent’.

(3)    Clause 4, page 3 (line 6), omit ‘Australian’, substitute ‘Independent’.

(4)    Part 2, page 8 (line 1), (heading), omit:

‘Australian’

substitute:

‘Independent’.

(5)    Clause 10, page 8 (line 5), omit:

‘Australian’

substitute:

‘Independent’.

(6)    Clause 10, page 8 (line 6), omit ‘Australian’, substitute ‘Independent’.

(7)    Clause 10, page 8 (line 8), omit:

‘Australian’

substitute:

‘Independent’.

(8)    Page 8, after clause 11, insert:

11A Authority not subject to direction

                 The Authority is not subject to direction by the Minister in relation to the:

performance of the functions conferred on the Authority by  the Parliament; and

             (b)    publication of information under Part 12 of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Act 2009.

(9)    Clause 19, page 11 (lines 11 to 13), omit the clause, substitute:

19 Period of appointment for members of the Authority

The Minister must appoint a Member of the Authority for a period of 5 years.

A person who has been appointed as a member of the Authority may be appointed for second period of 5 years.

        (2)    A person who has been appointed as a member of the Authority for two five years periods is not eligible for appointment for a further period.

(10)  Clause 41, page 22 (lines 2 to 9), omit the clause, substitute:

41 Minister may advise Authority

        (1)    The Minister may, by legislative instrument, advise the Authority of the Minister’s views as to the priorities that should be given by the Authority to the performance of its functions.

        (2)    Advice given under subsection (1) must have regard to the provisions of section 11A.

        (3)    The Authority must give the Minister, in writing, a response to any advice it receives from the Minister under subsection (1).

(11)  Title, page 1 (line 1), omit:

‘Australian’

substitute:

‘Independent’.

I will not take up too much time of the House and, without pre-empting any decisions by those leaders of both houses, I will not be calling a division, because I do appreciate the number of bills before the House today and these amendments do relate to the previous division, where the three Independent MPs enjoyed voting yes. Both political parties have been enjoying the last 48 hours claiming that their opponents are either job destroyers or climate change sceptics, and the three Independents certainly enjoyed watching these uncommon bedfellows sitting side by side and voting down what is—certainly from my position—an eminently sensible amendment agreed upon by both sides.

I will reiterate the point of the exercise, however, and that is to put the many market decisions that are to be made on the issues before us into the hands of an independent statutory authority. I think that the member for Goldstein correctly made reference to a Reserve Bank type model. We put monetary policy, interest rate rises or falls in the hands of an arms-length body. It is done because by the nature of our trade we are populist, as much as we might not all like to admit it, and there are unpopular decisions that need to be made if we are going to be true in the delivery of an emissions trading scheme and a market based response. Therefore, it is in everyone’s interests, not only politicians’ interests but also in the interests of an efficient market, that it is at arm’s length and that it is given some independence and some eminence with regard to the true science and economic impacts and, as a consequence, that it is given both authority and security. It is one of the great concerns causing political division. Security of tenure is a real issue for investors and those who want to see this scheme work in the long term. So independence, permanence, eminence and, therefore, authority are things that this House could and should endorse if we are to value-add to this scheme before us today.

In what is probably the philosophical point of difference with the government, the role of this chamber is not to hold on to the detail. It is to build the framework and then, ironically, to let the market rip. It is ironic because of some of the concerns expressed in some January musings by the Prime Minister. But if this is a market based response we need to believe in the efficiency of the market. We build the framework of the market, but then we have to let it go. We cannot have the soft or hard hand of politicians, the executive and ministers controlling a lot of the discretionary issues about how that market operates. I reiterate this point, because there are an enormous number of market based decisions that have a political element to them at the moment that need over time, if not now, to be given distance from the political process.

Let us run through some of the market considerations that we are currently putting in the hands of government: the environmental objectives; the national emissions trajectory and targets, which are largely government decisions; reporting and compliance; the nature of Australian emissions units, Kyoto units and non-Kyoto units; auctioning; scheme caps; assistance; tax and accounting issues; household assistance and complementary measures; the Climate Change Action Fund; pricing, including fixed prices for a year; leakage; trade exposure; impacts of global influences and jurisdictions; new scientific findings, which are now to be determined through the political prism; scope and coverage of the scheme; fuel credits—who is going to make the unpopular decision in the future when fuel credits are dropped and fuel prices rise?—management of charges; ratification reviews; greenhouse gas definitions; greenhouse gas thresholds; emissions covered; obligatory transfer numbers; and liability transfer certificates. The list goes on and on. These cannot be left in the hands of politicians if this is going to be a truly efficient market response to a global problem. (Time expired)

See this speech in context