Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Yesterday when I spoke in relation to an identical motion moved by Senator Parry—not identical but with the same substance of the motion—I indicated that I could not support it unless there was an undertaking by the government that it would agree to not having a vote on the second reading stages of the CPRS bills. I think it is fair to say that I have had some useful discussions with the government, the opposition and my crossbench colleagues in relation to this in the last 24 hours. I understand the government’s position is that they believe there ought to be a vote on the second reading stages of these bills. They do not resile from their position and I understand that.

My position is that I do not believe it is appropriate to have a vote on the second reading stage of the CPRS bills—not, as Senator Evans indicated, because I want to have some surveys and inquiries but rather to undertake some specific economic modelling on alternative scheme designs, because there is no bigger issue in terms of the economic and environmental welfare of this nation than the design and implementation of the CPRS bills, and my view is that we ought to get it right. I indicate that I will be giving notice of a motion, to be dealt with tomorrow, that there be further modelling undertaken and that the results of that modelling be provided to the Senate prior to the next sitting week of 11 August so that we have time to do that.

I understand the government’s position—their current position, and it may well be their future position—that they do not want that to take place but I think it is important in the context of this bill that we actually have an opportunity to model not only alternative scheme designs but also what the impact of even higher targets would be. That would give the Senate an opportunity to consider amendments to these very critical bills so that they can be fulsomely debated. That is my position in relation to that, and Senator Evans is right: I make no apology for the fact that I do not believe it is prudent to deal with the second reading stage of these bills this week. That is my agenda. I have been upfront about that.

Having said that, I will also be giving notice of a motion to be dealt with tomorrow that the question on the second reading of these bills not be put this week and that upon the next sitting week these bills be dealt with to their conclusion—so that there is no question but that when the Senate resumes in the week of 11 August; we will sit until we deal with them. I think that deals with the concern that Senator Evans had about these bills being put on the never-never. I indicate—and I have had a discussion with Senator Minchin about this—a commitment that these bills be dealt with in that week one way or the other. I want to say publicly that I take Senator Minchin absolutely on his word in relation to that and I am grateful for that commitment. So I think that resolves some of the issues. It is not what the government wants, but I think it deals with the dilemma of having these bills on the never-never, which Senator Evans referred to.

I think it would be extremely unwise for us to have a second reading vote on these bills this week in the absence of further economic modelling and without having amendments available as a result of that modelling for the Senate to consider. I think it is fair to say that the coalition ought to have the opportunity to see the results of that modelling and any amendments that are put up in relation to this package of legislation. I think that is a prudent course and I am prepared to support Senator Parry’s motion today as a result of failing to reach an understanding with the government that they would be prepared to put off the vote on the second reading of the CPRS bills this week. I understand the government’s position but I hope they can understand mine, which is that this seems the best way forward for what I consider to be the most important piece of legislation, in environmental and economic terms, that this parliament has ever dealt with.