Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the report of the committee be adopted.

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

I move:

That:

(1)

The Senate calls on the Government to establish a Royal Commission, to be jointly chaired by Professor Ross Garnaut and Professor Ian Plimer, to take evidence from Australian and international experts on the science surrounding the extent to which man made carbon dioxide emissions are the major driver of climate change and the likely effectiveness of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in reducing climate change, with a requirement that the commission table a report that includes the scientific arguments both for and against, by 3 May 2010.

(2)

There be laid on the table by the Productivity Commissioner, no later than 9 March 2010, a report of the Productivity Commission setting out the potential costs to the Australian economy of Australia committing to the targets contained in these bills before other major world economies (including China, USA, India and Russia) commit to at least the same emissions reduction targets, and before we know what those targets are. This report should also include the potential costs to the Australian economy if other major world economies do commit to lower emissions reduction targets.

(3)

There be laid on the table by the Productivity Commissioner, no later than 9 March 2010, a report of the Productivity Commission setting out viable alternative schemes to the CPRS, and the cost and benefits under those schemes of achieving the targets that are contained in the bills.

(4)

Further consideration of the bills be an order of the day for the day after the reports of these inquiries are presented.

This amendment was circulated yesterday and is to do with setting up three separate inquiries to do three separate things. This is about policy, not about politics. We have clearly reached a political impasse and a political roadblock, so we need to refer the three key questions to a non-political process. The three questions are: is the science right? We need to set up a royal commission to look at the science and to make sure that everybody is heard in that regard. Secondly, there should be a Productivity Commission inquiry set up to see which scheme, if any, is best. Thirdly, there should be a Productivity Commission report to see what dangers there are in going it alone before the rest of the world commits. Until these three questions are answered, there is no way Australia can commit to any emissions trading scheme.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition, in general terms, can understand the reasoning and rationale of Senator Fielding in moving for further information being provided to the Australian people. However, with great respect I say to Senator Fielding that a royal commission, being a royal commission, should not be chaired by an economist and a geologist. A royal commission should, in fact, be chaired by somebody who has the capacity to deal with the rule of law, evidence and issues such as the probity value of evidence.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you offering?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am not offering myself, thank you, Senator Bernardi. But that is very kind of you to suggest that I might be able to perform in that role. It would be, with respect, like seeking the opinion of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia in relation to a matter economic or a matter geological. I can understand the motivation for Senator Fielding’s amendment and, indeed, the opinion polls tell us that 81 per cent of Australians, despite $13-plus million of government advertising, are still very confused about this legislation.

In relation to the Productivity Commission, I say to the honourable senator that, as I understand it, it is only the government and, more correctly I think—somebody will correct me on this—the Treasurer who would be able to advise or instruct the Productivity Commission to undertake a particular study. It has been the view of the coalition that it would be beneficial to have a Senate inquiry, but we understand the fact that there are not the numbers in the Senate for such an inquiry and that is why we will not pursue that and delay the chamber further.

But I thought I should point out that our opposition to Senator Fielding’s suggestion is in no way based on the suggestion that there has been enough community debate. The fact that 81 per cent of Australians are of the view that they do not know enough about this suggests that there is confusion within the community and more information should be provided, but with respect to Senator Fielding I do not think that the two mechanisms of a royal commission as enunciated and the Productivity Commissioner’s approach would be an appropriate course of action.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have implored Senator Fielding to reconsider his amendment. A royal commission is something that is protracted in the extreme. Although we concur completely with the remarks of Senator Abetz that greater communication is absolutely an issue here, we do not believe that the sentiment of the Senate or of the Australian public warrants a royal commission into climate change. We have premised our debate on whether the economics of this emissions trading scheme are applicable. We have premised our debate on the fact that the economics of this scheme are abhorrent and are of no benefit to the Australian people. We have premised our debate on the fact that the economics of the emissions trading scheme are no more than a massive new tax and that, as a massive new tax, it will do nothing but make people poorer or broke. We say to the Australian people: if you do not understand this massive new tax, do not vote for it. This massive tax will do nothing to help working families. It will put working families out of work. It will make pensioners poorer. It will put farming families out of work. But we do not believe that a royal commission is required to discuss the pros and cons of global warming. That is a debate for the scientific community at the appropriate venue and not in a royal commission. The Productivity Commission—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Senator Joyce, resume your seat. I have called for order on my right. I expect to be able to hear the speaker. Order on both sides!

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously the reason the Labor Party are getting upset is that we have called this for what it is: a massive new tax to attack the working families of Australia, to attack the pensioners, to attack the farming families. They do not want to talk about how this massive new tax has no relevance in the global environment.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Joyce, address your comments to the chair. Those on my right, cease interjecting.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All through this debate the minister has been unable to answer the crucial question: how much will this massive new tax reduce the parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? She has been unable to answer it. All through this debate the Labor Party have been unable to conclusively argue the case for how this massive new tax will do anything for the climate. It will only do something for the share brokers.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Polley and Senator Bishop!

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have got Senator Bishop and Senator Collins—

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

Ignore the interjections, Senator Joyce. Just address the chair.

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

and we have got others yelling across the chamber because the Labor Party have been unable to engage with the Australian people as to how this massive new tax on Australian working families, on Australian pensioners and on Australian farming families—on those who can least afford it—can change the temperature of the globe. Labor are now finding it very galling that their minister has been unable to prosecute this debate about how this massive new tax will change the parts per million of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. There are myriad ways that we can have a better environmental outcome. Senator Fielding has properly pointed out that they need to be appropriately addressed, but a royal commission is not the appropriate place, nor is the Productivity Commission, with the time we have left prior to Copenhagen. So at this point in time the National Party will not be supporting Senator Fielding’s amendment.

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

I am feeling a little sorry for Senator Fielding. I think that if, instead of moving to refer the climate change bills to an economist and a geologist, he had moved to refer them to an abbot and a bishop, he might have got the opposition on side! But that is a strategic matter, and the Greens will not be supporting the motion either.

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

I indicate that I will be not be supporting this amendment. I think in an interjection by Senator Feeney earlier about the whole idea of a royal commission he said that the IPCC has done that. I think he is right. There have been enough peer-reviewed articles to indicate that climate change is real. There are other scientists who disagree, but the overwhelming scientific evidence is that we must take action. The approach suggested by Senator Fielding, with respect to him, is not the way forward. In any event, from a procedural point of view, the fact is that we can call on the government to have a royal commission but we cannot force the government to have a royal commission. Similarly, we can call on the government to have a Productivity Commission inquiry but it is for the government, for the Assistant Treasurer, to actually order the commission to undertake such an inquiry—

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They ain’t getting one!

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

and Senator Sherry says that they ain’t getting one! From a procedural point of view, I can understand Senator Fielding’s motivation, but I think the jury is well and truly in on this in terms of the need for action and in terms of the overwhelming scientific evidence.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this amendment. The government accepts the science and the government believes action on climate change is in the national interest.

Question negatived.

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

I move amendment on sheet 6031:

At the end of the motion, add: “and

        (a)    the question of the adequacy of water entitlements in relation to the proposed domestic offsets program [government amendments on [sheet BE218]), land use and land use change under the carbon pollution reduction scheme be referred to the Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 2 February 2010; and

        (b)    the committee consider draft regulations relating to this matter, which are to be provided to the committee by the Minister for Climate Change by 15 January 2009.”

This amendment would not have the effect of deferring consideration of these bills. This amendment arises out of the committee stages in terms of the concern as to the adequacy of water entitlements in the context of the domestic offsets program with respect to forestry, and I think my colleagues know my concern. I am sure all my colleagues share the concern about the adequacy of water entitlements generally and the plight of areas such as the Murray-Darling Basin in the context of water entitlements.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this amendment. The senator well knows that within the Murray-Darling Basin we have the Murray-Darling Basin Authority currently conducting the development of a basinwide plan that should address these and other issues. We, frankly, do not believe it is appropriate to commence another process. Should this bill pass, I am happy to have a discussion with Senator Xenophon about the consultation process in relation to these conditions.

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

I rise to say that the Australian Greens will be supporting Senator Xenophon’s amendment. The Australian Greens have warned throughout this debate that the deal between the government and the coalition in relation to domestic offsets, in particular the voluntary carbon market, has not been thought through. The methodology has not been done; we do not have that robust methodology. We have warned that there are very likely to be perverse outcomes as a result of not considering water sustainability, food security, biodiversity and resilience in rural communities all together. It must be holistically thought through, and the upshot is that if they are not we will end up with the same perverse outcomes we had with the managed investment schemes. This also goes to the heart of the carbon sink forests. This will not delay the consideration of the bills, but it will ensure that this aspect of the domestic offsets is looked at through a Senate committee process, and that is why I commend Senator Xenophon for taking up this matter in this way. We will be supporting it.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the opposition, I indicate to Senator Xenophon that we do not see our way clear to supporting this amendment.

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

I will not be supporting that amendment. I think the explanation from the minister seemed to be relevant to me. I know the debate has been very wide-ranging and I wanted to come back to an issue. On 4BC Drive on 30 November 2009 Senator Joyce was quoted as saying in reference to my royal commission, ‘He wants a royal commission into climate change, which I’ve got no problems with.’ He then goes on to say, ‘Then a productivity commission as well, which is a completely separate issue, which I would support.’ I am worried about whether what he is saying was true yesterday but not today.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously I concur with the remarks of Senator Abetz. One would have to ask of Senator Fielding: where does it stop? Royal commission, productivity commission, construction of a second Harbour Bridge—who would know where it stops? But we can see how they are all interrelated issues. They only take about 10 years to bring about, but it is all right; we can wait. With all due respect, Senator Xenophon has been an able and ardent advocate through the course of this debate. I respect immensely the work that Senator Xenophon has done. The issues he brings about really show that he has been a participant. He has been in here every moment of the debate, and I respect his acumen and diligence on the issue.

Nick Sherry (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One-hundred-dollar leg of lamb? Where’d you get the $100 leg of lamb?

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will deal with that later on. We will deal with everything that you are going to do to working families, but we are not so soft skinned that we cannot handle it. We will be dealing with every issue that you are perpetrating on working families, like how you are going to put them out of work—but you do not care about that.

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the National Party talking about workers? What a joke!

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are the only people there for them, Senator Carr.

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

Order! Order on my right. Senator Joyce, address your comments to the chair. The people on my right, cease interruption.

Barnaby Joyce (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party have deserted working families. They have gone off on a little tirade. They have left behind the security of working families’ incomes. They have left behind the pensioners who have to pay for power. They have left behind the farmers who have to pay for the farm. The Labor Party do not care. They are belligerent. They are going to move to this scheme unilaterally, without any desire to entertain an investigation of its consequences on the working families of our nation. The Labor Party were going to ease the squeeze on working families, but what they are actually going to do with this piece of legislation is put working families out of work. This is how they ease the squeeze on working families: they remove them from their jobs. I concur with the remarks of Senator Abetz. We will not be supporting this amendment.

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

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Xenophon be agreed to.

Question negatived.

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

Mr President, may I note for the record that the Australian Greens supported this amendment.

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

Yes, you may.

Report adopted.