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

I seek leave to move amendments (1) to (11) circulated in my name.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. During the divisions, you did not hear the points of order of the member for Moncreiff and other members, which you are required to do.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I ask the member for Sturt to resume his seat. I did hear the points of order—

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did not deal with the points of order.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and I made a ruling. Therefore, I ask the member for Sturt to be seated.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Education, Apprenticeships and Training) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a consequence—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I warn the member for Sturt! Is leave granted for the member for Lyne to move his amendments?

Leave granted.

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

I move amendments (1) to (11):

(1)    Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit “Australian”, substitute “Independent”.

(2)    Clause 5, page 7, line 16, omit “Australian”, substitute “Independent”.

(3)    Page 38 (before line 2), before subclause 14(5), insert:

     (4A)    In making a recommendation to the Governor-General about regulations to be made for the purposes of this section, the Minister must first request draft regulations from the Authority.

      (4B)    The Minister must give the Authority reasonable time in which to prepare the draft regulations.

      (4C)    If the Minister receives draft regulations from the Authority within reasonable time, the Minister must recommend them to the Governor-General.

(4)    Clause 14, page 38 (lines 2 to 4), omit “In making a recommendation to the Governor-General about regulations to be made for the purposes of this section, the Minister:”, substitute “If the Minister does not receive draft regulations from the Authority within reasonable time, then, in making a recommendation to the Governor-General about regulations to be made for the purposes of this section, the Minister:”

(5)    Page 40 (before line 2), before subclause 15(4), insert:

     (3A)    In making a recommendation to the Governor-General about regulations to be made for the purposes of this section, the Minister must first request draft regulations from the Authority.

      (3B)    The Minister must give the Authority reasonable time in which to prepare the draft regulations.

      (3C)    If the Minister receives draft regulations from the Authority within reasonable time, the Minister must recommend them to the Governor-General.

(6)    Clause 15, page 40 (lines 2 to 4), omit “In making a recommendation to the Governor-General about regulations to be made for the purposes of this section, the Minister:” and insert “If the Minister does not receive draft regulations from the Authority within reasonable time, then, in making a recommendation to the Governor-General about regulations to be made for the purposes of this section, the Minister:”

(7)    Clause 165, page 214 (line 1) to clause 173C, page 223 (line 4), omit Part 8.

(8)    Clause 174, page 240 (line 1) to clause 189D, page 278 (line 12), omit Part 9.

(9)    Clause 282, page 430 (lines 5 to 6), omit “the Minister must, by written notice given to the Authority, direct the Authority to” substitute “the Authority must”.

(10)  Clause 282, page 430 (lines 10 to 11), delete paragraph 282(3)(d) .

(11)  Clause 360, page 506 (after line 20), after subsection 360(5), insert:

     (5A)    A person is not eligible for appointment as an expert advisory committee member unless the Minister has obtained written approval for that person from all members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, or whichever House of Representatives Standing Committee most closely resembles this function.

I will not speak for a long because, in essence, I do not think it really matters.

Government and Opposition members interjecting—

Hang on. Two nights ago, I called the death of this CPRS legislation—RIP the CPRS—because of a pox on both sides in regard to the lack of a sales pitch and the lack of timely information into the community throughout 2009. The pubs and barbecues have been lost by the government in this debate and it is to their shame. When all this is left and buried deep in the bowels of the Senate, I hope there is some review, some consideration and some navel-gazing by the government as to what went wrong and why there was so much silence throughout 2009. Likewise—

Opposition Member:

Opposition member interjecting—

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

I think it does not matter because we have seen two very clear, different positions in the last three months from the opposition—a side that now has on the table an emissions trading scheme based on GGAS in New South Wales. The second line on their website says, ‘It is the first mandatory emissions trading scheme in the world.’ That is the basis of their scheme. They are not being truthful to the people of Australia in promoting that. They have a market based response and they are pretending it is something different. This debate is going to die. It is a sad death because the concept of a market based response in a market economy, putting a price on carbon and putting true pricing into the energy sector, is a sensible way forward for the national interest of this country.

The amendments I move this morning work on the detail of the bill. This is the third time these same amendments have been put up. It is of concern, on the slight chance this legislation hits the ground and gets through, that there is an enormous amount of ministerial discretion left in this legislation. When it comes to the crunch on how a particular issue is going to be dealt with, it is left as a question of ministerial discretion, I think, 25 times in this bill.

To the minister, whoever that minister may be in the future, I say: who wants to be the person in the chair having to make a decision to remove a lot of these transitional elements in the legislation—for example, fuel credits? Who is going to be the person, man or woman, sitting in the chair who is going to say: ‘I remove fuel credits. Come on Australia, come and enjoy my company’? It is not going to happen. We have to remove the political elements of this. We have to make sure the science is true, the science is supported and the science is allowed to fly. The way to do that is to remove the political elements of this and the amount of ministerial discretion, and to try and instil, as we have with so many other elements of government, an independent element in this process. We did it with the Reserve Bank. We consider the economy so pure and so important that we have an independent Reserve Bank board. If this is the moral challenge of our time then we should instil independence, arm’s length from government, in this process. At the moment, we do not have that. It is wrapped up in ministerial discretion in the future. It is a lesser bill because of that. I do not think it really matters, but I hope the government considers this third time round.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Lyne for his amendments. As he indicated, he has moved them in the past and we have had some dialogue about these matters on previous occasions. First and foremost, it is important to acknowledge that he has remained very actively and positively engaged in this debate throughout, and is a supporter of immediate and comprehensive action on climate change. That is something that the government respects.

The amendments that the member for Lyne move go to a number of matters: advice in relation to scheme caps—amendments (3) to (6); removal of assistance for emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries—amendment (7); removal of coal fired electricity generation assistance—amendment (8); voluntary cancellation of Australian emissions units—amendments (9) and (10); and the appointment of expert advisory committee members—amendment (11).

The government does not support these amendments. Broadly, for the reasons that I have outlined on previous occasions, in relation to which I am sure the member for Lyne is now well familiar, the government believes that we have the relationship between the responsibilities of the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority and the responsibilities of the minister and executive government in balance in an appropriate way in the legislation. Broadly, without going to further detail in relation to those issues, since I have dealt with it on previous occasions, the government’s position is unchanged and we do not support the amendments.

Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As we have asserted now for several days in debate, in our view this bill remains deeply flawed. It will put Australia well ahead of the world. It will expose industry, and therefore jobs and the livelihoods of millions of Australians, unnecessarily to great risks. These amendments in no way address the fundamental flaws that exist in the bill, and as such we will not be supporting these amendments.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As there are no further speakers, I put the question. The question is that the amendments be agreed to. All those in favour say aye; to the contrary say no. The noes have it. The question now is that the bill be agreed to. All those in favour say aye; to the contrary say no.

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

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we have done the amendments. You need two voices for a division to be required.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be agreed to. All those in favour say aye; to the contrary say no. The ayes have it. The member for Lyne.

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

Without questioning your ruling, I think you are obliged to at least ask whether a division is required when there are two voices saying yes to the amendments.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the question was originally put there was only one voice. We moved on from there.

Opposition Member:

Opposition member interjecting—Two!

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Originally there was one voice. We can backtrack. The member for New England is on his feet.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was an echo.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for New England is now in his appropriate seat.

Tony Windsor (New England, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did say aye but I am a quietly spoken person and you probably did not hear it.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill be agreed to. All those in favour say—

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will go back. The question now is that the bill be agreed to. All those in favour say aye, and to the contrary say no. Is a division required? Ring the bells.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Lyne has the call.

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just to go over the last couple of minutes, my understanding was that with two voices on the question of—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the confusion and the heat of the previous division, I think we are slightly confused about where we are, so I will backtrack.

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

Thank you.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am going to your amendments and I am now asking you whether you seek to have a division on your amendments.

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

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the member for Lyne’s amendments be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes, I declare the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question negatived, Mr Oakeshott, Mr Windsor and Mr Katter voting aye.

Bill agreed to.