Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present Report No. 9 of 2009 of the Selection of Bills Committee and seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The report read as follows

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

REPORT NO. 9 OF 2009

1.

The committee met in private session on Thursday, 18 June 2009 at 8.30 am.

2.

The committee resolved to recommend—That the provisions of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2009 be referred immediately to the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 September 2009 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral).

3.

The committee resolved to recommend—That the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill 2009 not be referred to committee.

The committee recommends accordingly.

4.

The committee also considered a proposal to refer the provisions of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and a related bill to the Economics Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on whether the bills should be referred (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral).

(Kerry O’Brien)

Chair

18 June 2009

APPENDIX 1

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Building and Construction Industry Improvement Amendment (Transition to Fair Work) Bill 2009

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

Review implications of Bill particularly on workers rights & safety

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Unions

Industry Groups

Workers

Employers

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Education, Employment and Workplace Relations

Possible hearing date(s):

During winter break of August break

Possible reporting date:

10 September 2009

Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member

(signed)

Rachel Seiwert

APPENDIX 2

SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE

Proposal to refer a bill to a committee

Name of bill:

Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009

Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration:

This Bill will have ramifications for the renewable energy market and energy intensive businesses, It is important to ensure that any expansion of the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target is carefully considered.

Possible submissions or evidence from:

Committee to which bill is to be referred:

Economics Legislation Committee

Possible hearing date(s):

TBA

Possible reporting date:

12 August

Whip/ Selection of Bills Committee member

(signed)

Steve Fielding

I move:

That the report be adopted.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to move an amendment to the motion for adoption of the Selection of Bills Committee report. I move:

At the end of the motion, add:

“but in respect of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009 and the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2009, the bills be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 August 2009”.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to say that I oppose a delay in dealing with this legislation. I support the Selection of Bills Committee report as it currently stands. I would like an indication from you, Mr President, as to whether I have a few minutes to speak on this matter.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Five minutes.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue here is the renewable energy target. The government went to the 2007 election with a promise to increase the renewable energy target in order to drive the expansion of renewable energy in Australia. It is something that the Greens have campaigned on for a long time, and we would certainly want the government to go further than the 20 per cent renewable energy target that is proposed.

The industry has been calling for this legislation since the day the government was elected at the end of 2007, and the delay in getting it to the parliament has been such that earlier this year I introduced a private member’s bill to bring on the renewable energy target because the government was dithering in getting this legislation to the parliament. Now that it is here, the only reason that people are pushing for delay is that the government played politics with this by linking the renewable energy target legislation with its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation.

Interestingly, the focus here is not on helping the renewable energy industry; the focus here is on the energy-intensive trade-exposed industries. The way the government has linked these bills means that, if the RET were to pass next week and the CPRS did not, the energy-intensive trade-exposed industries would not get their exemptions, and they are the ones putting pressure on here for the delay. Meanwhile, the people who will suffer will be the renewable energy businesses. Even in today’s papers there is a report of a business in Victoria saying that it is going to have to put people off unless this legislation is passed because the rebate has disappeared. As we know, the government moved on that before 30 June. These businesses are desperately waiting. In one of today’s papers it says:

SOLAR panel retailers are preparing to cut jobs and halt expansion plans because of uncertainty over the Government’s solar credit program.

That, of course, is the multiplier in the RET.

If we do not deal with this by the end of next week people are going to lose their jobs. Businesses are going to go to the wall—and they are the renewable energy businesses. The people who are pushing for this delay are the big emitters. I am not going to support this being held off over the winter simply because it does not suit the coalition to deal with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation in the next week or so.

I want to see this legislation through. I want to give certainty to the renewable energy industry that they have got their target. I would be prepared to have an inquiry tomorrow or on Monday, but I am not prepared to see this last over the winter, because we are going to see the renewable energy industry further undermined by this kind of delay. The people who vote for delay are people voting for losing jobs and losing businesses in one of the industries that we need to build for a low-carbon or zero-carbon future. There can be no excuse for this kind of delay. It is just more political manoeuvring for the benefit of the big end of town to the detriment of those industries where the jobs-rich growth is.

We have seen the report in the last couple of weeks saying that it is the renewable energy target that will drive jobs. It is not the CPRS; it is the renewable energy target. There was a report saying that some 28,000 jobs can be created. Every month’s delay is not only jobs not created; it is jobs lost from existing businesses. So I think we should bring this on, get this legislation through by the end of next week and be pleased to see people putting more people on rather than putting people off.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also wish to place on the record that the opposition will be supporting Senator Fielding in his amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report. We believe that the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill deserves proper scrutiny. Senator Milne just indicated that this is a deferral. That is totally incorrect. This is proper scrutiny of a very complex bill. This bill was introduced into the House of Representatives yesterday. There was no examination available until the bill was introduced. The bill is intrinsically linked with the CPRS suite of legislation, and we wish this to be examined in the same way as that was. That was examined by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which had a reasonable amount of time to deal with that. We wish this bill to proceed to that committee to be examined, with the committee reporting back by 12 August, which is not an unreasonable period of time considering the serious implications of this proposed legislation.

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I totally disagree with the Greens here.

Kerry O'Brien (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That’s a first!

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it is. We were actually coming together on lot of issues, but I suppose we have to part. I support Senator Fielding’s proposition. Once the government linked the RET with the CPRS, the game was over. I will tell you why it was over. It was over because the CPRS legislation starts on 1 July, if it gets through, and the RET starts immediately, so that would mean that the really big EITE employers, the aluminium industry, the cement industry, the paper industry, the zinc industry, the steel industry—just about every industry in Australia that would be given permits—would have no permits and would be subject to being out there with no permits at all. The Greens senators have agreed with this. They believe that tying the two bills together was blackmail. What are we expected to do—just roll over and take this? Senator Milne is. She talks about job creation, but I want to talk about job destruction.

The other reason that you cannot go ahead with this without a full Senate inquiry is that the regulations that underpin the EITE industries’ targets or certificates are not known. Unless you know what the regulations are going to be, you are flying right in the face of a disaster without knowing where you are going. There are ongoing discussions between the industries now on what EITE activities are and what certificates are going to be given—whether they are 66 per cent or 94 per cent—and even the activities have not been defined. The agenda is whether they are on all the products or only part of the product or only part of the way that they are manufactured. This has not been decided yet. The activities have not been decided. How can you establish a regulation unless you know what the EITE activities are going to be? You cannot. Without establishing what the activities will be, what the regulations will be and whether they will be 60 per cent or 90 per cent or 55 per cent, it is just impossible to move this legislation through. Senator Milne has been in the paper saying that, totally disagreeing—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne interjecting—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne says you can split them. You cannot split them if you do not know what the regulations are going to be. The regulations have not been determined because the EITE issue has not been agreed with the high-end electricity users. They were promised certificates. They were promised that they would get some form of relief. The industries are still in negotiations with the government. The cement industry are not aware of what certificates they are going to get. They know they are going to get some certificates; they do not know whether it is on just part of the manufacturing process or the total manufacturing process—and that is just the cement industry. All the other industries are in the same boat.

If the regulations were there, I would say you could go ahead with it, but the regulations are not there and they cannot be there for the reason that the negotiations are still going on with the high-end users of electricity. So I do not know what the rush is, Senator Milne, because you—

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Milne interjecting—

Ron Boswell (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

People are going to lose their jobs all right; you are totally correct about that. But if this goes ahead without protection in the EITE industry part they are going to lose their jobs and they are going to lose— (Time expired)

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

I indicate that, with reluctance, I support Senator Fielding’s amendment. I say that because I take on board the arguments of Senator Milne that there needs to be certainty for the renewable energy sector. But I do see there is a point in what Senator Boswell is saying in the sense that if we decouple the RET legislation from the CPRS, which appears to be likely, then that poses some policy challenges. I agree with Senator Milne that the way of the future is with jobs in the renewable energy sector. In the absence of knowing what will occur in terms of the links between the RET and the CPRS, we need to look at this closely.

Until now the two schemes have been interlinked and Senator Milne is right to say that they can be decoupled. I think it is mischievous of the government to say that they cannot be, but there are policy challenges and consequences flowing from that which will need to be the subject of an inquiry to see how that can be done. I think that the policy objective here is: how can we further expand our renewable energy sector? Is this target ambitious enough? How can we have triggers there for the renewable energy sector to expand even further?

There is no doubt in my mind that Australia’s future is to go from a high-carbon to a low-carbon economy and that can only be done in part with a strong renewable energy target and having the mechanisms in place for the structural adjustment that is necessary. I think we need this time, some seven weeks, in order to do this. I am reluctant to support it, but I think there is no choice given that it is likely that the CPRS legislation in its current form will not pass or will be substantially amended. Certainly, it will not go through in its current form, given what the coalition, Senator Fielding, the Greens and I have said. Therefore, we need a stand-alone RET scheme that will do the job to transform Australia from a high-carbon to a low-carbon economy. I want to make it clear right now that the RET legislation must be dealt with soon after the committee reports on 12 August, if that is the will of the Senate, and then we need to get on with it. We need to deal with the policy challenges arising out of a decoupling of the two. That is my position and I hope that we get the answers that we need as a result of a Senate inquiry into the RET scheme.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support delay. The government does not support the amendment moved by Senator Fielding. The referral of the renewable energy target legislation to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to report on 12 August is delay. There is time within the program over the next fortnight to deal with this bill. It is in the interests of the renewable energy industry to deal with this matter and not to have the consideration of the bill deferred.

The government does believe that an inquiry could be held and report by 24 June. That would allow—and I think Senator Milne mentioned it as well—a committee to be held on Friday and/or Monday and to report by Wednesday. It would ensure that the RET bill could be considered in the Senate in the following week. The government would then list the RET bill for consideration in the Senate next week on the basis of that. However, it is a matter that we now are in the hands of the Senate to deal with. A quick summary of the numbers does look like Senator Fielding’s amendment will be agreed to. This is of concern to the government. It would be preferable for the amendment not to be supported by the Senate. I do ask the Senate to think carefully about this. It is an important bill. I think Senator Milne has outlined the issues around the bill itself.

It is worth saying in brief: this debate is not about the mechanics or the content of the bill. This debate is about whether we have delay in relation to this issue. The government does not support delay. The Selection of Bills Committee could not reach an agreement in respect of this bill. On that basis it does come here for consideration. The government believes that proper consideration and scrutiny could be achieved, even within the short time that is available, with the cooperation of all parties. However, it does not look like that is going to happen. With regret, I will conclude.

Question put:

That the amendment (Senator Fielding’s) be agreed to.