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

I move:

(1)

That the Senate calls on the Government to make a reference to the Productivity Commission requiring modelling of alternative emissions trading schemes including:

(a)

a conventional baseline-and-credit scheme;

(b)

an intensity model;

(c)

a carbon tax;

(d)

a consumption-based carbon tax; and

(e)

the McKibbin model;

with a view to determining which scheme design (including the Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) and schemes with higher targets) provides the best environmental and economic outcomes.

(2)

That the Productivity Commission’s report on modelling under paragraph (1) be laid on the table by 6 August 2009 to inform the debate on the CPRS bills.

(3)

That there be laid on the table by 6 August 2009 all documents held by the Productivity Commission relating to the design and economic impacts of the Government’s CPRS.

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

by leave—The government does not support this motion, because what it represents is outsourcing to the Productivity Commission the development of a range of completely different policies. The government was elected to implement a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme. I would note that the members of the opposition were also elected to implement a cap-and-trade emissions scheme. It has taken us over a decade of debate and analysis to get to this point. We have already done the work to know that this is the best way for Australia to tackle climate change. To do what Senator Xenophon is proposing would be to go right back to the drawing board and junk all the work that has already been done and the commitments we were elected to implement. On those bases, the government cannot support the motion.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—In the interests of gaining information, we are not going to stand in the way of this motion. However, I note that, if given effect, it would call on the government to make a reference to the Productivity Commission requiring modelling of alternative emissions on a big range of things. We do not have before us information which would indicate that the Productivity Commission can do that modelling, let alone whether it should do it. We had that reservation about the matter. It would have been helpful to have the Senate informed as to the wherewithal of the Productivity Commission (a) to do this modelling and whether it is the best place to do it and (b) whether it could do it within the time that is being allocated.

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

by leave—Could we have an indication of which way senators are voting? I am reluctant to call an unnecessary division.

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

by leave—Family First opposes that motion, so that puts it up to the coalition as to what they want to do with it.

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

by leave—The government will not call a division. We recognise that the majority is with the motion. It is now clear that the opposition, the Greens and Senator Xenophon are voting for this motion and Senator Fielding and the government are voting against it. Therefore, the numbers are for the motion.

Question agreed to.