The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A message has been received from the House of Representatives transmitting for concur­rence a resolution relating to the formation of a joint committee. Copies of the messages have been circulated in the chamber.

The House of Representatives message read as follows—

(1) That a Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation be appointed to inquire into and report on the provisions of the following bills:

(a) Clean Energy Bill 2011;

(b) Clean Energy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2011;

(c) Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates Amendments) Bill 2011;

(d) Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendments) Bill 2011;

(e) Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Bill 2011;

(f) Clean Energy (Fuel Tax Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011;

(g) Clean Energy (Customs Tariff Amendment) Bill 2011;

(h) Clean Energy (Excise Tariff Legislation Amendment) Bill 2011;

(i) Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment Bill 2011;

(j) Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment Bill 2011;

(k) Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Bill 2011;

(l) Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions ) Bill 2011;

(m) Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Bill 2011;

(n) Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Bill 2011;

(o) Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Bill 2011;

(p) Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Bill 2011;

(q) Clean Energy Regulator Bill 2011;

(r) Climate Change Authority Bill 2011; and

(s) Steel Transformation Plan Bill 2011.

(2) That the committee consist of 1 4 members, four members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, three members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, one Greens member, one non-aligned member, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Greens senator.

(3) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

(4) That the persons appointed for the time being to serve on the committee shall constitute the committee notwithstanding any failure by the Senate or the House of Representatives to appoint the full number of senators or members referred to in this resolution.

(5) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair.

(6) That the committee elect a member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting.

(7) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote.

(8) That four members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include at least one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either house.

(9) That the committee have power to call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced.

(10) That the committee may conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit.

(11) That the committee have the power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

(12) That the committee report on or before 4 October 2011.

(13) That the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders.

(14) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur with the action accordingly.

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Queensland Floods Recovery) (09:32): I seek leave to have the message considered immediately.

Leave not granted.

Senator LUDWIG: I move:

That the consideration of the message be fixed for a later hour today.

Question agreed to.

Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) (09:33): I thank those members who spoke on the Higher Education Support Amend­ment (Demand Driven Funding System and Other Measures) Bill 2011. The bill before the chamber amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to implement the govern­ment's package of initiatives outlined in Transforming Australia's Higher Education System.

The government understands that the Australian economy today and in the future will require more Australians to be degree qualified. The bill will ensure our nation's universities are able to meet the increasing demand for higher qualifications from stud­ents and employers and our nation's future workforce needs. The government is comm­itted to achieving the ambitious goal it set for national attainment, and the government wants to increase the proportion of 25- to 34-year-old Australians with a qualification at bachelor level or above to 40 per cent by 2025. This is the major reason for the intro­duction of demand driven funding for under­graduate student places at public universities. Australian universities will no longer be asked by the government to ration Common­wealth supported student places among students competing to get a bachelor degree.

The government recognises that it will continue to have a role in the national oversight of our higher education sector and will retain some powers to assist achieve­ment of those outcomes and to enable it to respond to national imperatives. There may be circumstances in which the Australian government needs to limit the extent of future growth in expenditure for unallocated undergraduate places, and the minister will be able to do this by specifying a maximum grant amount for these places in a universi­ty's funding agreement. There will also be protections in the legislation for universities to ensure the minister cannot reduce an insti­tution's funding or force it to cut back on its previous year's enrolments. These are not protections that currently apply in the current system of funding universities on the basis of fixed numbers of places, which is based solely on the minister's decision to allocate places to individual universities. These prot­ections which are written into the bill are new and substantial, and they provide an additional level of reassurance for univer­sities as they move to demand driven funding for undergraduate places.

The government will be monitoring dema­nd and supply for graduates in all disciplines in the early years of implementation of the new funding system. The bill ensures the government has the capacity to respond to any new skill shortages and, if necessary, to the oversupply of graduates in particular areas. The measures in this bill for demand driven funding of undergraduate places prov­ide for much needed investment in higher education. As a result of these reforms, uni­versities will be able to grow with confiden­ce and diversify in response to student needs.

Consistent with the shift to a demand driven funding system, the government agreed in its response to the Bradley review that the student learning entitlement, or SLE, provisions of the act would be abolished from 2012. The student learning entitlement currently limits a person's eligibility to study at university as a Commonwealth supported student to the equivalent of seven years of full-time study. Abolishing the entitlement will reduce the regulatory burden on univer­sities and allow them to get on with teaching the next generation of students. The dialogue between universities and the government plays an important role in determining future policies and funding. It assists in understand­ing the strategic directions of universities in response to government's initiatives. Mission based compacts provide an important process of dialogue and communication between universities and the government. The amend­ments proposed by this bill will ensure the universities' and government's investment of time and effort for compacts is recognised as part of the overall requirements for funding under the act.

I would particularly like to thank the members who contributed to the debate regarding the application of free intellectual inquiry. Free intellectual inquiry will become an object of the act. Table A and table B providers will be required to have policies that uphold free intellectual inquiry in rela­tion to learning, teaching and research. We believe that, as autonomous institutions, universities are best placed to determine how they wish to articulate their commitments to free intellectual inquiry. This bill reflects the government's continued commitment to invest in Australia's universities and to expand opportunities for Australians to obtain a higher quality higher education.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator MASON (Queensland) (09:39): by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 7107 together:

(1)   Schedule 2, page 13 (line 1) to page 23 (line 4), omit the Schedule, substitute:

        Schedule 2—Amendments relating to student learning entitlement

            Higher Education Support Act 2003

       1 Section 70-1

         Omit "7 years", substitute "8 years".

   2 Section 73-5

         Repeal the section, substitute:

   73-5 Ordinary SLE

      Ordinary SLE for persons eligible immediately before 1 January 2012

   (1)   A person who was an eligible person immediately before 1 January 2012 has at the beginning of that day an increase of 1 *EFTSL in the person's *ordinary ESL.

   Ordinary SLE accruing after 1 January 2012

   (2)   A person who (by birth or otherwise) becomes an *eligible person for the first time on or after 1 January 2012 has at the beginning of that day an *ordinary SLE equal to 8 *EFTSL.

Meaning of eligible person

   (3)   An eligible person is:

   (a)   an Australian citizen; or

   (b)   a citizen of New Zealand; or

   (c)   a *permanent visa holder.

3 At the end of section 73-30

   Add:

   (3)   A person who ceased to be an eligible person before 1 January 2012 and next becomes an eligible person again on or after that date is taken to have had, immediately before so ceasing to be an eligible person, an *ordinary SLE that was 1 *EFTSL higher than the person actually had.

(2)   Schedule 3, item 1, page 24 (line 6), after "free intellectual inquiry", insert "for students, researchers and teachers".

(3)   Schedule 3, item 3, page 25 (line 10), after "free intellectual inquiry", insert "for students, researchers and teachers".

On behalf of the opposition I have moved several amendments to the bill and they relate to two areas: student learning entitle­ments and free intellectual inquiry. I noted the parliamentary secretary's comments at the second reading stage with respect to the student learning entitlement and indeed free intellectual inquiry. Can I briefly address that. Indeed, these amendments go to those issues. While the government and indeed members on the crossbenches have argued in debate on this bill that there are, firstly, very low instances of professional students in Australian universities—that has been the claim—and that there are, secondly, prob­lems with effectively administering this legislation, the opposition believe strongly that simply abolishing the student learning entitlement is sending the wrong message both to the student and also to the taxpayer. That is why we have sought to amend this bill.

In fact, it is true that there are low levels of professional students in Australian univer­sities. I accept that. The opposition accepts that. As a result of the Howard government reforms and the introduction of the student learning entitlement, to abolish the student learning entitlement in its entirety—which is what this bill seeks to do—might see the return of students doing degree after degree for decades at significant public expense, with no ability for the government to recover their HECS debt. That is the problem. Understanding that there have been some substantial changes in the way some under­graduate degrees are taught, the coalition believes the upper level of student learning entitlement should be set at eight years rather than the current seven years. The parliament­ary secretary correctly adverted to the fact that currently the student learning entitle­ment is seven years. The opposition's amend­ments propose that it be eight years. There is a specific reason for that. This would allow students to undertake, for example, a bachelor of science degree with additional honours years and then complete a medical degree on top of that. In other words, eight years would cover almost every contingency.

I want to make this point; I want to make it once but I want to make it as loudly as I can: far from losing their relevancy over time, the student learning entitlements, the opposition believe, are even more important under the student demand driven system that this bill establishes. Let me explain why. The opposition believe that abolishing the student learning entitlement, which is what this bill does, combined with abolishing the restrict­ions on the number of Commonwealth supp­orted places, which this bill also does, results in a system where an unlimited number of students can study for an unlimited amount time. Let me say that again. What this bill does is allow an unlimited amount of students to study for an unlimited amount of time. The coalition will not wear that. We believe that it is appropriate to draw a line somewhere. We think eight years is about right. Seven years may have been too short. Undergraduate degree structures in this country have changed over the last few years, and the opposition understands that. But we do not believe that the taxpayer should bear the burden of an unlimited number of students studying for an unlimited amount of time. That is why we urge the Senate to adopt the coalition's amendments.

The other issues that are covered in these amendments relate to free intellectual inquiry. I noted the parliamentary secretary's comments with respect to them. Can I say I agree with what the parliamentary secretary said, largely. Free intellectual inquiry is very important and the coalition of course supports it. But I want to raise this issue. It is true that many students—I am being candid here, of course, as I always am in the Senate—many conservative students, feel at times that academics do not treat them appropriately. They believe sometimes there is bias and they believe that their own intell­ectual inquiry is hindered. That is why the coalition seeks to amend this bill to ensure that students also have the right to free intellectual inquiry.

I listened to what the government and those on the crossbenches said. They argued that in fact free intellectual inquiry is covered already by the bill. Well, the oppos­ition believes it should be made very, very clear that that is the case. As you would appreciate, Chair, when I was lecturing I was always a host of objectivity. I had students who had quite silly views, echoing some of Senator Carr's views, for example. But of course I treated them with great objectivity and marked them appropriately. But I cannot be certain that all academics are such para­gons of virtue. That is why I have raised these issues. I think it is important that, while academics must be able to pursue free intell­ectual inquiry—and I do not have any argu­ment with that at all—so should students.

Out of abundant caution, Parliamentary Secretary, I urge you and the government to accept the coalition's amendment that students be included and that free intellectual inquiry be made a right for them. That would satisfy me, the coalition and, I think, many hundreds of thousands of undergraduate students in this country.

Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) (09:46): The government does not support these amendments. These issues have obvio­usly been considered at great length. Consist­ent with the shift to a demand driven funding system, the government agreed, in response to the Bradley review, that the student learning entitlement provisions of the act would be abolished from 2012. The student learning entitlement currently limits a person's ability to study at university to seven years of full-time study, subject to a series of exceptions which allow for extra time.

Since the introduction of SLE in 2005, students are increasingly enrolling in double degrees and longer medical programs. Desp­ite this, the figures collected by the Depart­ment of Education, Employment and Work­place Relations show that fewer than 0.2 per cent of current higher education students are at risk of exceeding their entitlement. Abol­ishing this rule will cut through this unnec­essary and ineffectual piece of red tape and make it easier and simpler for all Australians to access higher education, including those who wish to return to study later in life to learn new skills.

Australia's universities, which have long been required to divert resources to admin­ister this costly and ineffective entitlement system, argued in a submission to the Prod­uctivity Commission in 2009:

There is … no policy objective being served by the SLE, and there are considerable savings that can be achieved from its removal. As the first students subject to the new arrangements will shortly be exhausting their SLE, it is particularly timely to solve this issue now to avoid problematic decisions having to be taken regarding upcoming enrolments.

The government's decision to remove this piece of red tape has been well received by many, including the Group of Eight universities, who said:

Whenever there is a chance to cut red tape it should be taken. Regulations should only be imposed when there is a demonstrable need for them.

   …   …   …

Australia does not have a systemic problem of excessively long study periods that is found in some other countries.

Even the former Minister for Education, Science and Training, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, has acknowledged that the student learning entitlement is flaw­ed policy. In July 2006, in a speech to the John Curtin Institute of Public Policy about university regulation, the member for Curtin described the student learning entitle­ment as red tape, and she said:

Turning to the ubiquitous issue of government red tape – I am happy to listen to sensible suggestions as to how I can remove impediments to diversity and increase flexibility. As a result of the AVCC’s report on red tape, I have agreed to consider the abolition of the Student Learning Entitlement which measures a student’s consumption of commonwealth supported education.

So it is disappointing that the coalition is now fighting to defend a policy that the then minister for education had hand-picked to be scrapped. In fact, by seeking to amend the student learning entitlement to allow an ordinary entitlement of eight years they are simply adding to the red-tape burden. Abol­ishing this Nelson era rule will free up universities and allow them to get on with teaching the next generation of students. It will ensure that students are able to commen­ce and complete their studies on the basis of merit. For these reasons, the government opposes amendment (1) moved by the opposition.

I also have comments with respect to amendments (2) and (3), relating to freedom of intellectual inquiry. The government does not support these amendments either. The bill introduces into the act, as I said before, new protections for freedom of intellectual inquiry within Australian universities. Uni­versities will be required, as a condition of funding, to have a policy which upholds free intellectual inquiry in learning, teaching and research. Proposed new section 19-115 provides:

A higher education provider that is a Table A provider or a Table B provider must have a policy that upholds free intellectual inquiry in relation to learning, teaching and research.

The opposition's revised amendments add nothing to the bill, which already provides these appropriate protections for freedom of intellectual inquiry in the domains of learning, teaching and research. For these reasons, the opposition amendments will not be supported by the government.

Senator MASON (Queensland) (09:51): I thank the minister for her contribution. I have heard those comments by the member for Curtin before. You are quite right: she did say that; but it was not in the context of a bill that seeks to uncap student places. This bill uncaps student places and, by getting rid of the student learning entitlement, means that students can study for as long as they like as an undergraduate. The import of this bill—and I am now repeating myself, but this bears repeating—is to uncap student places so as many students as want to can now study at Australian universities for as long as they want to. That is the implication, the result, of this bill. Of course that has imposts on Treasury. It is fair to say that while forward estimates indicate base fund­ing being made available for new students who will commence as a result of the uncap­ping of student places, the government has not thus far made allowances for infra­structure and other costs over the forward estimates that will also be required to fully implement an uncapping of student places.

To cut a long debate very short, the prob­lem simply is this: the government really has not done its homework about how much the uncapping of student places will cost the Australian economy and the Austra­lian Treasury. Now is not the time for this debate, but I do want to emphasise that the reason the opposition is seeking to amend the bill is simply that we do not believe the taxpayer should have to fund an unlimited amount of students studying for an unlimited amount of time. With the greatest respect to the minister and the government, the govern­ment has not answered that. The administra­tive convenience of universities, while very important—I accept that—is not the only consideration certainly so far as the taxpay­ers are concerned.

Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory—Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) (09:53): I take this opportunity to assure the opposition that the government will be monitoring demand and supply for graduates in all disciplines in the early years of imple­mentation. I know the opposition has receiv­ed that assurance from the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Work­place Relations and we will be making sure very close monitoring and observation of the new implementation occurs.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Mason's) be agreed to.

The committee divided. [09:58]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

Senator Wong did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Queensland Floods Recovery) (10:02): I move:

That the Senate concur with the resolution of the House of Representatives contained in message No. 258 relating to the appointment of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (10:03): Mr Acting Deputy President, the coalition belie­ves that this suite of bills should not be submitted to a truncated joint committee as proposed by the Greens and the Labor Party. If we cast our minds back, for example, to when we had tax reform in this country, four separate specialist Senate committees were used over a period of five months to adequately air the issues at stake.

The Labor Party boasts and would say that its so-called carbon tax reform—that is anything but a reform; if anything, it will deform the Australian economy—is the biggest change and reform ever in Australian economic history. The Labor Party went to the 2007 election promising Operation Sunlight. Remember that term—Operation Sunlight—where the Labor Party said it would allow the sun to shine in, that everything would be adequately examined and that the Australian people, through the parliamentary processes, would be given sufficient time to consider all the issues on each and every occasion. Yet, here we have the suggestion of a joint committee to report by 5 October, if I am not mistaken—in literally a few days—on that which the Labor Party claims to be the biggest reform ever in Australian economic history.

The simple fact is the Labor Party and the Greens are trying to truncate this so that they can go to Durban with a piece of legislation that has passed the parliament. The Austra­lian nation has been in this space before. If we cast our minds back to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme—that dismally failed—the imperative on that occasion was that we have it legislated by Copenhagen so we could waive some legislation around at Copenhagen and prove to the rest of the world what great leaders we were. Of course, what happened at Copenhagen was that not a single country was willing to sign up to that which, had we passed this legislation, would have made us look like the clowns of Copenhagen. Not having learnt from that, this Green-Labor alliance now wants Australia to look like the dunces of Durban, because they want this legislation passed so Ms Gillard can go to Durban and waive the legislation around and say: 'How clever are we? We are the only country in the world willing to deform our economy, to shed jobs and to shed wealth without making one slight bit of difference to the world's environment.'

The only environment that Labor and the Greens are concerned about is the environ­ment within the United Nations, and Mr Rudd's standing and Ms Gillard's standing. We, as the coalition, will not be part and parcel of sacrificing the Australian national interest on the altar of Mr Rudd and Ms Gillard's vanity. It is going far too far for this parliament to agree to this suite of changes. I thought at one stage it was 13 bills, then it was 18, and I now understand it is 19 bills. Why is it that we should not fully explore the impact of this legislation? This carbon tax has a far-reaching impact. It will not only be on the 500 so-called biggest polluters. If it is the 500 biggest polluters, give us the list of the 500. It is about 500; it is not exactly 500. The government says, 'We cannot give you the list, but pass our legislation.' This is a government that is all about its own personal vanity and also a government led by the Australian Greens.

This Prime Minister, who is now seeking to drive this through the parliament with a truncated Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation, is the Prime Minister that went to the election last year claiming, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' She has a choice: she either leads this govern­ment and has, therefore, misled the Austra­lian people or she does not lead this govern­ment because Senator Bob Brown and the Greens lead it. That is the question the Labor Party has to answer. It is not only Ms Gillard that needs to answer this question. Every single Labor backbencher has to look in the mirror and ask: given that I was elected on a promise of no carbon tax, how can I faithfully seek to represent my electors by voting for this legislation?

The Australian people are quite right to ask: how is it that a few Greens can dictate the policy when over 90 per cent of the parliamentarians in both houses in this place were elected on a bipartisan policy—and I want to stress this—of no carbon tax? Every single Labor member, every single coalition member, and I assume the new Democratic Labor Party senator as well, was elected on a promise of no carbon tax. The reason is that Ms Gillard will do anything she needs to do to retain the Prime Ministership. She will do anything and she will sacrifice the national interest in her vain bid to remain Prime Minister.

This carbon tax will have far-reaching consequences. I visited a manufacturer in Geelong with Senator Michael Ronaldson. It was a new business just restarting after a hiatus of a couple of years. Interestingly, their power bill in rough terms in manufact­uring came to $50,000 per month. If you take the government at its word—and I know it is foolish to do so, but let us do so just for this occasion—a 10 per cent hike in power prices would mean that over a 12-month period a start-up business now has $60,000 wiped off its bottom line just for its energy input. They said, 'Gee, that is a big hit, Senator.' Well, yes, it is. Moreover, they pay rates to the local government, don't they? Local govern­ment are huge consumers of energy. What are local government going to do? They will have to increase their rates, passed on to this company, to pay for the increased cost of energy and street lighting. So this small manufacturing business, just starting up again after a hiatus of two years, will see their costs increase by at least $60,000 per annum, if not a lot more.

We can go to the volunteer sector as well. What about Meals on Wheels? What about those that provide shelter to the homeless? They have energy bills as well. They will be slugged with this 10 per cent impost and that is being very generous to the government because most commentators are now saying the impost on energy bills will be a lot higher than 10 per cent. So you can look at the small business sector, you can look at the volunteer sector and you can look at big business. You can have a look at our mining and exports. Is this joint committee going to deal with all these aspects of all the legislati­on by 5 October? Of course not. The govern­ment and the Greens simply do not want proper scrutiny of this legislation because they are scared of what it will reveal if we go through this mammoth wad of papers and examine it word by word, clause by clause.

There is a huge issue at stake in relation to this carbon tax. It is a fundamental point. Senator Ludwig is busily making notes. The one point that he has to answer in this debate is: why did he and each of his cabinet colleagues go to the last election promising no carbon tax? Labor knew it was bad policy. Labour knew that, if Ms Gillard went to the people of Australia at the last election and said, 'Under a government I lead there will be a carbon tax because we will save the world through it,' she would not be Prime Minister today. Mr Abbott would be the Prime Minister of a majority coalition government. There is no doubt about that.

Indeed, when we said to the Australian people at the time, 'Don't believe the Labor Party,' what were we accused of? Senator Ludwig's Queensland colleague, the hapless Treasurer Mr Swan, said, 'It is an hysterical allegation.' In fact, it was not hysterical. It was historical because the Labor Party has form. They promise one thing before an election and then do exactly the opposite after. Every Australian that is old enough will remember Mr Keating promising the L-A-W law tax cuts and, as soon as he was re-elected in 1993, he repealed the laws. Not only did he not provide the tax cuts but he actually increased taxes. So we were being historical, not hysterical. How can the Labor Party look in the mirror every morning and say, 'How come we are going down this path'? There is a simple reason. Ms Gillard was willing to sell the national interest so she could remain Prime Minister. We have now heard this from Mr Adam Bandt, the Green member for Melbourne. If I have the date right, I think on 11 July he issued a press release saying that when he and Ms Gillard sat down to determine whether they could come to an agreement the first thing he asked for was a price on carbon, and she said yes without any argument. Why didn't Ms Gillard have the personal integrity, the backbone, the moral courage to say, 'Mr Bandt, thanks for the offer but I made a solemn promise to the Australian people. I gazed down a TV camera and said to the Australian people: there will be no carbon tax. I cannot go back on my word'? Does she really think that the Greens would have sided with the coalition in those circumstances? Of course not, but she was too weak, too desperate to retain the prime ministership. She was unwilling to take a stand even on such a fundamental issue.

I think that the Australian people are very responsible people, very sincere people. If they thought a carbon tax would provide a dividend for the environment, they would actually support it. But the overwhelming evidence is that a carbon tax in Australia, with Australia going it alone, will not provide an environmental dividend. That is the overwhelming evidence that you cannot overcome. The coalition would be willing to revisit this issue in the context of the world uniting and saying: 'Let's all do this together. Let's walk in lock-step to ensure that we all bring emissions down without disadvantag­ing one or the other country.' We would be willing to look at the issue again, but Australia acting alone is sheer lunacy. It is economic vandalism and will do nothing for the Australian environment. These are the issues that need to be aired. These are the issues that need to be discussed.

Indeed, Ms Gillard herself before the last election was so convinced that there was no consensus in the Australian community about going down this path that she was going to have her—what was it?—citizens assembly or something. There was to be an assembly of 150 people to try to build a consensus. She did not have the climate change group; she dropped that. Why? Because the Greens said it was a dumb idea, and for once I agree with the Greens. It was a dumb idea. It was a stupid idea and should never have been put up, but it indicates how devoid the Labor Party are of policy.

But the Labor Party have, and I congrat­ulate them on this, developed a consensus in the Australian community about climate change. The consensus is: no carbon tax. That is the consensus that Ms Gillard has been able to grow and develop within the Australian community. She is now confront­ed with this consensus, which is overwhelm­ing, even in my home state of Tasmania. I have seen some figures recently showing overwhelmingly that the Tasmanian people, like the Australian people in the national opinion polls, are awake to the nonsense of a carbon tax being introduced with Australia acting alone.

Let's not have this nonsense that people all around the world are adopting it. The minister might like to explain to the Austral­ian people and the Senate in this debate what Japan is doing, what France is doing, what the United States is doing, what New Zeal­and is doing, what Canada is doing, what New Hampshire is doing. Let's hold up the great economies that Ms Gillard held up like California when she was over there, and like Spain. These are the economies that have gone down this route and they are now econ­omic basket cases in anybody's language.

Take the European Union's trading scheme, which is one-tenth of that which we would impose on our own nation. It is 10 times as high, 10 times as devastating and, what is more, 10 times as rortable. We know there are scandals in the European system. In as sophisticated a country as Norway they are now having investigations into the rort­ing of the carbon tax scheme over there. With 10 times as much money available here, one would anticipate that there will be 10 times the temptation to rort the system. Where are the protections in this legislation in relation to that? Where are the protections to ensure that over $3 billion worth of Australian capital does not flow out of our nation each and every year in the vain pursuit of purchasing carbon credits elsewhe­re in the world?

These are matters worthy of detailed consideration, not to be lightly dealt with by a so-called joint committee that will look at these matters for a matter of a few days and then report with a foregone conclusion. This is a matter deserving of this parliament's specialist committees having a very, very close look at the detail—how it is going to impact on the volunteer sector, on the small business sector and on big businesses.

Speaking of big businesses, let's turn to our export industries. Ms Gillard goes to the coalmines and says, 'No worries—the coal­mining and coal export industry will go full throttle under my government.' Strange, that, isn't it? We are willing to sell our coal to the rest of the world for one purpose only: they will burn it for energy. And we will sell it to them without a carbon tax. But if Australians in Australia want to burn Australian coal they will be subjected to a carbon tax. Some people might say that that is a double standard. Most people would say that there is some inconsistency here. But this is typical of Labor Party policy, because coal now seems to have gone into the same category as uranium. The Labor Party says of uranium, 'Yes, let's export it to the rest of the world to allow them to make energy from it,' but then they say to the Australian people it is some­how immoral for Australians to use their own uranium to create energy in Australia. So the inconsistency is in fact consistent on both uranium and coal, but the Australian people are quite right to ask: where is the consistency, where is the morality, in that stand? And there is none. There is an inconsistency that cannot be explained.

We as a coalition support the view that these matters should be canvassed in detail and given due consideration, but to try to set up a joint committee with a truncated time­table so that we can become the dunces of Durban like Mr Rudd wanted us to be the clowns of Copenhagen is not on the coalition's agenda. We will not bend to the Greens in relation to this. We will fight this carbon tax all the way and ensure that all aspects of it are properly exposed for the benefit of the Australian people.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens) (10:23): We have just heard '10 times this' and '10 times that'. I think what we just heard was 10 times the ignorance of what we normally find from the coalition when it comes to a discussion of climate change and how to appropriately act upon it. I preface my remarks with the fact that the science is just becoming very clear that this year we are going to have an even greater record of ice melt in the Arctic. The scientists are coming out saying that they are finding an even more extreme Arctic ice melt than in previous years, and we know the impact of that. They are suggesting that, rather than having an ice-free Arctic in 70 years, we might end up having an ice-free Arctic in 30 to 40 years.

We know what that means for species extinction for a start. Nobody can escape the fact that, whatever technological response people might have to the impacts of extreme weather events, there is nothing we can do to save species which are going to extinction because of climate change.

I know that, when you talk to people around the world about their local environ­ments, what they talk about is the changed conditions, and no more so than in Tasmania, where the fishing community talks at length about the warming of the east coast waters off Tasmania, about the fact that the eastern Australian current is now moving further south into Tasmanian waters and the cold up­surge from the Antarctic is receding, which is allowing the incursion of predators into that environment, destroying the kelp beds, undermining the fishery and so on. That is just a local example in Tasmania of the phys­ical response that is going on with climate change as we see it as a regular event.

Having said that, at the same time as we are having this debate, the Bureau of Meteor­ology have been briefing the Queensland cabinet about the likely impacts this summer of extreme weather events. They are talking about the likely formation of at least four cyclones off the Queensland coast and the likelihood of extreme rainfall events, and already in Queensland people are on alert because of extreme fire danger.

Australia more than any other continent in the world is vulnerable to climate change, and we are seeing climate change acceler­ating, so we have no option but to address climate change if we are serious about making sure that not only this generation but future generations and our fellow species on this planet have an opportunity to live and experience and appreciate a similar environ­ment to the one we have now. Frankly, we are losing that race.

I am the first to say that, whilst what we are doing with this carbon package of bills begins the process of transforming Australia to a low-carbon economy and begins the pro­cess of addressing climate change seriously, it does not go far enough. If the Greens had been in government, we would certainly have been aiming for a much higher level of ambition than the bills generate, but we are pleased to say that the bills do not prevent any of the areas being increased in their level of ambition over time. That is because we know that as the world wakes up to itself there will be a move internationally for every country to lift its level of ambition in terms of greenhouse gas emission cuts and the speed at which it transforms its economy. The thing about all of these carbon bills is that, if the coalition were interested in actually reading them, they would find that there is no limit to parliament in the future being able to increase the level of ambition without having to pay compensation, which was one of the major problems with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It would have meant considerable compensa­tion if Australia raised its ambition to a greater than 25 per cent cut—and that will be necessary over time. We need to be net carbon zero by 2050. Eighty per cent is not enough but 80 per cent is a long way better than where it was before at a 60 per cent cut, and that is one of the things we were able to achieve as part of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.

Having said that, I think it is essential that we concur with this motion from the House of Representatives, which urges that we set up a joint committee to allow the community to have input into these bills and to allow the coalition to actually get across the policy, because we have heard a whole lot of slogan­ism and fear tactics out there and a lot of unsubstantiated statements but we have not heard any engagement of the policy issues that are in these bills.

This series of legislation goes to a package which is saying that, in order to get our greenhouse gas emissions down and allow ourselves to have a consistent message for investors—and that is one of the key components here; the reason we have power prices going up now is that there has not been the investment that needed to occur, and that is because of the level of uncertain­ty. What we are now doing in this package of bills is that, on the one hand, we are intro­ducing an emissions trading scheme, a market based mechanism that will require those businesses that are big polluters to pay for their pollution to the atmosphere. Over time that will force them to reduce the level of emissions and it will help to drive a transformation in the energy sector out of coal fired generation and into gas. But that is not going to be enough to bring on renew­able energy. We know that. A $23 price is nowhere near enough to bring on renewable energy, and so we need to bring in a series of measures that will promote renewables. If we are to have the transformation that I am talking about, and if we are going to have it in the time frame that is necessary and get to 100 per cent renewable energy as quickly as possible, we have to be building at scale, right now, large renewable energy generation capacity and also we have to be investing in a grid—and a smart grid at that—so that we can then take up the opportunities that energy efficiency provides. The coalition has gone back to an eastern European model of government regulation and government paying for everything. It is an extraordinary irony in Australian politics that the party which so prides itself on supporting business has actually abandoned business, abandoned market based mechanisms, abandoned econ­omists and instead just gone back to a government regulatory way of dealing with a cut of only five per cent—and even that will not be achieved by what the coalition is actually proposing.

We are putting in place a mechanism that will allow a massive investment in renew­able energy in Australia. The community desperately wants this investment in renew­able energy. Australia is blessed with some of the best renewable energy resources in the world and so a key component of this package is an investment in renewable energy—$10 billion to be invested in renewables over time. This will enable the community to become what the British call prosumers—that is, producers of energy and consumers of energy at the same time. For somebody to make decisions about how much they will pay to generate from their house, how much they will pay to buy in and where they can engage in energy efficiency, you need a smart grid. One of the key components in the legislation requires the Australian Energy Market Operator to state art looking at planning for 100 per cent renewable energy. When the community understands this is a key component of the legislation, they will be excited by it. Australians want to see the technology developed in Australian universities by Australian experts actually in the field in Australia. One of the things people raise with me all the time is that they are fed up with our best and brightest going overseas because there is no hope for them working for a renewable energy future in this country. This legislation emphasises the ability of this country to do good things.

It is the same with energy efficiency. We know that buildings are one of the major emitters of greenhouse gases, and in addition bringing in energy efficiency reforms gives us a healthier workplace. Go to any green building and you will find it is healthier, you have greater productivity from your work­force, fewer sick days, and it is a cheaper building to run. That is where we need to be going in this country with the built environ­ment, and this is an incentive. And this is all a jobs creator. All these things are about adding sophistication into the economy, instead of doing what the coalition wants—for us to be Asia's quarry: dig it up, cut it down and ship it overseas. Keep digging up the coal and send it out of the country; put in the gas wells and send the gas out of the country; that is all you need to do. The Greens believe it is time to look at the fact that we have hollowed out the manufacturing sector. We need to build resilience in the Australian economy; we need to build a competitive position in a low-carbon econ­omy. That is what these bills start to do.

Equally, there is a fourth pillar—the Carbon Farming Initiative, which has been through both houses of parliament. This initiative addresses the fact that rural and regional Australia can play a major role in enhancing carbon in the landscape—ena­bling farmers to do what they actually want to do but have not had the money to do, and that is engage in stewardship of the land and so improve not only their soil carbon but their management of biodiversity by revegetating areas and improving degraded areas of their properties. All of these things are in the bills. That is why it is exciting and that is what why what we are hearing is the last gasp from the coalition in opposition to this—because there is no roar out there in the community. Business is satisfied that this is going ahead and that they will engage with it.

That is where I come to the great big lie out there at the moment in the statement by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, that he will repeal these bills. I am glad to have the opportunity to put this on the record. Every time the Leader of the Opposition stands up and says he will repeal these bills he is building a bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger lie. He is not going to repeal the bills. We had all that with the Carbon Farming Initiative—day after day, 13 hours in this place, about how bad it was. It was bad, bad, bad for rural Australia and then we heard this weak little voice in the House of Representatives on the third reading saying, 'Oh, the coalition will not repeal the Carbon Farming Initiative if it gets into government'. Round one, the first major plank of the new clean energy package going through the parliament, and the coalition says they will not repeal it. Let me put it on the record that they will not repeal any of these bills. This legislation will not be repealed. It is a great big lie. I want the Leader of the Opposition to be out every day saying he is going to repeal it, because we will find exactly the same thing happening again—his opposition will fade away into nothingness.

His opposition will fade away into nothingness because business is seriously engaged. Big business in Australia is going to have to buy permits, we are going to have small businesses across the country making the changes, we are going to have consumers looking at how they can engage and we are going to have superannuation investors—with trillions of dollars in superannuation—looking at investing in the smart grid. People will be looking at investments in new renewable energy projects, and they want certainty for their investment. They need to know the terms of that investment—it is over a long period of time—and if they invest they will not thank the coalition for coming in and trying to repeal the legislation. Furthermore, when they buy these carbon permits there will be property rights and the coalition will have to compensate every big business around the country who has bought and banked carbon permits. They will have to go out there and compensate them. All I can hear is an echo around the country—this great big new lie. That is what this promise that the coalition would repeal these bills will end up being—because it will not repeal them. Therefore, I would urge the coalition to stop carrying on with this sham. The coalition refused to participate in the multi-party climate committee. Two positions were made available for the coalition to participate in that committee. If they had been serious about engaging in climate change they would have been on the committee and in the debates on how best to bring in carbon pricing in Australia in a way that was integrated across government, that ensured that the people paying were the polluters, that the community was compensated in the way it has been proposed and that is exactly what we have done.

I would like to hear the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, stand up and say that he will remove the increases to the pension and that he will reduce the tax-free threshold when he gets elected. He will not do it and it will not happen, because it is a great big new lie. That is why I think, as we get closer and closer to the next election, people will see this for what it has been. It has been a giant, hot air bubble of fear that is rapidly losing any kind of impetus in the community. Business have been coming out in the last 24 hours, saying, 'We're engaging this legislation, we're looking at how it will affect our businesses and we are working out ways we will engage with it.' What we are getting for business, the community, our children and fellow species are internally consistent pieces of legislation which will start the process of seriously reducing greenhouse gas emissions, transforming the energy sector out of coal into gas, investing in renewables, getting into energy efficiency and enabling rural and regional Australia to play its part. We will see an increasing number of people exposing the kind of nonsense that we have heard. Senator Abetz has stood up here and said that other countries are not doing anything. If you say it over and over again, all it will do is reinforce the ignorance of Senator Abetz.

California is going to an emissions trading on 1 January next year. It is the eighth largest economy in the world. Four provinces in China are going to emissions trading. That is a huge economic equation. They are going to that with a view to going to national emissions trading within a few years time. We have the European Union and New Zealand and there will be an international linkage of these.

Yesterday there was a briefing in this building by four experts, who have been brought here by the climate commission. And I note that nobody from the coalition bothered to turn up, because why would you let information get in the way of ignorance? One was a policy adviser from California and one was from the World Bank, who was an expert in the grid. They were talking about their ability to engage with Australia, to learn from each other and to link those economies. These are enormous opportu­nities for Australia and Australian busi­nesses. That is not being lost on the business sector, nor is it being lost on the next generation of academics and young people leaving our universities with skills, who want to use those skills to secure a safe climate for the future. That is what young people want. People want to align their values with their work, because it makes you happier if you align your values with your work. Young people are saying: we want to put our shoulder to the wheel in whatever we do to reduce climate change, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to use our brains and our best endeavours for the betterment of this country, the planet, our children and fellow species. And good on them.

That is why you have such a large number of people with the Australian Youth Climate Coalition across Australia. Everywhere I go young people are motivated because they are worried about species extinction. People ridicule the Greens when we talk about the fact that the polar bear, for example, is drowning in the Arctic because of the loss of the sea ice and because they cannot hunt and feed, so they are starving in some areas. We are watching a tragedy of an iconic species. But they are not alone. There are species in every ecosystem losing out because of the changes we are seeing with climate change. In Northern Australia, we have seen the impacts of the extreme flooding events last year on the Barrier Reef, with sediment all over the sea grasses and the impact on the dugongs, for example. This is in our own country. As I said, in Tasmania the sea urchin is impacting on the magnificent kelp beds on the east coast of Tasmania, not to mention on the productivity of the fishery. No matter how much carrying on there is from the opposition, trying to beat up fear, the reality is that people in Queensland know that climate change is real. They have experienced it with the extreme weather events. People in Victoria who lived through the fires understand extreme weather events and so do people all around the world witnessing what we have seen with food insecurity as a result of some of these events.

I look forward to this committee process, I look forward to representing the Greens on this committee and I look forward to getting these bills through and the legislation being operational by 1 July next year. I especially look forward to Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, defending the great big new lie that he will repeal the bills, because there is no way he will do it. The community will be horrified when they find out just what an empty promise that is. (Time expired)

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (10:43): And so it starts—the steps by the Australian Labor Party to deny appropriate scrutiny of the carbon tax legislation. It starts here and it starts now with this motion. Let us be clear: this motion seeks to corral 19 bills into one committee. Basically, the motion seeks to rack 'em and stack 'em. It seeks to rack the bills into one committee and to stack the committee. What I mean by 'stack' the committee is that the crossbench­ers in the House get two members on this committee. The Australian Labor Party get four members on this committee. The coalition only get three members on this committee. So we have four ALP and two crossbenchers—that is, six versus three coalition members. The coalition comprises darn near half the members of the Australian House of Representatives. But it is a stack and they are seeking to rack 'em. It is bad enough that the government sought to evade the scrutiny of the Australian people. It is bad enough that the government went to the Australian people with a lie. It is bad enough that the government formed office on the back of a lie. That lie—perhaps the greatest lie known in Australian contemporary history—was that the Gillard government would not implement a carbon tax. The words that the Prime Minister used—I think you know them well, Mr Acting Deputy President Back—were, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Does anyone seriously believe that the Labor Party would have won enough seats to cobble together a government had they come clean with the Australian people at the election? Of course they would not have. In fact, every Labor member of the House of Representa­tives and every Labor senator who was facing the people at the last election was in fact elected, put into office, on a platform that there would be no carbon tax. If there is any mandate here in this parliament it is a mandate from the people to not have a carbon tax. That electoral fraud—in a moral sense I use that phrase—is something for which the ALP will be and should be answerable and accountable to the people at the polls. And who knows when that will be. But the place where the government of the day is accountable and is answerable be­tween elections is this place and the other place. That occurs in the committees and in the debates of this parliament.

Having managed, quite successfully I must say, to evade public scrutiny, the least the government should do is to allow the most full-blooded scrutiny and debate in this place. The model for parliamentary scrutiny of significant economic change—I do not use the word 'reform', I use the word 'change'; the carbon tax is not an economic reform, it is an economic change—is the GST. The GST, I believe, was for good. It must have been for good. Even the Australian Labor Party must agree with that, because they did not seek to repeal the GST legislation once they came into office. I would argue that the carbon tax, in contrast, is change which is for ill. It is change which is far, far wider reaching. It has a much greater reach into the Australian economy than the GST did. As such, as a more significant economic change, it does deserve even greater scrutiny. As I say, the model for scrutiny is the GST.

I think it is important to go through the steps which the previous government went through to ensure adequate scrutiny of the GST. Firstly, the coalition—minor detail to the Australian Labor Party—went to a poll. The coalition went to an election and said, 'It is our proposal, it is our intention, if elected, to introduce a goods and services tax.' That is what we did. We sought a mandate; we received a mandate. No hiding, no subter­fuge, no lies: a mandate was sought and it was granted. Minor detail—just a techni­cality for those opposite. But on this side of the chamber we think it is kind of important. Having won a mandate, it was submitted to the most searching and the most searing scrutiny of any package of legislation that has been before the Australian parliament.

On 2 December 1998 the package of GST bills was introduced into the House of Representatives. It sat on the table until 7 December. Then almost 15 hours was allo­cated to the second reading debate. That legislation was passed on 10 December 1998. The GST legislation then spent five months going through Senate committees—five months. That is pretty extraordinary when you think about it. Compare it to the mere weeks of scrutiny that this carbon tax legislation, which will been more profound in its effect on the economy, will have. The next step in that process of scrutiny was on 25 November 1998. The Senate, at the start of that five-month period, established the Senate Select Committee on a New Tax System. That committee also referred issues to three separate Senate references commit­tees. You might be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President Back—and I am sure you are—that references committees are actually chaired by the non-government parties, which again I think is an important part of scrutiny. Those committees had until the end of March 1999 to report. The legislation went to the Com­munity Affairs References Committee, the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education References Comm­ittee and to the Environment, Communi­cations, Information Technology and Arts References Committee. This was a good and a proper process. The bills were introduced, they sat on the table, there was adequate debate, they came to the Senate, they went to four Senate committees and there was five months of examination. We did not rush. Contrast that with what is proposed here. The House will have 12 hours to consider 19 bills. There are more than 1,000 pages of legislation and there will be 12 hours to consider 19 bills.

We did the right thing when we were in government. This government should follow that example. The truth is there is no rush. There is no rush for this legislation. It may be a self-evident proposition to those on this side of the chamber, but if there is a delay of many months the world will not end. I know that is hard for some in this chamber to comprehend, but if there is decent examin­ation over many months of this legislation, let us be clear: the world will not end. The new rationale which the Australian Greens are citing for rapid passage of this legisla­tion—and we can only conclude that the government concurs with this—is the Durban conference in December. I put much more stock in the view of the Australian people and place much greater significance on the need for appropriate scrutiny than I do on the desire of the government and the Greens to strut at Durban, to be able to wave their legislation around and say: 'Aren't you impressed? Look what we've done.' I actually do not care what anyone in Durban thinks, whatever country they are from. All I care about is what the Australian people think, what the effect of this legislation will be on their standard of living and what the effect will be on the capacity of Australian businesses to go about selling their goods and services, making a living and employing people. That is what I care about.

One of the best predictors of future beha­viour is past behaviour. Copenhagen was the last big conference at which we had lots of people strutting around—remember Mr Rudd? He was doing the big strut at Copenhagen. I do not think anyone would think that that was a huge success. Thank goodness we did not fall for the argument that we absolutely had to pass the ETS legislation before Copenhagen because otherwise we would be left behind because the rest of the world was going to agree at Copenhagen. Well, they did not. They were never going to. Nothing hangs on Durban.

The government should withdraw this motion. They should withdraw the 19 bills from the House. They should discharge those bills from the House. They should call an election. They should submit themselves, this tax and the legislation to the judgment of the Australian people. I have to confess that I have some doubts that they might win an election seeking to sell a carbon tax. I just have that sneaking suspicion, but let us say I am crazy, let us say I am wrong, let us say the Australian Labor Party score the most stunning electoral victory in Australian history by going to the next election saying, 'We will introduce a carbon tax.' Let us just ponder that for a moment. I am happy to assume that that is a theoretical possibility. I am happy to concede that, if the government discharged the legislation in the House, called an election and said to the Australian people, 'Vote us in; we want to introduce a carbon tax,' it is a theoretical possibility that they could win. I confess that I have a few doubts that they would, but let us assume that they did win. Then by all means reintroduce the carbon tax legislation.

But, whether they did that or whether they were in the circumstance they are in now, they should ensure that there is appropriate time, something in the order of five months, to give proper parliamentary scrutiny to this legislation. Even if the whole parliament agrees on legislation, that legislation still should get appropriate scrutiny. That is our job. We are legislators. Particularly in the Senate, it is our job to scrutinise. It is our job to critique. It is our job to review. It is our job to question even legislation which we might support. That is our job. We are a house of review in the Westminster system.

It is clear that the government do not respect that role. The government do not respect that function of this chamber. It is also clear that the government lack the cour­age to face the people. We know they are gutless. We know they lie to the Australian people. We take that as read. We do not expect them to call a snap poll to do the right thing to put their proposition to the Austra­lian people. But, if they are not going to do that, at the very least they should have the decency to observe a proper parliamentary process. That should be the minimum that they do. Sure, they lie to the Australian people. They are the Australian Labor Party; that is what you expect. They will face their judgment at the next election. But the place where the government are accountable between elections is in this place. The place where their policies and their legislation should be scrutinised is here in this place.

There should be a proper allocation of legislation to the appropriate Senate committees. In fact, we already have a very good committee which is chaired by Senator Cormann, the Senate Select Committee on Scrutiny of New Taxes. The title of that committee is very interesting. There has not really been a need before for a Senate committee specifically to scrutinise new taxes, because most previous governments, Labor or Liberal, have introduced new taxes but have often had offsetting tax cuts pursu­ing the process of tax reform. This is a need which Senator Cormann and his committee are very well fulfilling. There is the opportu­nity for the Senate to take advantage of that committee. We have references committees. We have standing legislative committees. They are there for a purpose, and there should be an appropriate and sensible allo­cation of these bills to those committees for scrutiny.

We will not be complicit in facilitating the electoral deceit of the Australian Labor Party. We know that the Australian Labor Party in this place will seek extra hours. We know that they will seek extra sitting weeks, the purpose of which is to give effect to a lie. We feel under absolutely no obligation to facilitate that in any way, shape or form. But there should be appropriate scrutiny. There should be no rush. There is no reason—no reason at all. I urge those opposite to salvage some dignity. I know there are Labor memb­ers and Labor senators who are appalled by the intention of this government to introduce a carbon tax. They will tell you, as you sit next to them quietly during a division, what they really think. They will tell you in the corridors of this place what they really think. Senator Conroy, who has been outed in the press, makes it clear to any businessman who will listen that the carbon tax will be a disaster for the Australian economy and that he does not support this. We know that. And we know Martin Ferguson's real view. We know the view of the adults in the Australian Labor Party. The view of the grown-ups is that they do not want a carbon tax.

The way for the Australian Labor Party to salvage some dignity, if they are not going to call an election and if they are not going to abandon the carbon tax, is to decouple them­selves from the Australian Greens. I think we had an example a little earlier as to why that should be the case. Senator Milne referred to 'fellow species'. I do not think most Austra­lians or even most Labor senators would be comfortable with being referred to as just a 'fellow species' of other animals. Mr Acting Deputy President Back, you have a veterin­ary background, and even you might be a little uncomfortable with being referred to as a member of a 'fellow species'. It is strange language. I know that in Senator Milne's contribution it was put in the context of species extinction. But if there is a species that is facing extinction, I think it is the members of the Australian Labor Party in the House of Representatives. If they persist in pursuing this deceit—if they persist in seeking to legislate their lie from the last election—then I think they will indeed be the ones facing species extinction.

It is time for the Australian Labor Party to take the field again for working people. They have vacated that space. The only parties in this place, and in the other place, that repre­sent working people are the Liberal Party of Australia and the Nationals. The Australian Labor Party have completely vacated that field—and they wonder why working people are deserting them in droves.

The Labor Party should abandon this venture. They should discharge the carbon tax bills in the House of Representatives. They should have the decency to call an election. They should have the decency to seek a mandate from the Australian people for the introduction of a carbon tax. If they really have the strength of their convict­ions—if they really believe that the virtues of a carbon tax for the Australian economy are self-evident—then they should have no hesitation in putting that to the Australian people. But they have yet to do so. They did not do so before the last election and they are not proposing to give the Australian people an electoral opportunity in which to do so. We on this side of the chamber sought to facilitate that possibility through a plebiscite bill. The government opposed that in the other place. We think that would have been an appropriate mechanism for the Australian people to have their say, but that mechanism was also denied them.

I hope this legislation is not passed, but if it is passed through the House and if it is passed through the Senate then we on this side vow that the fight against the carbon tax will not be over. The fight against the carbon tax will go on. We will take the repeal of the carbon tax to the next election. If the carbon tax legislation has been implemented in this parliament, we will repeal it in the next. That is our solemn commitment. That is our promise to the Australian people. The fight on the carbon tax in this place starts today and will continue. (Time expired)

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia) (11:04): The people of Australia do not want this carbon tax. The Prime Minister promised them before the last election that there would be no carbon tax. Now the Prime Minister wants to rush this bad carbon tax through the parliament, because she realises that the more time the parliament and the people of Australia have in which to talk about it—the more time they have in which to scrutinise it—the more unpopular this bad tax is likely to become.

History and the people of Australia will judge the Prime Minister harshly for the deceit inflicted on them before the last elect­ion. History and the Australian people will judge every single Labor Party member and senator harshly for supporting a tax which clearly is not in our national interest, which clearly is going to inflict a lot of harm on household budgets and on the economy without doing anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

The reason people are as opposed to this tax as they are is that they actually 'get it'. The government is speaking the truth when it says that we have been having a debate in this country for some time now about this whole concept of pricing carbon. The longer this debate has gone on, the more people have realised that there is absolutely no prospect of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions through a price on carbon in Australia if none of the other major emitters are going down that same path. To ask people in Australia to accept a price on carbon when China, the US, India and a whole range of other countries we compete with are not going down that path will just push up the cost of everything here in Australia. It will make us less competitive internationally, it will cost jobs and it will put our energy security at risk—all without doing anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

The people of Australia were entitled to believe, after three years of debate on this—between 2007 and 2010—that the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, had come to the same conclusion. We had a very intensive debate in the parliament and across Australia over the last three years. That debate was in the context of, and in the lead-up to, the so-called Copenhagen conference. At that time, people thought there was a prospect that countries around the world might reach agreement on an appropriately comprehen­sive global arrangement to price carbon. That did not happen. In this chamber we voted twice against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation proposed by the Rudd government. The Senate voted twice against that legislation, with coalition and Greens senators joining to defeat a piece of legisla­tion that was clearly seen by the Senate as inadequate. But what is on the table now is at least as inadequate, if not more inadequate, as what was on the table before.

After the debate that went on between 2007 and 2010, in the last parliament, we now know that Ms Gillard went to see Mr Rudd and said, 'Kill the CPRS; don't go ahead with it.' It is a matter of public record that the Prime Minister went to the last election promising that there would be 'no carbon tax under a government I lead'. We also know that the Prime Minister went to the last election saying that she would do everything she could to build community consensus around the proposition of pricing carbon. She clearly has given up on that. She clearly is trying to ram this legislation through not just this parliament but against the express wishes of the Australian people. After the election, when put under pressure by the Greens and in an effort to hold onto government by Senator Bob Brown's finger­nails, she went out in February and said there will now be a carbon tax. But she also said, 'I'm going to do everything I can to convince people that this is a good idea.' Guess what? The judgement is in, and people do not like it and do not want it. People understand that it will not do anything to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They understand that it will push up the cost of electricity, that it will push up the cost of everything, and that it will cost jobs and put Australia's economy under pressure for no good reason.

We were told back in February: 'Don't you worry. People might not like the carbon tax now but as soon as all the detail is out, as soon as people know about the compen­sation, as soon as people know about the transitional assistance, it will be okay and people will like it. Once people see the detail, people will like what they see.' Guess what? The detail was announced and people still did not like it. We were then told that the Prime Minister was going to wear out her shoe leather. The Prime Minister was going to walk up and down every main street of every town and convince people, one by one, that this carbon tax is a good idea, that this carbon tax is all Australia needs. After two weeks of that, the carbon tax was more unpopular than ever. Very quickly the Prime Minister gave up on that as well because she was confronted by real people on the streets of Australia and real people in the shopping centres of Australia who called it for what it was. We well remember the Prime Minister in a shopping centre in Queensland being confronted with the question: why did you lie to us? Why did you tell us before the last election that there would be no carbon tax only to turn around after the election and say that there will be one?

During that two weeks of meeting with real people who were telling her the truth, what the Prime Minister realised was that the worst thing the government could do would be to allow too much debate and too much scrutiny of this dud tax. I have been chairing the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes for the last 12 months or so. When we put on the agenda for the commit­tee an inquiry into a carbon tax, the Labor members of the committee said, 'How can you put that on for this committee, because there will be no carbon tax?' This was actually after the election. In hindsight that is quite funny. When my committee wanted to have a look at the carbon tax to be introdu­ced by the government, or at any other pricing mechanism on carbon or at an emiss­ions trading scheme, Labor members of the committee in September or October of last year said, 'How can you possibly put that on the agenda for this committee, because there won't be one?'

The detail was announced on 10 July and the legislation, a thousand pages of it, was released on 29 July, but through my committee we have only been able to scratch the surface. Treasury and Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency officials appeared before a number of hear­ings and were unable to answer a whole series of very important questions in relation to this very bad tax. This government does not want officials of the Treasury or of the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to be exposed to too many quest­ions. The secretary of the climate change department, for example, was asked where the figure of 500 big polluters came from. He said, 'It won't be 500; it'll be way less than that.' He said that it would be about 400 or something like that, only to be told by the minister within three or four hours to correct his evidence, because the government's adve­rtising campaign was of course built around the proposition of 500 big polluters. Far be it from the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency to allow the accusation to stand that this was misleading advertising from the government, based on evidence from his own departmental secretary.

Treasury was not given time to properly model the carbon tax package that was actually announced and Treasury never actually assessed the impact of the carbon tax on jobs. We have been told by the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, that the carbon tax will have no impact on jobs, and he relied on Treasury modelling to make that assertion. But, when you look at it, Treasury never assessed the impact on jobs at all. Treasury assumed that there would be no impact on jobs. They included a rule in the model to say there will be no impact on jobs and then the Treasurer dishonestly went out and said, 'Look at this Treasury modelling, it shows there will be in no impact on jobs.' There is lie after lie after lie in that Treasury model­ling and, of course, we have had people appear before us—very credible economic modellers like Frontier Economics—who have said quite bluntly that the assumptions that are used by Treasury in their modelling, presumably at the direction of the govern­ment, are not plausible, are not realistic and are not real-world assumptions. The impact of that is that the Treasury modelling severely underestimates the impacts that the carbon tax will have on the cost of living, on the economy and on jobs and severely overe­stimates the impact that it will have on reducing emissions. Now the truth of the matter is that, even on the government's own figures, it is a pretty bad tax because elect­ricity is going to go up by 10 per cent in year one and go up and up after that as the carbon tax continues to go up. Even on the govern­ment's own figures, emissions in Australia are not going to go down; emissions in Australia are going to continue to go up from about 578 million tonnes to about 621 million tonnes.

So then the government says, 'Oh, but emissions are going to be lower than they otherwise would have been'—interesting, so where are those emissions going to go? Those emissions are going to go to manu­facturing businesses in China, India and the US and all the other places that manufact­uring businesses in Australia compete with, but the businesses in those countries will not be facing that same cost. As we make overseas manufacturers more competitive and help them take market share away from equivalent businesses here in Australia, all we will be doing is shifting emissions overseas, arguably into places where envir­onmental standards are lower and where emissions are going to be higher. All we will be doing is imposing a sacrifice on people here in Australia without actually making any difference to the environment.

We are told that the carbon tax is going to stop the floods, stop the droughts, stop sea levels rising and save the kelp beds off the coast of Tasmania. If only we had known that a carbon tax could fix all of those ills! We should have come up with it a long time ago. But, guess what: I do not believe that a carbon tax will save the kelp beds off the coast of Tasmania; I do not believe that a carbon tax will stop the droughts; I do not believe that a carbon tax will stop the floods; and I do not believe that a carbon tax will have any impact on rising sea levels. A carbon tax which will shift emissions overseas, a carbon tax which will reduce emissions in Australia in a way that will increase them by arguably more in other parts of the world, is not effective action on climate change; it is a deliberate act of economic self-harm.

This is exactly the point that the Australian people understand. The Australian people understand that not only were they lied to before the last election but they are still being lied to now. They are being asked to believe that somehow putting on a $23 a tonne tax on carbon is going to stop sea levels rising. They are being asked to believe that this $23 a tonne tax on carbon, which is going to push up the cost of their electricity, is somehow going to save the kelp beds off the coast of Tasmania. Well, guess what: it will not. It will hurt people's hip pocket, it will increase cost-of-living pressures and it will put jobs at risk, but it will not save the kelp beds off the coast of Tasmania to the extent that they are actually at risk.

I look at this whole issue and wonder. If the Prime Minister was really committed to pricing carbon, if the Prime Minister was really committed to a carbon tax and if she really thought it was such a good idea, why didn't she tell the Australian people before the last election? Why did she stop trying to build a community consensus? Why did she stop wearing out her shoe leather? Why does she now want to ram it through this parliament without having taken this proposal for significant economic change to an election so that the Australian people could pass judgment? The reason is this Prime Minister knows that the Australian people do not want it and that, given an opportunity to pass judgment, they would chuck her out of office. That is why she is trying to rush this through. That is why she never told the Australian people the truth before the last election. That is why she did not even try to build community consensus. This Prime Minister has divided Australia in her incredibly irresponsible and reckless push to impose a carbon tax. She has divided Australia rather than build community consensus. She has united a large part of Australia against this government in her attempt to ram through this carbon tax.

The single reason why the government are moving this motion here today is they do not want on the committees with the job of scru­tinising these sorts of pieces of legislation senators who will ask the hard questions, because they do not have the answers. Incidentally, when I look at the composition of this committee in this motion, I see a significant outrage as far as the Senate's representation on it is concerned. It is funny that from the House of Representatives there is to be representation from the opposition, from the government and from the Greens and there is provision for one non-aligned member to be appointed to the committee, which is to consist of 14 members—so four members to be nominated by the government from the House of Representatives, three members to be nominated by the opposition from the House of Representatives and one Greens member and one non-aligned member to be nominated. But look at who is in this motion to represent the Senate. From the Senate all we get are two senators from the government, two senators from the oppo­sition and one Greens senator. What about Senator Xenophon and Senator Madigan? There is no representative from the cross­bench. Both Senator Xenophon and Senator Madigan have taken a very close interest in this carbon tax issue. Senator Xenophon has done so at great personal expense on occasions. Senator Madigan is a very hard­working and very active member of the Senate Select Committee on the Scrutiny of New Taxes. He happens to be the true labour representative of working families across Australia—the only labour representative of working families across Australia in this chamber. The Australian Labor Party has sold out working families across Australia. But because Senator John Madigan, who represents the DLP in this chamber, does not agree with the Australian Labor Party on its push for a carbon tax, he has been comple­tely ignored. He has been cast aside. The government effectively has three senators represented on this committee; the opposit­ion has two; and the crossbench, consisting of Senator Xenophon and Senator Madigan, has been completely ignored.

The carbon tax is a bad tax. The carbon tax is a tax which we were promised we would not have. The people of Australia do not want this tax. The people of Australia were promised they would not get this tax. The people of Australia will judge the Prime Minister harshly at the next election for having lied to them at the last election. The people of Australia will judge every single Labor member and senator in this parliament harshly at the next election because they are all part of this deception. Instead of doing the right thing and allowing proper scrutiny of this legislation to proceed, instead of doing the right thing and taking it to an election after it is properly scrutinised, they want to ram a bad piece of legislation through this chamber, which they well know the Austra­lian people do not want, and the Australian Labor Party stand condemned for it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Crossin ): Minister, I am going to give you the call.

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Queensland Floods Recovery) (11:24): This motion started out as a message from the House of Represent­atives.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: You need to move that the question be now put.

Senator LUDWIG: I move:

That the question be now put.

Senator Ian Macdonald: Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. There are clearly at least two other speakers who would like to participate in this debate. Is it appropriate to call the minister next when he has indicated he wants to stifle further debate, to effectively guillotine this debate? Could I, by way of point of order, suggest that you may in those circumstances want to call other senators who might want to speak and leave the minister who has clearly indicated he wants to terminate the debate to the time when nobody else wants to speak?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I understand that I can call the minister to move that motion. He has indicated that that is what he is going do, and he has done that. The minister has moved that the question be now put.

Senator LUDWIG: On the basis that two further speakers on the other side want to speak, I will allow them to speak before I move the motion. I seek leave to withdraw the motion.

Leave granted.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (11:26): It is a little difficult for me to actually acknowledge the actions of the minister in allowing further speakers, but I do thank the minister for his coopera­tion in allowing further discussion. I under­stand for the record that the minister has indicated that he is happy to allow two further speakers on this motion, and so I do thank the minister for that. It is very important that those senators who do have a view on the motion before the chair should have the opportunity to put their points of view.

Just by way of recapitulation, what we are doing is discussing a message from the House of Representatives which requests the concurrence of the Senate to a resolution to set up a joint select committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future legislation, which is to be appointed to inquire into and report on 19 bills that are listed in the motion. They all relate to the Clean Energy Bill 2011, which is a nice way of calling or labelling or titling the carbon tax bills.

This joint select committee is to look into all of those 19 bills that impose on Australians a carbon tax. Just over a year ago the leader of the Labor Party, the then Prime Minister and now current Prime Minister, promised hand on heart to all Australians that she would not introduce a carbon tax with those famous words: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' It was not a spur of the moment commitment or promise that she made. It was a commitment that she repeated a couple of times. In fact, her assurance was repeated by the deputy leader of the Labor Party, Mr Wayne Swan, when he responded to Tony Abbott, who had suggested to the Australian public that, if Labor were elected, we would have a carbon tax. Mr Abbott told the Australian public that; but Mr Swan said that Mr Abbott was being hysterical in even suggesting that the Labor Party would introduce a carbon tax. The Prime Minister at the time, Ms Gillard, promised once and then promised again the day before the election: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' Because of that assurance, and because of the fact that every member of the Labor Party was seen by the electorate to be running to the election on a policy of no carbon tax, a lot of people who would not have voted for Ms Gillard and her team changed their mind, because they believed her. If Ms Gillard had got up the day before the election and said, 'Australians, we need a carbon tax; I am going to intro­duce one', I will bet you anything—and any observer, student or person learned in poli­tics could tell you—the Labor Party would have been absolutely thrashed at the last election. But they were not thrashed—well, they were thrashed but not thrashed suffic­iently to change the government—because Ms Gillard promised there would be no carbon tax.

To make matters worse, the government then introduced 18 different bills to impose this carbon tax. Those 18 bills were dumped on the opposition's table a couple of days ago. I certainly have not had any opportunity to read even one of those bills. We all do have other work to do in this chamber. I want to spend some time reading all of those 18 bills to get an understanding of what they are about. I want to read the explanatory memorandums for all of those bills and then I want to debate those bills.

But if this proposal for so-called 'time management' passes, then I and all of my colleagues are going to have one minute per bill as the time we are allowed to debate them when they get to the Senate chamber. I understand the Green-Labor alliance has agreed upon these curtailments of speaking time when the bills come into the chamber. There is not much I can do about that. I will be voting against those proposals but I suspect the coalition of Greens and Labor will prevail on that issue.

Accepting that, I would like to have a look at these bills in committee and get some evidence from experts on each one of them. I could assess those bills much more carefully if we followed the normal Senate practice—that is, bills that are introduced into the Senate go off to a Senate committee. Under the rules of the Senate, every senator can be a participating member of those committees and I and all of my colleagues from all sides of the chamber would have the opportunity then of hearing witnesses, getting expert advice, looking at the fine details and draw­ing out the many errors that we are going to find in these bills. We know without even looking that there will be errors in these bills.

We are only too well aware of the Labor Party's record when it comes to hasty introduction of legislation and government action—just look at the pink batts fiasco. That was rushed in supposedly to fix a problem. It turned out to be one of the great­est wastes and one of the most dangerous actions taken by any government. It cost the Australian public millions and millions of dollars, not only to install these batts but also then to take them out to save houses from being burnt and to save further deaths. It is a given that there will be in these 18 bills errors, unintended consequences and issues that highlight how futile this all is. We all know the Treasury figures that show by 2020, even with this massive tax on every Australian, we are going to increase the amount of emissions coming from Australia. So it will be a big tax but the amount of emi­ssions coming from Australia will increase.

I always say, if the rest of the world were doing something then certainly Australia should be doing something, but, in spite of the protestations of the Prime Minister, we will be leading the world on a tax of this nature and extent that no other country has imposed. I remind listeners to this debate that Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of total world carbon emissions. So, even if we stopped every emission, it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever to the changing climate of the world—not one iota of difference. But we are not even proposing to cut the 1.4 per cent of emissions that Australia is responsible for. We are only going to cut five per cent of that.

This huge tax is all about—

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Senator IAN MACDONALD: You don't like the truth of this, Senator Hanson-Young? Clearly the Greens do not want the facts to be known. Tell me, Senator Hanson-Young, is it true or not true that Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of world emissions?

Senator Hanson-Young: Why don't you refer it to the committee?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: You are absolutely right. I am not going to get the chance to go to the committee. Thank you very much, Senator Hanson-Young. It should go to a committee. I should be able to raise these points at a committee. I should be able to call witnesses. I should be able, with you, to question experts on whether it is true that Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of world carbon emissions. I know what the experts will say, and it would be good if you were on the committee because you would understand from the experts that Australia only emits less than 1.4 per cent of world carbon emissions. You would also learn that stopping five per cent of that—we are aiming for five per cent—is not going to make one iota of difference to the changing climate of the world, and you know that. I would love to be in a committee with you, Senator Hanson-Young, where we could get the experts and we could get that all in. But I am not going to be given the chance. The Greens have a total of 10 members of parliament. Yet on this sole committee that is being set up to look at this legislation, the Greens will have two representatives: one from the lower house and one from the Senate. How many will the Liberal and National parties have on this committee—bearing in mind that the Liberal and National parties have more members and senators than any other party in this parliament? We have about 150 Liberal and National members of parliament and on this committee we will have three members from the House of Representatives—nomi­nated by the opposition whip—and two senators. So out of 150 parliamentarians, the Liberal and National parties will have five people on the committee. Roughly speaking, that is one per 30 members of parliament. By contrast, the Greens will have two members on the committee to represent their 10 members of parliament. How fair is that? What Australian would think that was a fair go? What Australian would think this proposal will make our democracy work?

This is a rump party, the Greens political party, that has very little support around the nation, yet this party will get two members on this committee out of its 10 members of parliament. Our parties, which represent more than 50 per cent of the Australian public, are going to get five members. When you add the Labor Party's representation to the Greens' representation on the committee, the Labor Party will get another four from the House of Representatives and two senators. There will be a total of six from the Labor Party—a non-aligned member, I see—and two from the Greens. So it is eight to five. The party that represents most Austra­lians, that has the biggest political represent­ation in this chamber and in the whole parliament, will get a total of five people on the committee.

This new committee, this gerrymander, is not going to follow the Senate practice of allowing participating members. Why is that not happening, Senator Hanson-Young? You and your Labor mates put this deal together. Why are you going against the normal Senate practice of allowing every senator to take part in committee investigations and not allowing participating members? The answer is that the Labor Party and the Greens do not want scrutiny of these bills. That is why this motion sets out that the committee will have a restricted amount of time to deal with 18 separate bills.

This committee will have a very substantial majority from the Labor-Greens alliance. Yet the opposition represents more Australians in this parliament both in numbers and in the percentage of votes at the last election. And if opinion polls are to be believed around the country, the view of Liberal and National parties is reflected in a substantial majority of Australians. Accord­ing to the opinion polls, most Australians do not want this tax, yet the Greens and the Labor Party are pursuing this undemocratic process of restricting debate on the bills. Senator Hanson-Young said, 'Save it for the debate on the bills when that comes.' Senator Hanson-Young, my allocation of time to address each one of these bills is one minute. What will I be able to say in one minute? That is my share of the time that you and your Labor colleagues have imposed on this parliament. What sort of questioning can I raise in my one minute dealing with these bills?

In all the long years I have been in this parliament, I have never seen anything as undemocratic as this particular motion and the way it intends to deal with this legisla­tion, allowing me and all my colleagues one minute per bill. Senator Hanson-Young says, 'Why don't you save this for the debate.' Senator Hanson-Young, I am a fast talker but in one minute I will not be able to question the minister, I will not be able to question anyone on your side on some of your stupidity in the case of these carbon tax bills and I will not be able to ask you: what difference will five per cent of less than 1.4 per cent make to the changing climate of the world? I would like you to answer that, Senator Hanson-Young. You will get plenty of time to talk on it, but I will get one minute per bill. How democratic is that? It is an affront to all Australians that a bill which is going to impose a major tax on the cost of living of every Australian will be rammed through this parliament by an unholy alliance, actually a holy alliance, I suspect, of the Greens and the Labor Party.

I have had to listen to the pious principles that have been espoused by the Greens Senate leader, Senator Brown, over all these years, that: 'We never guillotine anything. We may not agree with you but we allow full debate on everything.' What has happened to that principle? That has gone out the door. It just proves the point I always make about the Greens: they are full of hypocrisy. They are so hypocritical in their policies and in their approach to this issue. 'Yes, we should have a full debate.' Senator Hanson-Young inter­jected, saying, 'Save this for the debate on the bill,' yet I am going to get one minute. How democratic is that?

People have voted for the Greens in the past thinking that they were a party of the environment—what a joke that is!—and a party of some fairness and democracy. What will people in the electorate now say about a party which is going to allow every senator only one minute to debate each one of these 18 bills which will impose on every Australian perhaps the largest cost-of-living increase that has ever been imposed by this parliament?

The motion for the setting up of this committee is undemocratic. It is contrary to all the principles of the Senate. It is contrary to all the principles that every senator has always cherished. In this chamber, we have a proper committee process, we look into bills and we elucidate the mistakes that we all know will be there. That process has stood the test of time, and it is being thrown aside by the Greens political party and the Labor Party in their alliance to curtail debate on these most important bills.

I urge the Senate to reject this message from the House of Representatives. I urge the Senate to go back to its normal procedure of setting up a Senate committee, which would have every senator as a participating member, so that we can fully investigate all of these 18 different bills. (Time expired)

Senator BOSWELL (Queensland) (11:46): We are being asked to agree to a motion to appoint a joint committee to consider 18 bills that will come before this house in one cognate debate, in which each of us will have one minute per bill to speak. This motion gives us an opportunity to discuss why we need a full-blown Senate committee inquiry into these bills. This is the greatest con in the world. I can understand the Greens. I think Senator Macdonald was being a bit harsh on the Greens. The Greens have been very, very successful with this. They have been totally successful. Why are we rushing? Because Senator Bob Brown wants to go to South Africa and swan around and say, 'This is what I got.' That will increase the Greens vote—no doubt about it. So they have been terribly successful.

The most unsuccessful people in this parliament are the Labor Party. They are lining up like a bunch of lemmings to go over a cliff. It amazes me. It is almost as though it is fatalistic: 'We're going to die. Let's do it. Let's do it together.' Everyone in the Labor Party knows that at least 20 or 30 of them are going to be collateral damage. But the Greens have told them to charge: 'Go into it. We've blown the whistle. Go over the top.' And, like lemmings, they are going over the top, and they are going to get completely wiped out. But they cannot see it. They cannot see that they are being led around by the nose by the Greens. The people out there see it. They see the Greens now as anti-Semitic. They see the Greens as supporting the boycott of chocolate shops. Even the Greens vote is going down. But when the Greens vote goes down it is two per cent off the Labor vote also. I warned Labor when they were at 34 per cent. I said, 'Disengage yourself from the Greens or you will bottom out at 25 per cent.' Well, they have bottomed out at 25 per cent. They are at 27 per cent now, but the Greens have lost two per cent and that takes them to 25 per cent. They have bottomed out.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

Senator BOSWELL: Senator, you should be very proud of yourself. You have led these people into a perfect trap, an unbelievable trap. The surprising thing is that they are too stupid to see it. But they know that, come the election, there is going to be an execution. Twenty or 30 of them are going to be collateral damage. We know it. The polls are telling us. The people are telling us. I have not seen Labor on the nose so badly since 1974. People distrust the Labor Party because they have been misled and they have been lied to.

But let us get back to the debate. There are three totally good reasons that this is an absolute con and cannot work. First, if a carbon tax is going to work it has got to be imposed on the whole world. It is no good Australia, with 1.4 per cent, pulling its weight or doing more than its share. It is not going to make the slightest bit of difference. You have got to go out and convince the people in the Third World countries—the big emitters, the people that are trying to make a quid, the governments that are trying to pull their people out of poverty—that they should pay an increased price on their handful of rice, on their cooking oil, on their electricity, on the steel they use, on the cement they use. You have got to convince the people of Indonesia, the Philippines, India. And do you think they are going to listen to you? Those countries have not got the slightest intention of leaving their people in poverty, and neither should they. For this to work, you have got to convince them. So this fails on the first attempt. You will never convince the people in the Third World—and you should never be able to convince them—that they have got to starve, live in inferior houses and not have any industry because nine of you over there want to take the Labor Party around by the nose.

The second reason it will not work is that it is based on a lie. This modelling is a lie. It is based on the assumption that every country in the world is going to achieve this by 2016. You do not have to believe me, but a guy called McKibbin, who is one of the leading economists in Australia, has said that there is absolutely no modelling that the government is prepared to release. A person called Henry Ergas says in an article:

Answering these questions would be easier if the government opened the kimono on the actual model. Given access to the model itself, we would know exactly what it assumes. And the implications of changing those assumptions could be tested.

The government will not release its model. The other day in a Senate Committee on Climate Policy hearing I asked Ms Quinn whether anybody could buy this modelling. She said yes. I asked if someone was to rock up with a cheque in their hand, could they buy the modelling. Someone was listening to me at the time, and he went with a cheque in his hand wanting to buy the modelling. He was refused the modelling. So the modelling is not there. There are reams and reams of paper but the official modelling is not avail­able. That is another case of misleading the parliament, of misleading the people. This carbon tax is based on an assumption that the rest of the world is going to comply by 2016. That is not going to happen, and everyone in Australia knows it is not going to happen.

The third reason is China. In 2021 China will replace Australia's projected emissions reduction—57 million tonnes—in just one day and Australia's projected emissions sav­ings, including purchase of international permits, in less than four days. I remind the Senate that China's consumption of coal grew by 15 per cent in 2010. It went to 435 million tonnes. Australia only produces 420 million tonnes. So the total production of Australia's coal, which is a major export, would go over to China.

Reducing carbon emissions has to be app­roached on a world basis. People out there are not stupid. If you could turn up and say 'I can assure you that this will work', you might get a bit of bite out there in the electorate. But you are not getting that. People would probably listen to you if you could prove that it would work. But there are three reasons it will not work. Firstly, you will not ever convince Third World countries that they can do it—they cannot do it. They are trying to pull their people out of poverty while the Greens sit over there on their parliamentary salaries and try to keep the Third World in poverty. That is what they are trying to do. The second reason it will not work is that it is based on an assumption that everyone else in the world will be working off the same plan in 2016. The third reason it will not work is that China is upping and upping its use of coal—and it is cutting down wind generation, because it is inefficient. That is an issue for another time.

We need time to investigate these facts that I have raised. They are facts supported by prominent modellers and economists—but they cannot get the government's model­ling. I asked about the modelling and was told that people could get it, but when some­one rocked up with a cheque they were told they could not get it. The Labor Party is supposed to represent workers, and it knows it is going to destroy jobs, so why is it going ahead with the legislation? Because the Greens want it. Senator Macdonald was a bit harsh on the Greens. The Greens have played the Labor Party off a break. The stupid part about it is that the Labor Party does not even know it is getting played off a break. The leader of the Greens will go over to Durban and he will prance around on the world stage and say, 'Hey, look what I have done'. If he was really honest he would say, 'Look what I have done—I have confined the Third World to poverty; I have made sure they are not going to get out of poverty'. That is, effect­ively, what the Greens want. They want Aboriginals to stay in poverty; they do not want them to use their own land and they do not want them to work in the cement indus­try or in an industry on Stradbroke Island. They want to close it all down and keep people in poverty. If that is what the Greens want to do, and that is where their market is, good on them. But I fail to understand why the Labor Party just meekly follows the Greens down this path to destruction.

I want to illustrate one case, speaking on behalf of the National Party and the coa­lition. Some of the biggest employers in rural Australia are abattoirs. They employ huge numbers of people. You can roughly equate the number of cattle killed per day with the number of people employed in abattoirs. This tax is going to cost abattoirs between $2.5 million and $3.5 million. That is a big variation; they are still working on the figure—but it is certainly $2.5 million and probably higher. These abattoirs are the iron lungs of country Australia. They employ the people who live in the towns and then there are teachers in the towns, and so it goes on. The abattoir I have in mind is a huge employer, and it sustains the town. A carbon tax placed on the abattoir will affect the town. What will happen to these 600 work­ers? According to the Greens: 'It'll be right. Just pass your costs on.' But this particular abattoir is competing overseas against count­ries which do not have a carbon tax. Our companies will have to sell meat, with a high dollar and no carbon tax, while competing against others who have no carbon tax. They are terrified.

There are implications not only for abattoirs. If you take an abattoir out of the buying ring, it affects the price with the pressure pushing up the price of cattle. The other day probably the second last tannery in Australia rang my office. This guy said to me, 'I will need a miracle to survive. I'm doing it hard now but I cannot see how I will survive when a carbon tax comes.' There are another 200 process workers at this tannery, people who would probably find it hard to get a job anywhere else. The implications from that are not only for the 200 people. This particular tannery works on kangaroo leather—it makes cricket balls and footballs. I am glad you think it is funny, Senator Ludwig. It is about as funny as you closing down the cattle industry in North Queens­land. I hope you get a laugh when you find everyone going broke because of your ill-considered—

Senator Ludwig: Madam Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Could you kindly address your remarks to the chair, Senator Boswell. Senator Boswell, the hum­orous issue was about something other than what you were talking about, quite frankly, but I do not think I need to make that personal explanation. It would be better if you kept to the debate at hand rather than wander, as you seem apt to do, across a whole range of areas.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Crossin ): Senator Boswell, I want to remind you that we are debating the motion moved by Senator Ludwig in reference to a message from the House of Representatives.

Senator BOSWELL: If the minister was showing amusement about something else, I do apologise. We have in front of us a mental picture of closure of abattoirs and tanneries, where process workers are to be put on the dole. So you cannot blame me, if I see someone on the other side smiling, for getting upset about it. If Senator Ludwig tells me he was amused by some other issue, I accept that and I apologise.

In 2050, we are going to be sending $57 billion offshore to buy certificates. What are we going to get for it? Nothing—we are going to get some certificates back. We cannot even run renewable energy. There are so many scams happening now on renewable energy. What do you think is going to happen when we have to buy certificates from Western African countries? Do you think they are going to be fair dinkum? What are we going to buy? Even Norway, a fairly sophisticated country, is at the moment in the middle of a huge scam on emissions trading certificates.

This is designed to fail. The tragedy will be that in failing it will destroy a lot of manufacturing jobs in Australia—in the tanneries, in the abattoirs, in rural Australia and in Golden Circle right in the heart of Mr Swan's area. People will be able to buy imported pineapple from Thailand or wher­ever they bring it in from. But the great Golden Circle company will have to pay a carbon tax. Already it is under pressure and shedding jobs. Already imports are coming in because of a high dollar. All these things are happening now and they are happening right in front of us.

What is the Labor Party's answer to manu­facturing? 'Don't worry about any of that. We'll get Peter Beattie. We'll pay him a thousand bucks a day and he will fix it all.' If that is not shades of GroceryWatch, Fuel­watch or 'Peter Beattie watch', I do not know what is. It is a shame and a nonsense. You will not address the issue because you will not stand up to the Greens. We saw it yesterday. You would not support a resolu­tion condemning the Greens because they are your partners. You are handcuffed to them and they are leading you around and playing you all for fools. I do not know when you will wake up. Sometimes I do not think you will ever wake up, but one day, when there is an election—and that election could come any time between now and in two years—there will be a severe reckoning with the Labor Party.

We need a meaningful Senate or House of Representatives inquiry to investigate these 19 bills. There are going to be mistakes—there always are mistakes and unintended consequences. We are going to spend the next 12 months trying to sort them out through amendments because we have to get there before Senator Bob Brown goes to Durban. This is another example—if we needed further examples because we get them every day of the week—of the Greens telling the Labor Party what to do. The people have had a gutful of it. You should stand up and get a bit of courage. You should stand on your own feet!

Senator LUDWIG (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Minister Assisting the Attorney-General on Queensland Floods Recovery) (12:06): We are now debating, notwithstanding the submissions that have gone before, the establishment of a Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future Legislation. This has already passed through the House of Representa­tives, where a majority saw the need for the establishment of the joint select committee. Now it is in the Senate for concurrence.

Carbon pricing and climate change policy have been widely debated in Australia for more than a decade, including through some 35 parliamentary inquiries. This joint com­mittee will be the 36th. In 1998, the first review of emissions trading was conducted by an Australian government. Work under­taken by the then Howard government, most notably by Professor Peter Shergold, conclu­ded that pricing carbon through a market based mechanism was the best approach to tackling climate change. Professor Ross Garnaut has conducted two major reviews on Australia's best policy options for tackling climate change. But there is more. The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee met for nine months before completing its work in July this year. That is how the govern­ment's Clean Energy Future package was developed. This just gives you a frame of reference for when those opposite complain about their inability to participate in the debate.

What we have heard from those opposite has a tinge of hypocrisy, I think. On the one hand, they complain that they will not have the ability to participate; on the other hand, they do not want us to act. It is the latter which is, I believe, the real motivation be­hind the complaints from the other side. The federal coalition, the Greens and Independ­ents were all invited to participate in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. Guess what? Only the coalition declined the opportunity to participate in the development of this fundamental public policy reform. They could have been part of that; they could have participated in that. But they chose not to. So I do think the debate this morning is tinged with a little hypocrisy from those opposite.

The government has engaged widely, including through business and NGO round­tables, as part of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee process. The government released the framework for its carbon pricing policy and sought feedback. Draft legislation was released for consultation in late July and over 1,300 submissions were received. Every single committee established by the former coalition government, without exception, had a government majority. In contrast, this government is not seeking to have a govern­ment majority on this committee. That is indicative of the inclusive approach we have taken. The government has been open, trans­parent and consultative throughout this process. We have shared with the Australian community all the available research which has informed our thinking.

It is now time to get on with business, to establish the joint select committee, to progress the legislation, to progress towards a clean energy future. Labor's plan will cut carbon pollution and drive investment in clean energy technologies and infrastruct­ure—in solar, gas and wind. It will help build the clean energy future which future generations deserve. It will not help us that the opposition remain, effectively, climate change sceptics. The rest of the world is acting and we need to act with them.

I was not going to take up too much time in this debate, but I think one of the things I do need to do is dispel this position that the opposition bring to the parliament. There is an old equity proverb: 'You should come with clean hands if you are going to whinge about the process.' Let us look at the opposition's record on process. I take this from an essay entitled, The Senate a paper tiger?, where Labor Senator Chris Evans is quoted summarising the impact of the coalition's strategies on the passage of legislation through the Senate between 1 July 2005 and 16 December 2005. During that period, the gag was used 16 times, thus redu­cing the time available for critical scrutiny of government business by the opposition and the minor parties. The guillotine was applied and the gag was used three times on the Telstra bills and Family First Senator Steve Fielding was denied the opportunity to speak. On 11 October 2005, debate over a variation to the routine of business and sit­ting hours was gagged twice. On 3 Novem­ber 2005, debate was gagged on a motion relating to hours and routine of business. On 8 November, the gag was used over Labor's proposed amendment to the reference of the Senate Education, Employment and Work­place Relations Committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005. On 1 December, Work Choices legislation was guillotined and debate gagged. On 5 December, antiterror bills and two welfare bills were guillotined and gagged.

There is an old equity proverb to the effect that if you want to come and have this debate, you should come with clean hands. Clearly you do not have clean hands in this debate. We have come to this debate with clean hands. We have ensured that there has been a consultative process. We asked you to participate in a multi-party climate change committee, but you refused. You will continue, as you have outlined, to just simply say no, to take a negative, carping approach and to argue neither the policy nor the sub­stance of the debate—you will continue to use process to just simply say no. Those on this side of the chamber are getting on with business. We are looking forward to a clean energy future. We would like to have a good policy debate on this, but I do not hold up a lot of hope for it, quite frankly. Question put:

That the motion (Senator Ludwig's) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:18]

(The President—Senator Hogg)

Senator Wong did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Coonan

Question agreed to.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:21): When this debate was interrupted I was talking about the importance of protect­ing human health and safety and our marine environment in order to ensure that Austra­lia's offshore petroleum industry is the best and safest in the world and that it can continue to contribute to Australia's ongoing energy security and economic prosperity. These very strong standards do not appear in a vacuum. Government must insist on and uphold the very highest possible standards. There have been a number of other discuss­ions and inquiries that pinpoint the need for our legislation to be consolidated into a single national approach and a single nation­al regulator. I understand that the state government of Western Australia has a great deal of knowledge and expertise, but it is not really viable to keep separate regulatory bodies. This is a national and international industry and needs to be regulated as such. I certainly accept—and believe it is of funda­mental importance—that there is a need for a continuing state and territory role in major decisions and engagements.

Senators may recall the Varanus Island incident which had a devastating impact on the economy of Western Australia for quite some time. If this incident taught me any­thing, it was that one of the causes was the lack of clarity about who was responsible for the regulatory oversight of the accident site. The explosion actually took place at the watermark. Underwater is in the federal jurisdiction and land is in the state juris­diction. This highlights the nature of the complexities that we are dealing with in this legislation.

The reviews and the extensive consult­ation with jurisdictions and industry all point to one thing: that the continuation of the regulatory status quo is not an option for us anymore. The legislation before us today recognises the very important connection between the integrity of structures, the safety of people and the protection of our environ­ment. That is why, in creating a national off­shore regulator, the Gillard government importantly is expanding NOPSA's existing safety and integrity functions to include regulation of day-to-day operations and also the environmental plans of those operations.

The separation of offshore regulation and titles administration in this legislation is also significant, as we need to avoid any potential or perceived conflicts between these two functions. This will avoid any potential or perceived conflicts between the regulation of activities, on the one hand, and the protection of the environment and the promotion of exploration and development, on the other.

State and territory ministers will continue to have a key role in title decisions and full access to information about projects in Commonwealth waters offshore from their state or territory. State and NT ministers will also be able to access technical advice from NOPTA about title matters as well as seek advice from their own departments.

These reforms will have implications for all state governments, such as Western Aust­ralia, and the Northern Territory involved in oil and gas. Our government knows that. Regulator and administrative responsibilities and staffing and revenues will all be affect­ed. In developing these reforms, the Australi­an government has paid particular attention to the concerns raised by the Western Aust­ralian government. For example, we have made sure that the states have a role in deci­sion making in Commonwealth waters and these reforms will retain the role of the joint authority within them. Both NOPSEMA and NOPTA will be headquartered in Perth. This is especially important, given the high level of activity that is occurring right around the state of Western Australia and the fact that Perth is the base from which much of that activity occurs.

We can see from the lessons learnt from past serious and very critical incidents that there is a strong imperative to form a strong national offshore regulator that has at its very core the important functions of safety. That is the safety of people and safety for our environment. We must avoid potential, or even perceived, conflicts between regulation and titles administration and exploration and development. It is about streamlining to make clear just who is responsible at the end of the day for regulation. We have had many unfortunate incidents where that has not been clear to us. So that there can be a stronger and better future in the regulation and safety of the offshore oil and gas industry in Western Australia and right around the nation, it is really important that these bills before the Senate are supported. I commend the reforms to the Senate.

Senator CASH (Western Australia) (12:27): I too rise to speak on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (National Regulator) Bill 2011. This bill is part of a package of five bills about the administration and regulation of petroleum and greenhouse gas storage oper­ations in Commonwealth waters. It is import­ant to remember that these bills have a very long history and to understand how these bills have come before the Senate today in their present form. As a senator for Western Australia, I have had concerns for some time about the package of the bills, in particular as they appeared in their original form.

Let us not forget that the Commonwealth of Australia is a body established as a federation of the states and is just one element of the ongoing federation. As a committed federalist, I have been particular­ly concerned about the introduction of a national offshore petroleum regulator, as I do not believe that a reasonable case for change from the existing joint system has been made. Western Australia stands to be the state most affected by this legislation. We are the most active petroleum jurisdiction in Australia with an estimated 60 per cent of offshore activity being conducted off our coast. There are currently five LNG develop­ments with onshore LNG processing plants at various stages of development. These major resource developments underline the fact that Western Australia stands as the state that is most affected by the proposed legis­lation. This was also illustrated by the evidence given to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (National Regulator) Bill 2011 and the related bills.

It is a proven fact that Western Australia has a significantly better understanding of its own territorial waters than Canberra based Commonwealth bureaucrats, particularly as a large proportion of current and potential offshore gas fields are off the Western Australian coast. It was made clear in the submission from the Western Australian Department of Mines and Petroleum to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into these bills that there was no support in Western Australia for the removal of its role as the regulator of offshore petroleum. Mr Sellers, who is the Director General of the WA Department of Mines and Petroleum, gave evidence to the committee confirming the position of the Western Australian government, which believes that there was no need to change the system, on the basis that the current joint system works adequately and encourages consultation between both the state and the Common­wealth governments.

As stated in the explanatory memoran­dum, the Offshore Petroleum and Green­house Gas Storage Amendment (National Regulator) Bill 2011 will amend the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. It will establish two new regulatory bodies to administer and regulate petroleum and greenhouse gas storage operations in Commonwealth waters in the Australian offshore area. The new bodies will replace the designated authorities, who are the state and Northern Territory ministers, who, through their departments, have to date performed and exercised powers conferred directly on them by the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and its predecessor act, the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. The proposed establishment of the national offshore-petro­leum regulator is not supported by all the states and territories and is recognised as a grab by the Commonwealth for greater control of the resources industry.

Western Australia has a significant resource base. The responsibility for the management of these resources is a major task of the WA state government. The efficiency, effectiveness and success of the resource industry in WA are directly attributable to the dedicated manner in which the WA state government has approached this task for more than 100 years. In WA the mining and resources industry underpins our state economy, and the benefits of our resources industry have significant flow-on effects to the rest of Australia. There is no doubt that the success of the industry—because it is an export based industry—means that flow-on effects have benefited the wider Australian community more than with any other Australian industry in recent years. It is estimated that, of Australia's oil and gas reserves, about 78 per cent of crude oil and 92 per cent of natural gas are located off the coast of Western Australia.

Senators will be aware of the history of the joint agreement between the Common­wealth and the states that was concluded at the Premiers Conference on 29 June 1979 and became known as the Offshore Constit­utional Settlement. The Offshore Constituti­onal Settlement was instigated to determine the question of how to divide management of resources and responsibilities in the territo­rial sea between the Commonwealth and the states. This arrangement followed a decision of the High Court in 1975 which, as a conse­quence of the seas and submerged lands case, determined that the Commonwealth had sovereignty over the territorial sea, incl­uding the seabed beneath the three nautical miles of waters now called coastal waters.

Since the Offshore Constitutional Settle­ment in 1979, the agreed structure between the Commonwealth and the states for the management of offshore petroleum and gas developments is carried out through a joint authority, which comprises the rele­vant state minister and the relevant federal minister acting in concert, and it is important to recognise that the operative words to the joint authority are 'working in concert'. That is what the joint authority is all about—the state and Commonwealth governments wor­king together in concert. The joint authority for each state and the Northern Territory comprises the responsible Commonwealth minister and the relevant state or Northern Territory minister. The joint authorities make the major decisions under the act concerning the granting of petroleum titles, the imposi­tion of title conditions and the cancelling of titles, as well as core decisions about resour­ce management and resource security. The 'designated authority', which comprises the minister from the relevant state or territory, in conjunction with the relevant state or territory department in which the profession­al expertise lies—and, again, that is the relevant state or territory department—has responsibility for the more day-to-day admi­nistrative aspects of managing the offshore petroleum regime in the agreed areas, such as drilling approvals and other tasks. To date the joint authority and the designated authority have worked well to the benefit of both the Commonwealth and the states.

It is certainly true to say that there has been some overlap between state and Commonwealth functions, which has delayed the capacity of the states to efficiently and effectively manage some of the aspects of the Offshore Constitutional Settlement areas, and these issues have been the subject of discussions by COAG.

Whilst I note that in the revised explan­atory memorandum it is stated that there will be no change to the joint authority arrange­ment with respect to petroleum titles that have been in place since 1980, I believe that, consistent with the coalition senators' dissenting comments in the Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into the national regulator bill, the importance of the 1979 constitutional settlement appears to have been overlooked with the drafting of this legislation. In that inquiry, my colleague Senator Alan Eggleston sought clarification of the issue of the 1979 constitutional settlement in the following terms:

Senator EGGLESTON: Just for the record, would you like to quickly outline the constitutional settlement, which I think was drawn up with the Fraser government.

Mr Norris: … That offshore constitutional settlement was in fact an agreement between the Commonwealth and the states to really put in place a co-operative approach to administering the offshore area and, in our view, it is an approach that has worked very well for all of those years.

Mr Norris also said:

… what is happening is that the designated authority's role is being removed and replaced by the titles administrator. That is a significant shift away from what has effectively been in place for about 30 years—put in place by the Offshore Constitutional Settlement where there was a cooperative administrative arrangement which has successfully applied for all that period of time.

For these bills to work, they require the support of not only this parliament but also the state governments. I was disappointed that these bills were introduced in the other place in July prior to any agreement being reached between the WA government and the Commonwealth government in relation to some of the outstanding issues, particular­ly between the Commonwealth and the WA government. Western Australian Minister for Mines and Petroleum Norman Moore, who is the longest serving member of parliament in Western Australia and regarded by many in the industry as the most experienced and competent minister for mining and petroleum in Australia, has for some time been actively engaged in discussions with Minister Ferg­uson in relation to the impact of these bills on the state of Western Australia. At the time of the introduction of these bills into the House, no agreement had been reached. The failure of the federal government to under­stand the potential negative impact of these bills on Western Australia was very disapp­ointing and showed continuing contempt for the Western Australian government by the federal government.

The federal government, however, has now conceded that the impact of the bills must be monitored by both state and federal parties. I note that, since the introduction of the bills in the other place, a memorandum of understanding has been reached between the federal government and the WA state gov­ernment and it was signed by the respective parties in August 2011. The memorandum of understanding is the formalisation of a commitment by the Commonwealth govern­ment to meet the Western Australian govern­ment's concerns with the national regulator bill and associated bills.

Under the MOU, the respective state and federal agencies will now develop the detail for consideration and implementation. In particular, as set out in the 'background' to the MOU, it is stated:

Minister Ferguson agreed to consult with Minister Moore on alternatives that Minister Moore may wish to propose in order to reach agreement and thereby co-operate regarding the passage of legislative reforms aimed at establishing NOPTA and NOPSEMA.

On 20 April 2011 Ministers Ferguson and Moore met and discussed the alternative arrangements proposed by Minister Moore. The Ministers reached an "in principle" agreement to co-locate NOPSEMA, NOPTA and elements of WA DMP subject to resolving operational details. This Memorandum is intended to formalise that agreement.

I would also like to read into the record the Hon. Norman Moore's letter, dated 17 August 2011, to the federal minister, the Hon. Martin Ferguson, regarding the memor­andum of understanding for the cooperative arrangements. It reads:

Dear Minister

Thank you for your letter dated 11 August 2011, formalising your commitment to meeting the Western Australian Government's concerns with the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (National Regulator) Bill 2011 and associated Bills, as outlined in my letter to you of 3 August 2011 and discussed at our meeting on 10 August 2011.

Your commitment to improving the relationship between the State and Commonwealth petroleum regulators is appreciated. I have signed the Memorandum of Understanding to support the proposed cooperative working arrangements and co-location of the National and State Petroleum Regulators. Attached is a copy for your records.

I look forward to our agencies now developing the detail under this agreement for our consideration and implementation.

However, I need to reiterate that the Western Australian State Government remains opposed to the Commonwealth's decision to create NOPSEMA and NOPTA.

Yours sincerely

NORMAN MOORE MLC

MINISTER FOR MINES AND PETROLEUM

Whilst an agreement has been signed between the government of Western Austra­lia and the Australian government by way of the memorandum of understanding, the government of Western Australia has made it very clear that it remains opposed to the establishment of NOPTA and NOPSEMA.

The establishment of these bodies will not automatically improve the areas of the regu­latory system that require reform, those being environment and native title. Similarly, there is no evidence to suggest that existing arrangements are not working. Evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committ­ee inquiry established this when my collea­gue Senator Eggleston challenged the federal bureaucracy in the following exchange:

Senator EGGLESTON: Would you say the Western Australian regulatory system has been deficient, in any way?

Mr Livingston: I do not believe these reforms are addressing any identified deficiency in WA regulation.

Whilst I am pleased that the Australian government has been able to formalise its commitment to the Western Australian government regarding the concerns that it has with the national regulator bill, I must say to the government that, as a Western Australian senator, I shall be watching closely to ensure that the concerns of the Western Australian government are allevia­ted throughout the implementation process.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (12:42): There are a number of amendments contained in this suite of bills: the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (National Regulator) Bill 2011 and related bills. However, in today's contribution I want to confine my comments to the government's principal objectives in having the bills passed through the Senate today. The first objective is to establish a single, well-resourced national regulator for onshore safety, well integrity and environmental approvals. The second is to provide for a national titles administrator for offshore petroleum mining and greenh­ouse gas storage activities.

The models put forward reflect the recommendations of the 2009 Productivity Commission review. They also reflect the recommendations of the Montara commission of inquiry. There have been 18 months of consultation with industry, states and the Northern Territory. It has been a long road. These reforms are about safety, environmental protection and day-to-day operational consents in the oil and gas sector.

We need to ensure our operating standards are the best and the safest in the world. In order to facilitate that, the functions of the existing national safety regulator, the Nation­al Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority, will be increased and its name changed. The new regulator will be known as the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environ­mental Management Authority. Last year the parliament approved an expansion to its responsibility to include all aspects of well integrity regulation. This bill before the chamber today builds on that foundation. The aim is to have, as I have said, a single national offshore petroleum regulator, a regulator that will ensure the safety of Australia's offshore petroleum workers and the environment in which they work, a regulator that will cover the journey from exploration through to decommissioning. Secondly, the bill seeks to establish a single national body for the administration—

Debate interrupted.

Senator McEWEN: At the request of Senator Crossin, I move:

That the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 20 September 2011, from 4 pm.

Question agreed to.

Senator KROGER: At the request of the Chair of the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee, Senator Heffernan, I move:

That the Rural Affairs and Transport References Committee be authorised to hold a public meeting during the sitting of the Senate on Wednesday, 14 September 2011, from 4.30 pm, to take evidence for the committee's inquiry into the live export trade, together with the Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2] and the Live Animal Export Restriction and Prohibition Bill 2011 [No. 2].

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT: I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee on the funding and administration of mental health services be extended to 20 October 2011.

Question agreed to.

Senator BOB BROWN: I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Telecommunications Act 1997 and the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Act 1998, and for related purposes

Question agreed to.

Senator BOB BROWN: I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:53): I present the explanatory memorandum and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Telecommunications Amendment (Mobile Phone Towers) Bill 2011 amends the Telecommunications Act 1997 to introduce the precautionary principle for the installa­tion of mobile phone facilities, to improve consultation with com­mun­ities, scrutiny of site choices and expand the opportunities for appeal.

One of the purposes of the Telecommunications Act was the facilitation of a secure and comprehensive network to ensure national coverage for mobile phones. Nearly 15 years on the network is near completion, excepting some rural and regional areas. Many of the new facilities in our built-up areas aim to increase data download speeds rather than complete the network.

Since its introduction developments have occurred that are not captured by the Act, including the emergence of infrastructure developers and installation of ancillary equip­ment such as radio units. The intention of the height limits in the Act has also been undermined by carriers as the limits do not include antennae, brackets and other equipment.

The widespread powers given to telecommunication carriers to site their facilities have sometimes resulted in community dissent. While there is an industry code in place that outlines best practice, this code is not ultimately enforce­able, leaving some people frustrated at their lack of recourse.

The bill will widen the opportunities for appeal for people concerned about the site of a facility and intensify the Australian Communication and Media Authority's scrutiny of applications for permits and its complaints handling role. It will also remove the exemption for "low-impact" facilities from local or state government planning processes.

Concern about the effects of accumulated exposure to electromagnetic radiation (EMR) is at the heart of some community dissatisfaction with the current Act. The bill will require telecommunications carriers and developers to consult people living within 500 metres of a proposed facility and gives those residents broader opportunities to appeal an installation. It also introduces a 200 metre buffer zone around sensitive sites such as schools and hospitals.

As part of the consultation process carriers will be required to provide Electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure maps and five-year plans for facility development to local governments, which will be publicly accessible.

Some European countries have taken a more cautious approach to allowable EMR exposure limits because of the absence of scientific consensus on the long-term effects of EMR exposure. The bill requires the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency to review the Australian limit within six months of the bill's introduction and then every five years, specifically looking at the practices of other countries.

The precautionary principle comes into play when there is a suspicion that an action may cause harm to the health of humans or the environment. In the case of mobile phone facilities there is no scientific consensus on the effects of long-term accumulated exposure to EMR, especially for children and adolescents. As such, carriers should take a cautious approach to the siting of facilities because there is an absence of evidence that they do not cause harm.

This bill aims to provide a better balance between the need for a secure and connected mobile telecommunications network and a community's right to protect itself from potential harm and determine the appropriate location for certain infrastructure.

I commend this bill to the Senate.

Debate adjourned.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (17:15): at the request of the Chairman of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Senator Fifield, I present a report and Alert Digest of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator CHRIS EVANS: by leave—I move:

That Senators Milne, Pratt and Urquhart be appointed as members of the Joint Select Committee on Australia's Clean Energy Future Legislation.

Question agreed to.

Senator CHRIS EVANS: by leave—I move:

That Senator Sterle replace Senator Stephens on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for the period 18 to 21 October 2011 and that Senator Stephens be appointed as a participating member of the committee.

Question agreed to.

Senator CHRIS EVANS: I move:

That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a first time.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (17:18): I move:

That these bills be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows—

BUSINESS NAMES REGISTRATION BILL 2011

The Business Names Registration Bill 2011 is part of a package of cognate bills. The package comprises:

The Business Names Registration Bill 2011;

The Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011; and

The Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011.

These bills, along with subordinate legislation, will create a national business names registration system.

Currently businesses need to register their names in each State and Territory in which they trade. Each jurisdiction has its own processes and fees. The proposed national registration system, to be administered by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC), will mean businesses pay one fee to register nationally, using an online application process.

The idea of having uniform national business names registration laws across Australia has been around for a long time. As the result of an agreement among all Attorneys-General, uniform business names registration laws were put in place in all jurisdictions in 1962-63. Unfortunately there was no mechanism put in place to maintain uniformity, nor to prevent multiple registrations of the same name across Australia.

In 2008 the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed that the Commonwealth would assume responsibility for the registration of business names. This reform proposal was one of 27 regulatory reforms forming part of the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy. An Inter-Governmental Agreement for Business Names was signed on 2 July 2009 by the Commonwealth, States and Territories.

The national business names registration system, combined with a number of other related initiatives such as the National Australian Business Licence and Information Service and the Australian Business Account, are estimated to provide benefits of $1.5 billion over 8 years to business, government and consumers.

The Commonwealth has no power to regulate all business names registrations in Australia, therefore the establishment of a national business names registration system and the legislation which underpins it relies on a referral of constitutional powers from the States to the Commonwealth. The States therefore must enact referral legislation to give effect to the national registration system, and the Commonwealth legislation is drafted in such a way that the national system cannot commence if any State does not refer or adopt the legislation.

The business names registration legislation package will set up a new national business names Register, to be operated by ASIC. Any entity carrying on a business in Australia using a name other than its own will be required to register with ASIC. This will enable the identification of the entity behind a business name.

The national registration system will assist new businesses by providing a joint online application for an Australian Business Number (ABN) and national business name, two of the most common registrations undertaken by those starting a new business. Combining these two common start-up registrations in a single online process will make it simpler to start a new business.

Under the new system, businesses will only need to complete a single online application, and pay a single fee, to register a business name nationally. This will mean, for most businesses, reduced registration costs and a simpler process, especially for businesses that trade in more than one State or Territory.

At present, a business operating in every State and Territory faces a cost of more than $1,000 to register a business name for three years. Under the national registration system, businesses will only pay one fee, which will be in the order of $70 to register for three years. An optional $30 fee will apply for a one-year registration.

To assist with identification of the entity behind a business name, the national registration system mandates an ABN for any new business name registration. Currently all State and Territory business name registers allocate a business name number. The allocation of such a number will no longer take place under a national system.

The Register will enable any party – be they a consumer or another business – to ascertain who the entity is behind a business name.

The Register will prevent identical business names in the States and Territories being registered in the future. It will also prevent the registration of otherwise undesirable names such as names that are misleading to consumers, or offensive.

The national Register will also provide national rules to apply in relation to the use of business names when a person is disqualified from carrying on business.

Consistent with trademark law, registering a business name under this legislation will not give rise to any proprietary rights over that name.

Existing businesses will not need to do anything when the national registration system commences. Their existing State and Territory business name registrations will automatically be transferred into the new national business name Register.

People who are thinking of starting new businesses will be able to apply to register their national business names online, at any time, and in most cases will receive confirmation of registration immediately. Applicants will be able to follow a link to Australian trademark and domain name searches, which may be important to them in choosing their business names.

The new national registration system will commence after all States refer business names powers to the Commonwealth, or adopt the Commonwealth legislation. It is envisaged that States will have completed this process by March 2012, and the national registration system will commence by the end of May 2012.

Extensive consultation was undertaken to reach agreement among the Commonwealth, States and Territories on the structure of the proposed national registration system and the legislation which will establishment it. Extensive public consultation was also undertaken, including two rounds of public consultation on draft legislation.

Full details are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

BUSINESS NAMES REGISTRATION (TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2011

The Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011 is part of a package of cognate bills. The total package will, along with subordinate legislation, create a national business names registration system.

Existing businesses will not need to do anything when the new national business name service commences. Their existing State and Territory business name registrations will automatically be transferred into the new national business name Register.

Where there are identical business names currently registered in different jurisdictions, the proposed arrangements under the legislation will not require existing businesses to spend money on reissuing stationery or replacing signage. These businesses will be able to keep their existing business name, however a distinguishing mark will be placed on the business name Register allowing specific businesses operating in different jurisdictions to be identified.

My comments in relation to the Business Names Registration Bill 2011 also apply to this bill.

BUSINESS NAMES REGISTRATION (FEES) BILL 2011

The Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011 is part of a package of cognate bills. The total package will, along with subordinate legislation, create a national business names registration system.

The Fees Bill is a taxing measure which will impose the fees for registering business names in the new national registration system.

At present, a business operating in every State and Territory faces a cost of more than $1,000 to register a business name for three years. Under the national system, businesses will only pay one fee, which will be in the order of $70 to register for three years. An optional $30 fee will apply for a one-year registration.

My comments in relation to the Business Names Registration Bill 2011 also apply to this bill.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ludlam ): In accordance with standing order 111, further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to the first day of the next period of sittings.

Senator CHRIS EVANS: I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator CHRIS EVANS (Western Australia—Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills, Jobs and Workplace Relations and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (17:19): I table a revised explanatory mem­orandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2011

This Bill makes minor amendments to certain governance and business arrangements for portfolio bodies under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005.

At present, several statutory positions established under that Act are referred to by the term 'General Manager' – that is, the heads of Indigenous Business Australia, the Indigenous Land Corporation, Aboriginal Hostels Limited and the Torres Strait Regional Authority.

However, the roles undertaken by occupants of those positions have changed in nature since the positions were created. The term 'General Manager' will be changed to 'Chief Executive Officer' as a better reflection of the responsibilities and expectations of these agency heads.

The change will bring these agencies into line with the majority of other Commonwealth statutory authorities and companies, whose agency heads have the title of Chief Executive Officer. This includes, for instance, the Australia Council for the Arts, Screen Australia, the Australian Film, Television and Radio School and the Australian Sports Commission.

The Chief Executive Officer title is a more appropriate term for agencies that have a board of Directors (as these agencies do), and meets the general expectation that a Chief Executive Officer is more senior than a General Manager. We expect that this change will help the Boards of these agencies to attract a higher calibre of candidate for agency head positions.

A further minor amendment will remove a redundant reference to review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for two discontinued Aboriginal Hostels Limited schemes – the Community Support Hostel Grant Scheme and the Student Rent Subsidy Scheme. These schemes have not existed for a number of years, so the reference to them is no longer appropriate.

The provision for handling of information held by Indigenous Business Australia is also being amended. The narrow focus of this provision has, in the past, prevented information from being disclosed to agencies with responsibility for overseeing Commonwealth administrative practices – such as the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner.

It has also prevented information being given to Commonwealth agencies working in joint initiatives with Indigenous Business Australia, and State and Territory agencies seeking to work more closely with Indigenous Business Australia to achieve better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and communities.

The amended provision aims to overcome these difficulties – but only with the continued appropriate protection of sensitive information. The relationship of confidence between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and the agencies established for their benefit is an important public interest that we need to preserve.

The new provision is also consistent with established information-handling arrangements (such as in the family assistance law and the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010) that protect information while still permitting the proper work of the Commonwealth and its agencies.

Lastly, the Bill amends the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services Act 2009 in relation to the power to appoint a person to act as the Executive Director of Township Leasing or the Coordinator-General for Remote Indigenous Services.

At present, the power to make these acting appointments must be exercised by the Minister personally, with no capacity to delegate the power.

It will now be possible for the Minister to delegate the power under each Act to the Secretary or a Deputy Secretary of the Department, without the need for the Minister to make acting appointments personally. Appointments can then be made when there is a vacancy in the office – during any period when the Executive Director or Coordinator-General is absent from duty or from Australia, or when the Executive Director or Coordinator-General is, for any reason, unable to perform the duties of the office.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Ludlam ): In accordance standing order 111, further consideration of this bill is now adjourned to the first day of the next period of sittings.

Senator CAROL BROWN (Tasmania—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (17:20): At the request of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Bishop, I present the report of the committee on the Consumer Credit Protection Amend­ment (Fees) Bill 2011, together with sub­missions received by the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator MARK BISHOP (Western Australia) (17:20): When I was last address­ing the legislation before the chair, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (National Regulator) Bill 2011 and related bills, we were making the point that the legislation had a number of objectives. I concluded my discussion on the first objective. Secondly, the legislation seeks to establish a single national body for the administration of title in Commonwealth waters. It will be known as the National Offshore Petroleum Titles Administrator, NOPTA.

Under the new system the administration of titles will be centralised, replacing the designated authority system currently in place. The result is that there will be consist­ency and efficiency across Commonwealth waters. It should be noted, however, that the joint authority, comprising the Common­wealth minister and the relevant state or territory minister, will be retained. This will ensure the joint authority remains the decision maker for key petroleum title decisions. There is a continuing role for ministers in decision making on petroleum projects that could impact upon their state or territory. In effect, NOPTA will make reco­mmendations to the joint authorities on key title decisions. It will also administer titles and collect data relating to petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities in Commonwealth waters. As is currently the case, the responsible Commonwealth mini­ster's view would prevail in the event of a disagreement.

NOPTA will not be an independent statutory authority, ensuring that, in turn, it remains properly responsive to the joint authority. With the separation of offshore regulation and titles administration, the reforms seek to avoid conflicts between these two separate functions.

It is also important to note that the reforms include full cost recovery from industry. This move is likely to eventually reduce costs on the sector. Fees will be used exclusively for the regulation of petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities and not for other government activities. Of course, fees will be subject to regular reviews and there will be annual financial reports.

Ninety per cent of Australia's known petroleum resources are located in Common­wealth waters. That said, Western Australia plays an important role in supporting the oil and gas industry. The North West Shelf Venture, located off our coastline, is the largest resource development project in Australia. To date, it is the largest resource development project in Australia's history. It accounts for more than 40 per cent of Australia's oil and gas production. So I for one am not suggesting that states and terri­tories should be sidelined. Indeed, it is critical that they are involved. But there is an argument for a national approach.

Obviously, a national regulator will have implications for state and territory admini­strative responsibilities, staffing and reven­ues. But that does not mean that states will not have a say in the process. There is no doubt that a national offshore regulator is a pressing and necessary reform. The Producti­vity Commission's review recommended it as a minimum and industry overall supports it. The current system is riddled with unnec­essary regulatory burdens. A single authority would avoid much of the duplication that currently exists.

The new authority will have responsibility for resource management, pipelines and environmental approvals, and compliance. This recognises the fundamental link bet­ween the safety of people and the protection of the environment. We believe that, by including the functions to regulate environ­ment plans and day-to-day operations, it will ensure a streamlined administrative process. The removal of bureaucratic duplication should also reduce approval times for projects.

Those are the principal objectives of the bills, but what of the vision? As I have previously said, the aim is to have a national regulatory authority that is well resourced. The vision is that, ultimately, it will have an international dimension. Most petroleum companies operate in multiple jurisdictions. While each jurisdiction has its own regulat­ory framework, the goal is the same: to protect workers and to protect the environ­ment. We need to play our part by having effective prevention and intervention meas­ures. We also need to be prepared to respond if the worst occurs. As the Minister for Resources and Energy has previously stated, from the Montara Commission of Inquiry:

… we learned what happened, what should have happened, and what changes are needed to addresses the deficiencies identified.

With the expansion of LNG projects, particularly in Western Australia, we are on target to become the second largest exporter in the next five years. That is a huge industry to manage effectively, properly and efficien­tly. However, with great opportunities invar­iably come great challenges. So the govern­ment believes maintaining the status quo is not an option. As we have seen in the case of both the Montara and Macondo incidents, their impact can have long-term conse­quences not confined to small or limited geographical locations.

Reports of inquiries into both incidents found they were preventable. It was also found that there was a culture of compla­cency within industry and its regulators. As a result, the bar for best practice in safety performance has been raised. Community expectations are greater and scrutiny is being and will continue to be intensified. To effect change we all understand there has to be meaningful collaboration between industry, government and regulators. Our common goal is or should be a safe and sustainable sector.

As I have said, it has been a long process, but we have the support of industry and, I understand from comments made here today, the in principle support of the shadow mini­ster and the opposition.

There has been, however, resistance from some sections that view the new authority as nothing more than a power grab by the Commonwealth. That is a short-sighted view. Perth is already a centre for offshore petroleum exploration and development companies. We also have an enviable reputa­tion in offshore petroleum production. With our vast resources and rapidly expanding oil and gas sector we are clearly the oil and gas capital of Australia. The announcement that the federal government will headquarter the independent national regulatory authority in Perth will further cement that position.

Further, we do have the potential to look beyond the horizon. We are uniquely placed to be industry leaders in the South-East Asia region. It is an opportunity we should grasp. It is an ambition we should all share.

Recently, the federal government hosted an International Offshore Petroleum Regula­tors and Operators Summit in Perth. This summit brought together over 400 represent­atives from governments, regulators and operators. Events such as this showcase our expertise, our innovation and our commit­ment to improving safety performance. It also acknowledges the importance of the offshore oil and gas industry in sustaining our country's economic prosperity and security.

I can say with confidence that these reforms to our regulatory system have strong support. The new authority will ensure oper­ating standards are the best and safest in the world. Western Australian senators have a further incentive to support these measures. The National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority will enhance our state's standing in the global oil and gas industry, provide guidance in the future and a system that others can emulate and copy. In a state and in an industry that has such an international focus and that is faced by international demands, that is a significant development and something we should all welcome.

Senator JOYCE (Queensland—Leader of The Nationals in the Senate) (17:29): I would like to rise to concur and note that the coalition will be supporting the government on this issue in a sense of bipartisanship and a sense that we have the capacity to work together to bring about effective government. Despite the illusion that so many people try to dispel, that we always say no, this is yet another example of where we say yes. Support for this type of legislation, the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (National Regulator) Bill 2011 and related bills, shows the capacity of the government and opposition to work together. I know Senator Eggleston will be having something to say on this.

It is interesting to note at this point in time how issues such as this get through because they are competent, they are logical and they move forward. Yet on other issues such as the carbon tax, which is completely illogical, we have every reason to oppose it. It is amazing that in our nation on a day like today, where we see Moody's downgrading the French banks, with all the uncertainty in the world, we have the juxtaposition of two different issues. One is the export of a product to try and bring strength to the Australian economy, to protect the Australian economy, to keep it vibrant and to extend our capacity to earn money. That is one thing we should be supporting.

But in the other place, on its way here, is another piece of legislation that in a time of absolute global uncertainty takes us down the perilous, stupid and culpable path of bringing in a carbon tax. It will completely pull the economic rug out from underneath Australia and lead us down the path of so-called green jobs. What we have here in this legislation is assistance for real jobs so people can earn real money to keep our nation strong, as it should be in this time. What the carbon tax will do is send us down the tube.

Senator EGGLESTON (Western Australia) (17:32): I must say I agree with the comments made by my colleague Senator Joyce. The carbon tax certainly is a flight of fancy which is going to add greatly to the cost of almost everything in Australia and leave us out on a limb, as nobody else in the world seems to be going down this pathway. One has to wonder why common sense does not prevail and we do not just stop and wait for a while and see whether anybody else is going to follow this example.

But what I would like to talk about is the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (National Regulator) Bill 2011 and related bills. This legislation in its final form is actually a victory for the Senate processes. Over 60 per cent of Aust­ralian oil and gas processing is conducted in WA waters, with well-known names such as the North West Shelf and Pluto soon to be joined by other great projects such as Gorgon, Browse and so many others. There will be at least five large LNG plants on the Western Australian coast.

In the past the oil and gas industry off the WA coast was jointly regulated by the Western Australian and Commonwealth gov­ernments, and these arrangements worked very well for many years. However, over the last year or so the Commonwealth decided that it should have sole responsibility for the regulation of offshore petroleum developm­ents and proposed to terminate the joint Commonwealth-state administration of these matters in Western Australia. In its place, the Commonwealth sought to establish a nation­al regulator by transforming the NOPSA agency into NOPSEMA—the National Offs­hore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority—and creating a Nat­ional Offshore Petroleum Titles Admini­strator.

Under this legislation's original proposals, the joint arrangements would have ceased and the Commonwealth would have become the sole regulator. The Western Australian government had some very serious and legitimate concerns about these proposals and began a process of negotiating with the Commonwealth to address these concerns and, in particular, to preserve the joint adm­inistrative structure, which, as I said, had worked well. There really did not seem to be any reason why this arrangement should not have continued.

The Commonwealth justified the setting up of a single offshore regulator on the grounds of safety, very largely. It referred to the Varanus Island explosion off the north-west coast and the Montara spill off the coast of the Northern Territory as justification for having a single national administrator. How­ever, in evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee the WA Department of Mines and Petroleum witnesses suggested that in fact the Commonwealth agency, NOPSA, was the key agency at fault in both of those incidents. In the case of Montara it failed to supervise the Northern Territory agency responsible, and in the case of the Varanus explosion the WA Department of Mines and Petroleum had contracted out the supervision of the maintenance of the pipe­lines and wells to NOPSA, which did not carry out that supervision. It seems there was a failure there in the inspection of the pipes.

Other concerns of the WA government included that there was no requirement to notify WA of the location of any exploration licences issued by the Commonwealth off the Western Australian coast, and of course there are many environmentally significant areas near the WA coast such as the Ningaloo Reef in the north-west and the pristine Margaret River in the south. These are areas where the WA government would not be happy for oil exploration to occur, and yet under this legislation as proposed the WA government was not given any right of consultation over projects in sensitive areas. Even if they happened to be in what were legally Commonwealth waters, the WA government felt there was a need to have consultation with them about the location of projects because there is always an onshore component to any offshore oil and gas project, which would involve the state provi­ding infrastructure such as port facilities, housing, towns, roads, airports and so on. Accordingly, the WA government had the quite reasonable view that it should have some prior knowledge of the location of such developments as it would have to bear the cost of the onshore infrastructure.

Importantly, in the new legislation the WA government was excluded from the process of calculating royalties from the North West Shelf which had been provided for under the constitutional settlement with the Fraser government. This would have meant that the WA government would not have known the amount of royalties due to it for three to six months after these moneys were actually collected, which would have posed problems for budgeting and forecast­ing for the state. Amazingly, even though the WA government was in the process of nego­tiating a solution to these issues in good faith, the Commonwealth abruptly termin­ated the discussions and introduced new legislation which did not address any of the Western Australian government's concerns. While this heavy-handed action led to legislation which was passed in the House, the Senate exercised its house of review option and referred the legislation to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee. A Senate inquiry was held in which the coalition members of the committee high­lighted the quite legitimate concerns of the Western Australian government. In the Senate inquiry, the coalition senators in their dissenting report concluded:

The manner in which the Commonwealth government has introduced this legislation without having advised the WA government given that the ongoing negotiations with them were not concluded, is disgraceful.

Further, in Western Australia, the Commonwealth government's actions in doing this imply a totally unacceptable attitude of disrespect over the interests of the sovereign state of Western Australia and the underlying precepts of the federation.

Fairly strong words. The coalition senators' dissenting report also recommended:

That this legislation not be proceeded with until:

The current ongoing negotiations between the Commonwealth and WA government are concluded;

the very reasonable concerns of the WA government have been resolved by agreement between the two governments concerned; and

references to the 'Designated Authority' are changed to 'the Western Australian Member of the Joint Authority' rather than the proposed 'Titles Administrator'.

The Titles Administrator would have been a Commonwealth official. The strength of these criticisms by the coalition senators on the committee apparently resulted in the Commonwealth reconsidering its position and produced the very different and much more acceptable legislative package which is before the Senate today. Under these new arrangements there is an in-principle agree­ment to co-locate NOPSEMA, NOPTA and elements of the WA Department of Mines and Petroleum, as has already been referred to by a number of speakers. This will mean that these agencies will be located in Perth subject to resolving operational details. That is appropriate given that such a large proportion of the offshore oil and gas industry is located in Western Australia.

The legislation also provides for resolu­tion of the issue of offshore petroleum royalties. The role of the WA government in the administration of offshore royalties has been restored in this legislation. The legisla­tion also provides for consultation and notification by the Commonwealth on envir­onmental plans with both the WA and Northern Territory governments. Also provi­ded for is notification of actions which might have an impact on local communities and early notification of incidents such as oil spills. There is also acknowledgement of the issue of resource security. Given that WA receives 90 per cent of its domestic gas from the Commonwealth offshore areas and that the state electricity system depends on this gas, the state of Western Australia needs to know without delay about anything which could affect gas supplies to the south-west. Furthermore, a protocol has been developed to ensure that consistent approvals are in place for the different jurisdictions through which any pipeline might pass from an offshore well to the state controlled waters and on to state land. There is also provision for the Western Australian government to be informed about proposed new developments so that WA can, in a timely way, plan infra­structure to support any offshore activities in Commonwealth waters.

These arrangements go a long way to satisfying what were the legitimate concerns of the WA government about the way the Commonwealth initially went about putting in place this legislation. Nevertheless, the question that remains is why the federal government did not deal with the Western Australian government more respectfully in the first place and conduct real and meaning­ful negotiations on these issues and seek to reach an agreement earlier than occurred. It is tempting to conclude, regretfully, that some Canberra bureaucrats seem to have forgotten that the Commonwealth of Australia is a federation of sovereign states and that the states do have legitimate and legal rights and interests.

In conclusio n, this is why this legislation, responding to the legitimate interests of the WA government as well as those of the Northern Territory, is a victory for the processes of the Senate, which after all is the states house in the Australian parliamentary system.

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (17:44): It is with great pleasure that I conclude the second reading debate on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (National Regulator) Bill 2011 and associated bills on behalf of the government and my ministerial colleague Mr Martin Ferguson, the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Tourism. Firstly, I thank all senators who participated in the debate. I do not necess­arily agree with all the views expressed, but certainly as a group they have well outlined the intent of the legislation. The reforms in this bill, together with those in the comple­mentary bills, will help deliver on the Aust­ralian government's commitment to ensure the Australian community's confi­dence in the regulation of offshore petroleum and reinforce our competitive advantage as a preferred location for investment.

I note there has been some criticism of my colleague Mr Ferguson, the minister. I strongly refute and reject that criticism. I think this is a very, very sound outcome of the negotiations between Minister Ferguson and the Western Australian Minister for Mines and Petroleum, the Hon. Norman Moore MLC. Yes, there has been a lot of intense and strong discussion, but there has been an outcome; there has been an agree­ment. I can assure the Senate that Minister Ferguson, one of the most hardworking, committed and knowledgeable ministers in his areas of responsibility, has been at the forefront of bringing those discussions to a conclusion.

The other point I would make is just a mild rebuke to the previous speaker. I do not think it is fair to blame, as he did, some Canberra bureaucrats for having forgotten the views of the states. I have been involved in a lot of negotiations with Commonwealth public servants and the states, in my capacity as Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, over the seamless national economy reforms. At the end of the day, of course, the minister, subject to cabinet, makes the final call. I do not think bureaucrats should be unfairly criticised for their hard work and the commitment that they bring to these types of negotiations. So I do not accept that criticism of so-called Canberra bureaucrats.

I am pleased to advise that the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Hon. Martin Ferguson, and the Western Australian Minister for Mines and Petroleum, the Hon. Norman Moore MLC, have recently finalised their negotiations and have now executed a memorandum of understanding on cooperative working arrangements between the proposed Commonwealth regulator and the WA Department of Mines and Petro­leum. The ministers have also exchanged correspondence outlining their agreement on how the new regulatory arrangements will proceed. I understand these agreements have now removed the Western Australian gov­ernment's opposition to the national regulator bills. I commend the Western Australian mini­ster, Minister Moore, for his constru­ctive contribution to the development of these arrangements. As I said earlier, the intent of the legislation has been very well outlined by a range of speakers and, while I do not necessarily accept some of the critique, we have had significant debate on these measures. They have been well out­lined, so I do not intend to repeat what has been said by previous speakers on a number of occasions.

To conclude, before we go to the committee stage—I know there are a couple of amendments to consider—I table the memorandum of understanding and the related correspondence.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:52): As I indicated in my speech in the second reading debate, the Greens have a number of amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (National Regulator) Bill 2011. While we are supportive in principle, as I outlined in my speech, we think improvements can be made to the bill—and improvements not only to the bill but also that offer better protection for the environment. Given the extra enviro­nmental responsibility that NOPSEMA is going to have, we believe it is important that there be environmental expertise on this new regulator. One of my amendments is about increasing the membership of NOPSEMA, and others go to who is the environmental decision maker in terms of making decisions under the EPBC Act. Some time ago I outlined some concerns about that. I will briefly go into those. Hopefully I will not hold up the chamber too long, but I do want some explanations from the government and some further detail about a couple of issues. I now move amendment (2) on sheet 7119:

(2) Schedule 2, page 83 (after line 21), after item 427, insert:

427A Paragraph 656(1)(b)

Omit "4 or 6", substitute "at least 5, and not more than 7,".

This amendment increases the membership of the NOPSEMA board to make sure there is somebody there with environmental exper­tise. As I said, I understand that you do not represent organisations on boards anymore, but the Greens believe that we do need this expertise in the environment on the NOPSEMA board. I commend the amendment to the chamber.

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (17:56): The government will be supporting the amendment to increase the number of NOPSEMA board members to allow environmental expertise to be added to the board. The government understands the arguments from the Greens in this matter. We do think it is a reasonable approach so we are supportive of the amendment.

Question agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (17:56): by leave—I move amendments (1) and (3) on sheet 7119 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add:

(3) Page 147 (after line 31), at the end of the bill, add:

Schedule 7—Other amendments

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006

1 After subsection 478(2)

Insert:(2A)   The Titles Administrator must not approve the transfer of a title if the transferee, or any of the transferees, is the subject of a Commission of inquiry that is being conducted, or is to be conducted, by a person appointed under section 780A.

2 Application—transfer of title

The amendment made by item 1 of this Schedule applies in relation to Commissions of inquiry established on or after the commencement of that item, whether the application for a transfer of title was made before, on or after that commencement.

3 At the end of Part 9.1 of Chapter 9

Add:

747A Decisions under this Act must not be the subject of certain declarations

      A decision or class of decisions under this Act must not be:

(a) specified as an action or a class of actions; or

(b) accredited as a management arrangement or authorisation process;

for the purposes of a declaration under section 33 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Note:   Section 33 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 allows a declaration to be made that certain environmental actions do not require approval under the Act.

4 Application—decisions under the Act

The amendment made by item 3 of this Schedule applies in relation to declarations made on or after the commencement of that item, whether the decision was made before, on or after that commencement.

5 Before section 780A

Insert:

780AA Applications under this Act may be suspended while Commission of inquiry underway

(1)   The Minister may suspend consideration of an application made under this Act by an entity if the entity is the subject of a Commission of inquiry that is being conducted, or is to be conducted, by a person appointed under section 780A.

(2)   The suspension continues to have effect until the earlier of the following days:

   (a)   the Commission of inquiry is completed;

   (b)   the Minister revokes the suspension.

6 Application—suspension of applications

The amendment made by item 5 of this Schedule applies in relation to Commissions of inquiry established on or after the commencement of that item, whether the application was made before, on or after that commencement.

7 After Part 9.7 of Chapter 9

Insert:

Part 9.7A—Notification of vacated areas

777A Notification of vacated areas

      The Titles Administrator must notify the Minister administering the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 of all vacated areas as soon as practicable after the areas come into existence.

8 Application—notifications

The amendment made by item 7 of this Schedule applies in relation to vacated areas that come into existence on or after the commencement of that item.

These amendments add new provisions to enable the government to choose not to grant licences to companies where there are significant question marks over their ability to manage oilfields when they have caused significant accidents, for example like the Montara incident. This was an issue I raised during the course of the inquiry into PTTEP, where PTTEP were allowed to acquire leases and titles when they were being investigated for what was a very serious incident. This occurred with the granting authorities knowing full well, from the company's own submissions to the inquiry and from the transcript of the inquiry, that there were serious concerns about PTTEP's operations.

Specifically the amendments insert a new section, 478(2A), providing that the Titles Administrator must not approve the transfer of a title where the transferee is the subject of an inquiry being conducted under part 9.10A. They also insert a new section 780AA, specifically allowing the minister to suspend consideration of applications under the act while an entity is being similarly investigated. It is important to note that these provisions are triggered when an entity is under investigation under the commission of inquiry provisions of part 9.10A. This requires a 'significant incident', which we believe is an appropriately high threshold.

These provisions deal with the fact that companies, despite the fact that they may have caused a significant incident, can still be granted titles. I understand there were issues under PTTEP where in some instances the titles were requiring transfers—rather than being granted, the licences were being transferred. We have sought to deal with that through these amendments. This is to ensure that we treat appropriately companies who have caused serious incidents, or it looks like they have caused serious incidents to the point where for example there is a comm­ission of inquiry to look into it. We still have this farcical situation in this country where these companies can acquire further licences.

We believe these are sensible amend­ments. They protect our environment—and this is about protecting our environment. That is what this new regulator is supposed to be doing—managing the sector and ensur­ing environmental management. To us, this is common sense. We do not give someone we think has caused a serious incident further licences when we do not know their capacity to safely manage their operations. We believe this significantly improves the regulation of the industry and I commend the amendments to the chamber.

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (18:01): The government will not be supporting amendments (1) and (3). We have a significant policy concern with the proposed amendments relating to entities subject to a commission of inquiry. We believe there are legal problems with the way the amendments will work in practice. It was a deliberate policy decision when providing for commissions of inquiry into significant offshore incidents that they focus on causes of adverse events and how to prevent similar events happening in the future, not to allocate blame to particular companies. This is for the courts and other legal processes to determine. Therefore, we believe your pro­posals to prohibit the Titles Administrator from approving transfers involving an entity subject to a commission of inquiry, and provide for formal decisions by the minister to suspend applications from entities subject to a commission of inquiry, would under­mine the no-blame nature of the inquiry. I also note that the minister can already effectively suspend applications through existing operational and administrative means, as was done during the Montara inquiry. Similarly the Titles Administrator could refrain from approving a transfer.

It should also be noted that entities are not the subject of the commissions of inquiry; incidents are the subject of the inquiries. So the proposed amendments fail to make clear what relationship between an incident and a particular company would justify making a decision against the company. The causes of the incidents can be complex and the minister would have to prejudge issues before the facts had been established by the inquiry. It is also unclear how references to an entity would work, given that applications are usually made by a group of companies.

With respect to the amendment relating to declarations under the Environment Protect­ion and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Productivity Commission review of regulatory burden on the upstream petroleum oil and gas sector and the indepen­dent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 both recommended streamlining environmental approval processes under the EPBC Act and the offshore petroleum legislation. Therefore the government cannot agree to an amend­ment that would preclude the possibility of streamlining environmental approvals pro­cesses. Having said that, the government accepts unequivocally that decisions on matt­ers that have been determined to be matters of national environmental significance that fall within the scope of the EPBC Act must be made by the minister responsible for the administration of that act. The government does however contemplate NOPSEMA pro­viding the EPBC Act minister advice on such matters where relevant to offshore petroleum operations regulated by NOPSEMA. The weight which that minister attaches to such advice will depend upon the rigor with which NOPSEMA prepares such advice and the respect NOPSEMA has earned with the EPBC Act minister's department as a result of previous advice tendered in relation to such matters.

In regard to notification of vacated areas, as part of its consideration of offshore marine parks policy, the government has been giving preliminary consideration to the possibility that the area defined by a petroleum title immediately adjacent to a marine protected area that is surrendered or terminated be reassessed for possible inclu­sion in that protected area. This assessment has made it clear that such a policy would not be free from substantial difficulties and complexity and should not be introduced without detailed consultation with stakehold­ers. While the government will not support this amendment at this time, it will continue to give consideration to the policy behind it. For those reasons, the government does not support the amendments.

Senator BRANDIS (Queensland—Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (18:05): I indicate on behalf of the opposition that, for reasons somewhat simi­lar to those outlined by Senator Sherry on behalf of the government, the Greens amend­ments do not enjoy the support of the opposition.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:06): The minister has gone to some of the issues I was going to subsequently ask some questions about. I did not actually go into those and I apologise. Amendment (3) covers a multi­tude of changes, which I was going to handle sequentially. If the minister will bear with me, I do want to ask some questions about each of the changes.

Can we go back to the issue around transferability of titles and the comment the minister made about PTTEP. If I understood correctly, processes with PTTEP are being suspended. If I recollect correctly, PTTEP were granted the transfer of some licences and then were subsequently applying for other licences as well.

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (18:07): My advice is that it was actually companies that were transferred, rather than an ownership change. Companies were transferred as distinct from—and it is an important distinction—the ownership being transferred.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:07): In other words, when PTTEP changed from one entity to another—is that what you are saying?

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (18:07): Yes, the ownership of the company changed from that which had existed—I am not sure who the ownership was with at that time; I do not recollect—to another totally new owner, a different owner. That was the change that occurred. The registered company, the proprietor, was still the same. It was the overall ownership of the company that changed.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:08): Thank you for that clarification; I understand where you are coming from now. The minister can expect some further questions on notice, because that ownership had changed about nine months or so prior to the Montara incident and PTTEP, I understood, were subsequently involved in a number of other licence transfers. But I may put those questions on notice.

The point here is that, whether it is PTT or not, there is potential under the act at the moment for companies which have been involved in an incident to apply for licences. I understand the distinction that the minister was making between the incident and the company, but in this particular incident there were pretty clear reasons for concern about the operations of this and associated comp­anies—certainly from the evidence that was coming out in the commission of inquiry—enough, I would have thought, to make the government concerned about granting licences to those same parties until the matter was cleared up.

Hopefully this sort of incident will never happen again in this country, but you can never say never. Is the minister saying that he believes there is already enough power under the act, if the minister chooses to use it, to suspend somebody's application or not grant somebody an application because they have been involved in a previous incident or in an ongoing incident that is yet to be resolved?

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (18:10): Where there is a change of ownership—that is the actual ownership of the entity, the company—yes, the minister does have the power. However, the minister cannot prejudge, as I said in my earlier remarks, the outcome of an inquiry or some other equivalent judicial process and make a decision to exercise that power prior to the outcome and conclusion of those processes.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:11): I will try to finish this because I know we want to get it finished, but I want to be clear and on the record. Does that mean that you believe the act does not enable the minister to do that or are you saying that that is the way the present minister would choose to implement the act?

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (18:11): A responsible and cau­ious minister would administer that power under the act in the way I have described.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:11): I thank you for that clarification. I will ask just one more question on this area, then I promise I will move on. Under the current provisions of the act, if an incident were sufficiently significant—and I would maintain that Montara was—and if there were clear liability with a company or that company had clearly caused the accident, is there power for the minister to say, prior to a commission of inquiry, 'No, we will not grant that lease because of the seriousness and significance of the issues involved in this incident'? That power would not, of course, be as clear as we were trying to make it with this amendment, but is it there under the current act?

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (18:12): Yes, the power is there under the act, but the minister would approach such a decision to exercise that power—very obviously, I think—with great caution.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:13): I thank the minister for his answer. I will now move on to items 3 and 4 under amendment (3), which deal with the issues around the prohibition of decisions and actions under the Offshore Petroleum Act from being accredited under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. As I said in the second reading debate, we are very concerned that we do not want to see the environment minister or the environment department being sidelined during the assess­ment of the environmental implications of offshore oil and gas operations.

While I acknowledge that the amendments to the regulatory regime proposed by the government do not themselves address the role of the environment minister or say that NOPSEMA will take that role over, we are deeply concerned to ensure that there is no potential for the resources minister, at any time, to accredit NOPSEMA for this process under the act. In other words, what we are trying to do is ensure that the role of the environment minister and environment dep­artment is always paramount in terms of environmental assessment and that the decision-making power is not delegated to NOPSEMA. The minister has said that the government are not going to support our amendments, so my question to the govern­ment is: can I have their guarantee that this government—I appreciate that you cannot bind future governments, which is our concern—will not seek to make NOPSEMA a delegated or accredited authority under the EPBC Act?

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (18:14): I do not think I can add a great deal more to what I said previously, but we do acknowledge that the environment minister, under the EPBC Act, can, on advice on such matters, exercise his or her authority.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:15): Can I paraphrase to say 'No, you won't give us that assurance'?

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (18:15): I have given you the assurance within the context and the para­meters I have outlined to the Senate. That is the extent to which I can give what you would describe as an assurance.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:15): Just for the record, you can guarantee we are going to be watching this like a hawk to ensure that this does not happen.

I will go to item 7, which requires the Titles Administrator to notify the environ­ment minister when the titles have been vacated. This would allow the environment minister to easily know of and consider marine areas for further protection when it is clear that the areas are not of interest to resource companies. Australia is embark­ing—and I touched on this in a speech I gave in this place yesterday—on what I hope is a rigorous exercise to put in place a system of marine protected areas around this country. Again in this place yesterday we heard of the values of the marine environment and we heard of the need for marine protection. We understand of course, and continue to express our concern about, resource exploitation overriding the need for marine protection, but where an area has been vacated by the resource sector we think it is fair enough that the minister be notified that the area has become available, which would facilitate their consideration of whether that area should be included in a marine protected area of some form.

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (18:17): Again, I do not think I can add a great deal more to my previous comments. However, firstly I would empha­sise that this government—and, I have to acknowledge, the previous government under former Prime Minister Howard—believe conceptually that what you are suggesting should be considered and could be possible. However, there are some quite substantial difficulties and complexities around implementation. We as a government do not rule out this approach, but I am advised there is a good deal of work invol­ved to come to a robust design of such a regulatory and legislative, as I would assume it would require, framework. But, as I said, I emphasise that we believe conceptually it is a good suggestion. The former Howard government believed that as well. We will continue to consider the policy behind it and hopefully be able to implement it at some point in time.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:18): I thank the minister. While I realise there is a spark of willingness to start addressing this issue, can I press the minister and the government on what the next step is and how they consi­der it is going to occur. Are you putting in place a process to consider further amend­ments to the act or are you putting in place a process that will in fact carry out the intent of this amendment without actually amend­ing it? What are you physically doing to pursue what I think would be a significant step in furthering our marine protected area system?

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (18:19): I am not sure I would describe it as 'physical' work we are doing. I have been advised that there is a 'vibe' going on in terms of considering this policy. I must say that is the first time I have had 'a vibe' used to describe a sort of process.

Are there public servants today or this week working on this? No, there are not. Is it a consideration by the current minister, Minister Burke? Yes, it is, but there is nothing actively before him on the matter. As I said, conceptually there is agreement that this is the right approach. Work has been done in the past, obviously—thought, con­sideration, some musings in writing, I assume, as part of that—but it has not been concluded and I cannot advise you as to any time frames for when that work would be completed.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:20): I thank the minister for the answer and I hope 'the vibe' continues. When you say some work has been done, is it possible to let us know what that work is, or is it just that everyone now has 'the vibe'?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Cameron ): And the musings.

Senator SIEWERT: And the musings.

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (18:20): I would have to take it on notice to give you some further advice as to what has actually occurred in this area. Obviously that has to go to the minister, Minister Burke in this case, so I would have to take it on notice.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:21): Thank you. If you could take it on notice that would be much appreciated. I have a final question, which goes to the release of acreage. Under this new process, is it envisaged that there will now be a wider consultation process carried out when acreage is released?

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (18:21): One of the difficulties here—and I am sure Senator Siewert will appreciate it—is that people have different perspectives of consultation and what is consultation, and perhaps a positive conclu­sion, depending on a particular individual organisation's perspective, is then consult­ation but a negative one is not. We argue that the views of all organisations are taken into account in terms of such consultation. We do not see that the current process needs to be changed in that regard.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (18:22): Is that a public consultation? I am talking about before those acreages are released. There is a process that is undertaken once the areas have been released. Is there a process of public consultation that occurs before the areas are released?

Senator SHERRY (Tasmania—Minister Assisting on Deregulation and Public Sector Superannuation, Minister for Small Business and Minister Assisting the Minister for Tourism) (18:23): I am advised that the dep­artment will enter into consultations with those parties that are interested in particular acreage. I am not sure whether acreage is the correct term these days.

Senator Williams: It is acreage.

Senator SHERRY: Acreage, is it? It would do for you and me, but I am not sure what we would describe it as today in metrics. There is a public gazetting that takes place, so if an individual organisation wants to express a view at that point they would be able to do so. There would be consultations for organisations and individuals. Environ­ment departments obviously are interested as well as companies and other state depart­ments. Specifically I assume we are going to NGOs. I would have to take that part of it on notice. The officials are not aware whether there is any specific engagement or consult­ation with NGOs before gazettal.