Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:35): I declare that the following bills are urgent bills and I move:

That these bills be considered urgent bills:

Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [N0. 2]

True-up Shortfall Levy (General) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]

True-up Shortfall Levy (Excise) (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]

Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]

Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Import Levy) (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013 [No. 2]

Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas (Manufacture Levy) Amendment (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2]

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:35): I seek leave to make a five-minute statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted.

Senator WONG: Today the government will use its numbers with the support of some members of the crossbench to deny this Senate its opportunity to fully consider the carbon price. It will truncate debate and it will put all of the remaining questions at 11.50 this morning. So after just two days of debate in the current Senate, the government is forcing debate on this package of nine bills to an end. Let us just reflect, if we may, before this motion is put, about the events of this week. On three or four sitting days this week, this government has moved motions without notice, seeking to cut short debate on these bills. At the end of this morning's procedural votes, the new crossbench will have been asked to vote five times—

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Order on my right!

Senator WONG: in their first week to stop senators doing what we were sent here to do which is to debate legislation. Having already forced this Senate to sit in July, just days after new senators took their seats, and having already brought forward debate on the carbon bills from 14 July, what we have seen is this government bullying, cajoling, and pressuring the crossbench into shutting down debate after just two days.

I indicated yesterday that the opposition had on Tuesday offered to give up our time not only this morning but also this afternoon for further debate on the carbon price bills. This Leader of the Government in the Senate did not do me, the opposition or any senator, as far as I am aware, the courtesy of even responding to that offer. The response that we did get was the motion moved yesterday, without notice, in which the government sought unsuccessfully to bring the debate to an end by lunchtime that day. So I say this to the crossbench: we accept your right to have different views on the substantive issues before the chamber—and you will have different views on the substantive issues. We accept your right to debate them; we accept your right to vote the way you wish to vote. What I say to the crossbench is: the chamber does not need to operate in this way. The chamber does not need in the first week of the sitting of the new Senate to have no less than five votes to shut down debate and to have three or four days of procedural debate because the government wants to shut down debate. It is not because they have to get the bill through; the bill would have got through. All of you, or your staff, were at the meeting of leaders and whips and you know that the bill would have passed this fortnight—

Senator Ian Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr President. I draw the Senate's attention to standing order 194, which says:

(1) A senator shall not digress from the subject matter of any question under discussion, or anticipate the discussion of any subject which appears on the Notice Paper.

My point of order, Mr President, is that Senator Wong is clearly anticipating a discussion on something that is on the Notice Paper for discussion later today. She is suggesting that different senators may vote a particular way, and in so doing I think she breaches the provisions of standing order 194.

The PRESIDENT: There is no point of order, Senator Macdonald. Senator Wong has been given leave by the Senate to speak for five minutes concerning these bills.

Senator WONG: Again, I say to the crossbench: the chamber should not operate this way. Just because this government has no respect for the Senate does not mean that you have to accept this. I say to you: do not let the events and the practices of this week become the norm. Do not let the Prime Minister's office and its enforcers lean on you to shut down debate, to deny scrutiny, to turn this place into an arm of the Prime Minister's press office by telling the media what you will do before you tell them—

Senator Ian Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr President. I raise for your attention and the Senate's attention standing order 193, relating to use of offensive words et cetera. The bit I want to draw to your attention, Mr President, is this:

… all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on those Houses, members or officers shall be considered highly disorderly.

The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate is suggesting that some senators who are not members of the coalition are part of, I think she said, the Prime Minister's media campaign or media group.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Ian Macdonald: I hear the interjections of Senator Bilyk. She has never even read the standing orders and would not know how to if she did.

Senator Bilyk interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, stay with the point of order.

Senator Ian Macdonald: I ignore the interjection, Mr President, and suggest that Senator Wong is imputing improper motives to those who might have a different view from her on the subject.

Senator Moore: Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I want to make the point that Senator Wong was in the process of making her statement in response to the lead that was given. It is interesting that Senator Macdonald, in calling a point of order on a point about casting reflection in the chamber, needed to use the same point of order against one of the senators on this side of the chamber.

The PRESIDENT: You are starting to debate, Senator Moore. Order! Senator Macdonald has the right to raise a point of order. In this case there is no point of order. Senator Wong has been given leave.

Senator WONG: I say to the crossbench: do not let the events of this week become the norm with the Prime Minister's office and its enforcers and others leaning on you to shut down debate, to deny scrutiny, to turn this place into an arm of the Prime Minister's press office. As I said, the media are told what you will do before you tell the chamber, and the conclusion of this debate is timed so as to accord with the Prime Minister's schedule for his media conference. I say this to the crossbench: do not let this Senate become Mr Abbott's rubber stamp.

Senator Ian Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr President. Not only is that an imputation against senators, but it is also an imputation against a member of the other House, namely the Prime Minister—

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Ian Macdonald: and the allegations that he is leaning on senators and that senators are going to become part of his rubber stamp are imputations of improper motives.

Senator Conroy interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Conroy, it will be quicker if you allow the debate to proceed correctly. On the point of order, Senator Macdonald, you possibly have a technical correction in your point of order, but if I were to apply that point of order to every senator in this chamber, debate would be completely stifled. However, could I remind all senators, not just Senator Wong, that standing orders do exist to run orderly and respectful debate.

Senator WONG: This government has turned on the people who elected it and only this chamber can stand up to them. So I say again to the crossbench: do not let this Senate become Mr Abbott's rubber stamp and do not allow the events of this week to become the norm. There is a better way to run this chamber. We are prepared to be reasonable up front and negotiate. We do not need the stealth-attack approach to running the Senate chamber.

Senator ABETZ (Tasmania—Leader of the Government in the Senate, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Minister for Employment) (09:44): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator ABETZ: Thirty-three hours and 52 minutes of debate, plus that which has occurred this week, has already taken place on these measures. Fifty-two bills were guillotined in this place without a single syllable spoken, courtesy of Senator Wong and the Greens—let's keep that in mind. The urgency of this is that the markets need to react to the decision of the Senate in relation to the carbon tax. Given that the Labor-Greens carbon tax, which we were promised would not be introduced, ticked over again on 1 July with another rate increase, power companies need to know whether or not to charge the extra tax imposed by Labor. The urgency of this is so that we can do the will of the Australian people and remove this toxic tax, which is a burden on the cost of living and which has been destroying jobs without doing anything for the environment.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (09:45): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator MILNE: What has gone on here this week is that the government has abused process by bringing the Senate back in the first week. The Greens opposed that decision at the time and said clearly that the Prime Minister wanted to ram through his political agenda in this first week with people who were new to the Senate. What we are now experiencing is the logical extension of his intention to show such contempt for the Senate and for new senators. Since the government are intending to cut this debate short and deny much time to speak on it, I urge the minister to stop filibustering in the committee part of this debate, so that we can get questions answered in the very short time we have.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (09:46): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator XENOPHON: In the six years I have been here I have always hated the guillotine. I hate the gag. I hate the fact that this time last year there were something like 50 bills rammed through without any debate. We need to have a better way of doing things. I appreciated very much yesterday that Senator Milne gave an opportunity to at least extend the debate by several hours. That was at least some improvement in the process. This is the Hobson's choice I have. I cannot in good conscience support a guillotine. Where I stand in this debate is another issue, but I urge my colleagues to consider that there must be a better way of managing the business of this place. Maybe earlier this week we should have agreed to sit extra hours so there could be extra debate. That motion was not forthcoming. In the circumstances, I expect these bills will be dealt with today. It would have been better if we had had much more time.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Fifield that certain bills be considered urgent be agreed to.

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

The PRESIDENT: Order in the gallery!

Senator FIFIELD (Victoria—Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Assistant Minister for Social Services) (09:54): I move:

That the time allotted for consideration of the remaining stages of these bills be until 11.50 am.

I also move:

That the question be now put.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the question be now put.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by the minister to allocate times for the debate be agreed to.

Senator Ian Macdonald: Mr President, I raise a point of order and I seek your advice in relation to it. You have already ruled that the stunt that we saw in the gallery was a disturbance of the Senate under matters constituting contempt in the rules. The matter I raise with you and seek your ruling on is: a couple of senators actually turned around and applauded those who had deliberately disturbed the Senate. I wonder if that constitutes a contempt by those senators who were clearly encouraging people to disturb the Senate.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Macdonald, that does not constitute a contempt. However, it is disorderly conduct and I was going to raise the matter privately. Senator Macdonald, you have raised the point of order and thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (10:03): The question is that the amendments on sheet 7506 be agreed to.

Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (10:03): Yesterday I raised with Senator Cormann as to why the Liberal Party would not be supporting these amendments, because they bring in a market based mechanism to deal with carbon pollution—something that Liberal Parties usually support. However, Senator Cormann made it clear that, obviously, the government is not supporting this market based mechanism despite the number of conservatives across the globe that are urging the government to do so—that is, people on their own side asking this government to recognise that it is denying its own policy of supporting market based mechanisms by not supporting this amendment for an emissions trading scheme.

Beyond asking Senator Cormann why the Liberal Party will not support a market based mechanism, I now ask: why will the Liberal Party not support the science? The science tells us clearly why we need an emissions trading scheme. The science goes back to before 1990 when we had the first IPCC report and we have had subsequent reports—I think there have been five since that time, all of which have the support of over 100 countries who make it clear that there have been observed changes in the climate system and that we need to respond as governments across the globe to those observed changes.

What are those observed changes? I am sure Senator Cormann knows, but he needs to be reminded because this is, I have to say, a day where this country is going to go backwards on climate policy. These are the reasons Labor acted strongly, because carbon dioxide concentrations have increased by 40 per cent since pre-industrial times—primarily, from fossil fuel emissions and, secondly, from net land-use change emissions. The oceans have absorbed around 30 per cent of that emitted anthropogenic carbon dioxide causing ocean acidification.

Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change requires substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The best way for a country to address a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions has been made very clear by economists and scientists: through an emissions trading scheme. We are debating this amendment, because it is so important for this country to play its part internationally in trying to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by putting a legal cap on carbon dioxide pollution. That is what an emissions trading scheme does and that is why it is so surprising that Senator Cormann provided comment yesterday as to why the Liberal Party, the coalition, will not support a market based mechanism. I am still baffled as to why the Liberal Party does not support market based mechanisms.

On top of that, though, the Liberal Party is ignoring the will of the Australian community. The number of people who came out this week, last week—since this debate was put on the table for this parliament—against having no legal limit on carbon pollution and against there being no price on carbon, has become stronger and stronger. This government cannot ignore those voices. The voices of some 20 civil society groups, ranging from youth, health, community, emergency services, trade unions and faith based groups have made themselves heard very loudly this week. I ask Senator Cormann: is he aware of this huge list of growing community groups who have made their dissent and their views known about this government's policy when it comes to climate change?

I could not say it more succinctly than they have said it, when they said in their statement: 'We support Australia having a price and a limit on carbon pollution. This is the fairest and most cost-effective way for Australia to address our economy's dependence on carbon pollution and reduce its impacts on our climate, our health, the environment, the economy and national security.' Therein lies the full breadth of what these repeal bills mean. Yes, they mean something for our environment, but they mean so much more than that. They mean something for our health, they mean something for our economy and they mean something for our national security.

This is a holistic policy issue. It is a holistic policy issue that commenced decades and decades ago when the science made it very clear—through the work of the IPCC and its associated hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed scientists who have contributed to its reports—that the world needs to act swiftly on reducing carbon pollution, on reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that are continuing to have a huge effect in changing our climate, which has of course has had thrown-on effects to do with natural disasters and the like. That is why it is important beyond just our environment. That is why it is important for our health. That is why it is important for our national security, our economy and those issues that have been raised by those 20 civil society groups.

So I ask Senator Cormann if he is aware of those 20 strong community groups of various persuasions, including, as I said, emergency service workers and firefighters—some of whom were here yesterday out the front of Parliament House making it very clear that they want this parliament to act on climate change, to have a price on carbon pollution and to have a legal limit on carbon pollution. How can Senator Cormann ignore those 20 community groups? How can he ignore the 200 young people I joined earlier in the week? How can he ignore the science? And how can the Liberal Party ignore a market based mechanism to deal with a reduction in carbon pollution?

I understand it has been reported this morning that both the United States and China have signed eight partnership pacts on climate change, bringing the two powers—which both have extensive emissions trading schemes in place at different levels—closer together. So, as I said yesterday, it is a complete furphy for Prime Minister Abbott to claim that the world is not acting on emissions trading schemes. The world is acting strongly on them. This is made clear in the Parliamentary Library's work on the number of emissions trading schemes that have been in place in China, the US and elsewhere in the world—China, most notably, being the country proposing new schemes and with a network already of seven pilot schemes. They want to reduce their carbon emissions. They want to act on climate change.

After today, Australia will be the only country in the world moving backwards—going backwards. Yes, that will have an effect with respect to our international standing. How we are addressing this increase in greenhouse gas emissions will of course have an effect not only on our environment but also on our health and on our well-being as a nation. So I ask Senator Cormann again: why is the Liberal Party not supporting an emissions trading scheme? Why are you not supporting a market based mechanism to put a legal cap on carbon pollution? I cannot help but think that it is anything other than pure politics—and, of course, the ideological bent of some on your side. I think Senator Macdonald fits the mould of not accepting the science. In addition, I ask Senator Cormann about his knowledge and understanding of the statement provided by those 20 community groups and how he wishes to respond to their voices.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Milne, you have the call.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (10:13): Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Senator Cormann: I thought we were going from side to side.

The CHAIRMAN: I understand that point, but in these discussions it is often Senate practice that party leaders, ministers, the Leader of the Government in the Senate or spokespeople for the opposition take precedence.

Senator Cormann: That is not right.

The CHAIRMAN: Excuse me; don't tell me it is not right, Senator Cormann. This is in Senate Practice, and I will refer you to the appropriate clauses if you wish. I will certainly come to you, Senator Macdonald, but both you and Senator Milne jumped at the same time and I am following what I believe is Senate practice in giving the Leader of the Australian Greens party precedence in that call.

Senator Ian Macdonald: My understanding is that you always go from side to side—government, opposition, government, opposition, and so on. If you have a party representing an infinitesimally small part of the Australian public, claiming that because she or he is the leader of that, should not in my view interfere with the normal procedure of going government, opposition, and then third parties, if that is the case.

The CHAIRMAN: For senators interested, I refer them to pages 240 to 241 of Odgers' Australian Senate Practice.

Senator MILNE: I have a number of specific questions, because we are in the committee stage of this particular set of bills, and we now have a gag on it, thanks to the government, with the support of the Palmer United Party. I want to ask some very specific questions. I asked Senator Cormann last night how much of the five per cent emissions reduction target was expected to be delivered by the Emissions Reduction Fund. The government still has not responded to that. It is important that they do, because there are certain senators in here who have said they will not support the abolition of the existing emissions trading scheme unless there is something better in its place. Therefore, we need to have the government say exactly what they expect their Emissions Reduction Fund to do.

I also have some other specific questions for the minister and I will go to those now. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency, ARENA, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation were secured by the Greens through the negotiations with the former government to develop the Clean Energy Package. The allocation of funds for ARENA was in the legislation. The abolition legislation is to come here later, but the schedule to gut the funding from ARENA is part of these bills.

I understand that an agreement has been reached with the Palmer United Party to take millions out of the ARENA funding and support the government's schedule. I find it extraordinary that we do not have a single member of the Palmer United Party here, in the committee stage, when they have an amendment that I would like some answers to. I would like to know why or whether they are going to support an emissions trading scheme, as their leader has said. But I understand they have abandoned this debate on getting rid of the emissions trading scheme—and returning millions to the pockets of Mr Palmer—to go and launch a report on renewable energy. We love renewable energy, and I am very grateful for the fact—

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald on a point of order.

Senator Ian Macdonald: The reflection on a member of another house in this parliament, that he is voting for this thing to put millions in his pocket, is clearly disorderly and insulting. I ask that you ask the senator to withdraw.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Milne, I think you ought not reflect on members of other houses in that way.

Senator MILNE: I withdraw that and note that Mr Palmer abstained from the vote in the House of Representatives because he has a conflict of interest. I have called many times for the Palmer United Party senators to abstain from the vote because of the clear conflict of interest. The nickel refinery in Queensland operated by Mr Palmer's company had a substantial carbon price bill to pay—many millions—which was settled only a few weeks ago, prior to his new senators coming here. I think there should have been a discussion here about the actual impact of the extent to which taxpayers' money is now going to be taken out of their pockets to support the government's scheme. And what we are now seeing is a reward to the big polluters—$18 billion is going to be left in the pockets of the big polluters and the community is going to have to pay through other means.

I want to return to the point of the schedule of funding for ARENA for the minister to explain something to me. Now we have a situation where ARENA is going to have only $89 million next year and $57 million the year after, in new funding—although, they will have the funding they set aside for their existing projects. Given this really substantial cut in the funding for ARENA and given the dates on which the current board members lose their positions—I understand the contracts for two board members run out on 30 June and the final two are on 15 July—I ask the minister, now that the Senate has made its position clear that it wants to keep the Australian Renewable Energy Agency: will the minister make sure there are board appointments so that the agency can continue with the level of funding that it will now have?

I would like to ask specifically about the level of funding. If it turns out that any of the projects that have already been approved do not proceed, will ARENA be able to keep the funding that is freed up as a result of projects not being able to proceed? I would like to have a clear answer on the board members. Are they going to be re-appointed or are other people going to be appointed? Secondly, on the issue of existing projects, will any funding savings from those be retained in the organisation? Thirdly, with this schedule of cuts, have you had any discussions with ARENA about taking this money from them? And what will it actually mean in terms of investing in the early research and development ARENA was set up to do?

I want to now move to the amendment that the Palmer United Party has, which is related to guaranteeing that—

The CHAIRMAN: That amendment has not as yet been moved. We are dealing with the first amendment.

Senator MILNE: I will wait until somebody turns up to move it and I will return to discussing the first amendment. I want to ask the minister some specific questions. A lot has been said about the supposed freeing up of industry from the ending of carbon pricing, and I want to ask the minister about its impact on Hydro Tasmania. Last week, Hydro announced that they would be scrapping 100 jobs in Tasmania—10 per cent of their workforce. They have gone on to say that their last annual report attributed $140 million of their profit entirely to the price on carbon and that it would have been even higher for the financial year that has just finished. Will the minister now confirm that that revenue stream to Hydro Tasmania will be gone? Can he further confirm, as Saul Eslake, one of their board members, has stated that 81c in every dollar of Hydro's profit goes to the state government? And will he confirm that this means the $112 million that went to the Tasmanian government for schools, hospitals, concession payments et cetera will now no longer exist? Will he confirm that abandoning the carbon price will lead to direct job losses in Tasmania? This is clearly what the impact will be from ending carbon pricing in Tasmania.

I want to come back to the emissions trading scheme itself and ask the minister: have you had any representations from the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry or any other peak business group asking you to retain an emissions trading scheme? Have you had any representations from business groups saying that they would support the retention of an emissions trading scheme if it went to flexible pricing immediately, and therefore the European price would bind at $7 to $9 or thereabouts? Having seen reports today that the government has ruled out emissions trading as something that it would even consider, I ask: has the government told that to these business groups or is it in conversation with them about allowing the purchase of CER credits, currently trading at 16 euro cents—25c, or thereabouts, Australian?

I think it would be extremely useful to get some answers in relation to those particular matters, because today is the day that Australia goes backwards—absolutely backwards. If we lose our price on carbon, we are going to be seen as a backward country in a global context. We are going to be seen as being on the wrong side of history, because every other major economy is now looking to the 2015 global treaty. With so many countries now involved in emissions trading and in various forms of carbon pricing, carbon taxing and other measures, Australia is going to be left on its own, and you are going to have answer to future generations. In fact, this summer, as extreme weather events set in around Australia, people are going to be seeing you in the context of having rewarded the big polluters and as having passed the cost to the community—cost in terms of lost infrastructure and cost in terms of absolute loss, not only of infrastructure but, of course, of people's lives. That is the absolute issue we have before us here in this parliament today. It is one of those moments in history that matter, where a country chooses the past or the future, where a country chooses the big end of town and the vested interests of the old order or the future—the new industries, the new economy, the innovation and the investment in education and new technology. This is why I am pleased that we are keeping the Renewable Energy Agency, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Climate Change Authority, because we need good, sound assessment done with rigour on new projects and on climate science and policy. I ask as a final question on the Climate Change Authority and in this context: how many board members of the Climate Change Authority have resigned to date? What is the process for appointment of new board members?

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (10:26): I actually want to ask the minister some questions, but before I do I just want to explain to those who might be listening to the debate what the committee stage of a bill is—which is what we are dealing with now. This stage gives senators the opportunity to ask either the minister or whoever has moved the amendment questions on particular information in the bill or the amendment.

I mention in passing that we have had all these pious pleas from senators over the last couple of days about not having enough time for debate, and yet we had the first speaker for the opposition this morning spend 15 minutes on a rhetorical address—something that she and her colleagues have said many times over—to the Senate and not ask a serious question, except for: 'Why doesn't the Liberal Party support market schemes?' This has nothing to do with the bill before the chamber. There is the hypocrisy of senators claiming a shortage of time to ask questions when it is wasted on a 15-minute speech that we have all heard time and time again.

I have to say to Senator Milne that at least she did start off by asking some questions about the matter before the chair, but then she could not help herself and got into the rhetoric of the big end of town. I think Senator Singh also mentioned those conservative groups. No doubt they are both talking about Lord Deben—a retired United Kingdom politician, who is now 'His Lordship' and a member of the unelected upper house in the United Kingdom and who has very significant business interests in the biggest wind farming conglomerate in Europe. He is also a consultant for a sustainability consultancy company. One might ask Lord Deben when he comes to interfere in Australian politics just what his interest in wind farms and alternative energies is. I have said in the media that matters relating to Australian policy and Australian government are matters for Australian politicians, not for retired British politicians now serving in the unelected House of Lords. If he wants to take part in the debate, perhaps he could just indicate to us what his financial interest is in ensuring that sustainable renewable energy continues in Europe and in the United Kingdom.

As I said, I do want to ask some questions about the bill before the chamber. I will try to do that quickly, because I acknowledge that, although we have had these debates ad infinitum over many years, there is a limit on the time today and I do not want to take up the time of other senators who want to put forward genuine questions. But I might say to the Labor Party that, if all they are going to do is to get up and give 15-minute political addresses about what we have heard time and time again, that is not what the committee stage is about. If that is going to be abused I would urge other senators to take note of the hypocrisy of the Labor Party in not using the time to ask questions but simply giving boringly repetitive speeches that we have heard many times before.

Minister, you have been asked by Senator Milne about the job losses that might occur in Tasmania if something happens, but I would like to ask the minister a similar question. Minister, do you have any reliable statistics on the job losses in Australia that have happened as a result of the imposition by the Labor-Greens alliance of a carbon tax? I know we can look at Toyota and Holden; we can look at the coalmines of Central Queensland, up where I come from; we see reports of the numbers of jobs that have been lost; we see increasingly Australian manufacturing organisations moving overseas because of the high cost of energy and the carbon tax. So I ask the minister whether he does have any statistics about that. That is one question.

I also want to ask the minister: is it correct that Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions? The great friend of the Labor Party, Lord Deben, is indicating that the United Kingdom climate is part and parcel of the Australian climate. That is a self-evident statement, I would think. Of course, the globe's climate is one and the same thing. But he and the Labor Party and the Greens seem to think that, because Australia—which emits less than 1.4 per cent of the carbon emissions in the world—is getting rid of this carbon tax, that it is going to affect the climate of the United Kingdom and everywhere else in the world. I am sure the minister will be able to assist me as well on just what percentage of the world's carbon emissions come from Europe, from China and from North America. If that is readily available I would appreciate the minister's answer, because I just want to put it in perspective. Australia emits, I think—I seek confirmation—less than 1.4 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon. The Labor scheme was meant to reduce that 1.4 per cent by five per cent. According to Senator Milne and Lord Deben, all these cyclones would stop, all the floods would stop and all the coral bleaching would stop if Australia were to reduce its 1.4 per cent of emissions by five per cent. I simply ask the question, Minister: is it correct that Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent?

I also want to ask the minister to remind me, if he has this information, what the Labor government's forward trajectory of carbon emissions in Australia was under their scheme. I seem to recall that, rather than reducing carbon emissions, the Labor scheme actually quite substantially increased carbon output through to 2020. I seek the minister's advice on that.

Finally, I suspect the minister may have answered this question yesterday when I was not in the chamber—I think Senator Xenophon may have raised it—but perhaps the minister could explain briefly why the government did not accept the amendment of Senator Xenophon. Senators might recall that I actually voted against my government and in favour of Senator Xenophon's motion because, having seen it only very quickly in the previous division and having less than 60 seconds to make up my mind, it did seem to be quite a fair second reading amendment that sought to look at a couple of other aspects—besides the carbon tax, that is—of the increases in electricity.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Macdonald, I draw your attention to the fact that that amendment was dealt with yesterday and is not part of the question before the committee.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Okay. I apologise for that. That was a second reading amendment, but I understand that Senator Xenophon did ask yesterday in the same way that I am asking today. The chairman at the time did not stop Senator Xenophon. I am just interested, not in dealing with the second reading amendment, but I will remove that from my questions for the minister, unless he should be desperate to answer it. I will leave my questions to those that I have raised.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance) (10:36): I thank Senator Macdonald and other senators for the questions they have raised as part of this debate. I will do my best to give a comprehensive answer to all of them. Firstly, yes, I can confirm that Australia is responsible for less than 1.4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Senator Macdonald asked me how that compares with the emissions from other jurisdictions. The advice I have is that the United States is responsible for 19 per cent of global emissions, China is responsible for 23 per cent of global emissions and the European Union is responsible for 13 per cent of global emissions.

I can also confirm for Senator Macdonald that, according to the previous government's own modelling of the impact of their carbon tax, after all of the imposts and all of the sacrifices imposed on the Australian community with their carbon tax, emissions in Australia were continuing to go up and up and up. In fact, Labor's own modelling of their carbon tax showed that their expectation was that emissions in Australia would go from 561 million tonnes of CO2 in 2010 to 621 million tonnes of CO2 in 2020. These are not my words. That is the information that was provided by the previous Labor-Green government. They will say, 'But it would have been so much higher if it had not been for our carbon tax.' What we say is, to the extent that it is not as high as it might have been, that is only because we have shifted economic activity, along with all of the emissions that come with it, from Australia to other parts of the world.

This is something the Labor Party has never understood. The problem is that, if you take manufacturing activity that is comparatively—internationally—environmentally efficient here in Australia and you move it to other parts of the world where the emissions for the same amount of output are going to be higher, then what you are actually ending up with is higher global greenhouse gas emissions. The Labor-Green carbon tax actually makes global greenhouse gas emissions worse, not better. Even with Labor's carbon tax, emissions were still expected to go up. To the extent that they are not going up by as much as they otherwise might have, they are just shifting emissions to other parts of the world where, on many occasions, for the same level of economic output those emissions are going to be higher than they would have been in Australia.

Senator Macdonald asked me about job losses. Obviously, if you impose additional costs on doing business here in Australia that are not faced by our competitors in other parts of the world, then you make it harder for businesses in Australia to compete with businesses in other parts of the world, to the extent that they take market share away from us. Obviously, that means that not only economic activity and emissions go overseas but also jobs go overseas. Just to put a bit of context around all of that, a report that was released by none other than the Productivity Commission said:

… no country currently imposes an economy-wide tax on greenhouse gas emissions or has in place an economy-wide ETS.

Australia's carbon tax of $24.15 per tonne, which went up again on 1 July to about $25 per tonne, covers around 60 per cent of total emissions. By comparison, the European Union emissions trading scheme covers just 45 per cent of total emissions at around $7 to $8 dollars a tonne. The United States does not have a nation-wide emissions trading scheme. Senators on the other side can repeat ad nauseam what they have tried to make people believe for many years now. The United States does not have an emissions trading scheme. President Barack Obama does not have any intention whatsoever to legislate for an emissions trading scheme. What President Obama is doing is not unlike what we are doing here in Australia in the absence of an appropriately comprehensive global agreement to price emissions, and that is to pursue direct action initiatives. In the United States, the state of California has an ETS which currently covers just 35 per cent of total emissions. I hope that that gives Senator Macdonald a bit of flavour.

I will quickly go through a series of other questions. Senator Singh asked: 'Why are you not accepting the science?' We do accept the science. We just do not accept Labor's carbon tax. She asked why we are ignoring the will of the Australian people. This is extraordinary chutzpah. There is actually a very old-fashioned way to test the will of the Australian people on a regular basis, and that is called an election. Of course, there was an election in 2013, which you lost. There will be an election in 2016 where you can make your case for the introduction of the carbon tax if you think it is such a good idea.

I was asked how we are going to achieve the five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020. As we have said many times, that is through our Direct Action policy. The question was asked: what will happen to ARENA? I remind the chamber that the reduction in funding in this package of bills is actually the implementation of a Labor government budget measure that was supported by the Greens. Matters related to the board of ARENA are matters related to legislation that comes before the chamber much further down the track. Incidentally, the carbon tax does nothing to help Hydro in Tasmania. It is the renewable energy target that is of interest to them. Two people have resigned from the Climate Change Authority. Have I received representations from Industry Group and the Business Council? Personally, no, I have not. But what I am very conscious of is that the Australian people passed a very clear and comprehensive judgement against Labor's carbon tax and it is time that the Senate got on with it and got rid of it.

Senator XENOPHON (South Australia) (10:43): There are two matters I would like to address—firstly, the amendment that is before the Senate at the moment. I can indicate that I will not be supporting the amendment for a number of reasons. Firstly, I support the principle of an efficient, well designed ETS. I do not believe that what has been proposed is such. It effectively keeps the existing model and framework which I found very problematic. I made no secret of the fact that I still believe the best form of an ETS is that modelled by Frontier Economics for Malcolm Turnbull and me when Malcolm Turnbull was opposition leader in 2009. I am concerned that this model keeps an estimated $9.2 billion in compensation to emissions intensive trade exposed industries. It keeps an estimated $5.5 billion in compensation to brown coal generators. It does not change prices for diesel aviation refrigerants. While the carbon price may drop initially, it will then increase until, under a floating carbon tax, it reaches an estimated $38 in 2020. That is based on modelling by Treasury and the Climate Change Authority. They modelled that it would rise to $25.40 in 2014-15 and $38 in 2020. It locks Australia into the European emissions trading scheme prices, which have been extremely volatile and subject to, I think, political considerations, which does not give investment certainty. It will continue to hit households and businesses through higher electricity and gas prices through that revenue churn and through a distortion of the merit order in terms of pricing and also in respect of the tax interaction effect—the multiplicative effect on taxes and on the economy. For those reasons, while I support that a well-designed emissions trading scheme is the best way forward, I support the comments made previously by Danny Price from Frontier Economics about his concerns about the structure of the scheme. I just want to make that clear.

I hope Senator Cormann is listening—I know he is engaged in conversation, but I am sure he can do two things at once—because I do want to put a question to Senator Cormann. It relates to discussions I have had with Minister Hunt over a number of weeks and again this morning about ensuring that the Direct Action approach of government would be more strenuous, more rigorous, more efficient, and more effective in terms of emissions abatement. I understand that Senator Cormann, after my discussions with Minister Hunt, will be making a statement so that it is on the record, and I would be grateful if he could be in a position to make that statement.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance) (10:46): I thank Senator Xenophon for his comments and for his questions. On this side of the chamber we have very much appreciated the very constructive way in which we have been able to work with him through these policy issues both in opposition and now in government. I am pleased to be able to reassure Senator Xenophon that the government is firmly committed to reducing Australia's emissions to meet our target of five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020. Since coming to office, we have, in a very methodical fashion, step by step, implemented the Emissions Reduction Fund which is, of course, the centrepiece of the direct action policy to reduce Australia's emissions.

On 24 April 2014, the government released the Emissions Reduction Fund white paper. This was, as Senator Xenophon is aware, the result of significant consultation with business, and it set out three elements of the Emissions Reduction Fund.

The first element is the crediting of emissions reductions using the tried and tested approach of the Carbon Farming Initiative. The government has introduced to parliament the Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Bill 2014 to expand the Carbon Farming Initiative approach beyond the land sector to the rest of the economy. This bill has already passed the House of Representatives and no doubt will be considered by the Senate sometime in the future.

The second element is the purchasing of emissions reductions by the government using a reverse auction approach. The 2014-15 budget set out $2.55 billion for the fund, with the full amount available to be committed from the commencement of the fund.

The third element of the government's policy is a safeguard mechanism, and the safeguard mechanism will be introduced to ensure that emissions reductions paid for by the Emissions Reduction Fund are not displaced by a rise in emissions elsewhere in the economy, which goes to the heart of the question, I believe, that Senator Xenophon was asking. The government has already made a number of significant policy decisions regarding the safeguard mechanism in the Emissions Reduction Fund white paper—in particular, that it will commence on 1 July 2015. The mechanism will cover facilities with direct emissions of 100,000 tonnes or more. For existing facilities, baselines will be based on absolute emissions based on existing data reported under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme over the period 2009-10 to 2013-14.

As set out in the white paper, the government continues to consult with business and other stakeholders on other aspects of the policy, including the treatment of new investment, large business expansions, the application of the mechanism to the electricity sector, and options to ensure effective compliance. The safeguard mechanism is a critical part of the Emissions Reduction Fund policy and, following consultations with business, the government will introduce legislation in 2015 to give effect to the safeguard mechanism for commencement on 1 July 2015. This commitment has been outlined in the Emissions Reduction Fund white paper, as well as the explanatory memorandum to the Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Bill 2014, and by my good friend and valued colleague the Minister for the Environment in his second reading speech introducing the bill. The government will list the Carbon Farming Initiative Amendment Bill 2014 for debate in the Senate in the spring session this year.

I do acknowledge, as I did at the outset, Senator Xenophon's longstanding commitment to an effective climate change policy in Australia. I also acknowledge his appreciation of the imperative of an effective safeguard mechanism as part of the Emissions Reduction Fund policy. I look forward on behalf of the government to continuing to work with Senator Xenophon as we finalise the development of that safeguard mechanism.

Senator SINGH (Tasmania) (10:50): I want to raise a couple of matters. But, first, Senator Macdonald, your contribution was very surprising in the sense that I think the day the Senate takes advice from you will be a very sad day for this democracy. And I do need to correct you: it is actually Lord Deben, not Lord Debenham as you repeatedly said; so could you get that right next time.

I did want to raise some of the issues that Senator Xenophon highlighted, and I understand Senator Xenophon's position in relation to this amendment. I would urge him to reconsider his position and vote with the opposition for this amendment for an emissions trading scheme. But I understand what he raised in relation to price. Of course an emissions trading scheme is a market based mechanism, but we have got emissions trading schemes in the world—some are fledging; some are more developed. The EU's emissions trading scheme is very developed. Its price has declined, based on a range of factors. As schemes become more developed and you look at the cap and you look at the development of any market that can show that volatility, price changes. Obviously we have seen a price stabilise in the EU, but I do think that, as further markets develop in the world, we are likely to see that international market change over time. It is certainly not something that is fixed like the carbon tax—it is a market based mechanism, so it is about business working out that price—so I urge him to reconsider his position, understanding the points that he raised.

Before I talk about the government's position and the Palmer United Party's position, I would like to talk about the Greens' position. The opposition is pleased that the Greens are supporting this amendment for an emissions trading scheme. However, I would draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the Australian Greens party have voted against an emissions trading scheme three times so far. They are purportedly the party for clean energy, but they have voted against an emissions trading scheme at least three times. I am pleased that they are voting for this scheme now, but if we are to strive to address climate change, then it is Labor's position that has been consistent on moving from a fixed price to an emissions trading scheme. We put this amendment in March when the Senate had a different make-up and, on that basis, this amendment could have passed in this place. So it is disappointing that their vote in support of this amendment has come too late. Having said that, Labor obviously supports their support for it.

In relation to the government's position, and the Palmer United Party's position of supporting the government—that is, not supporting this amendment for an emissions trading scheme for this country—what exactly will the government and the Palmer United Party achieve if they do not achieve this amendment? What will they achieve for our children and for our children's children? Voting with us on these amendments is the only way of ensuring a cap on pollution; it is the only way of ensuring that we will reduce our carbon emissions. This is my last-ditch attempt to ask the Senate to see some sense and vote with the opposition for an emissions trading scheme. We know that the replacement is a tokenistic attempt to have a climate change policy; Direct Action falls very short of achieving anything meaningful in relation to acting on global warming.

The furphies put out by the Prime Minister on his recent overseas trips and the like have not been supported by other global leaders. He has tried to create a coalition of the unwilling and was pretty much left standing on his own. Senator Cormann talked about the fact that the US does not have a national trading scheme—other than all the states that are moving that way. President Obama said recently to students at the University of California: 'I'm going to talk about one of the most significant long-term challenges that our country and our planet faces, and that of course is the threat of a rapidly changing climate.' So President Obama does get it, and that is why, as I said earlier, the United States and China have signed a partnership pact. Of course, when the New Zealand Prime Minister heard of what Tony Abbott was trying to achieve with his coalition of the unwilling on climate change, he made it very clear that he did not want a bar of it—as did the UK, another conservative government that does not support this conservative government.

In abandoning Labor's commitment to an emissions trading scheme the Abbott government is taking Australia from being a world leader in addressing climate change to a nation standing out from the international community in refusing to acknowledge this pressing problem. The Abbott government, in isolating Australia from the international community on an emissions trading scheme, is denying the country the ability to play a meaningful role in addressing this challenge on both a national and global scale. In putting this amendment, I ask the government: if you vote down Labor's amendment, how can you guarantee that Direct Action will deliver our reductions of five per cent by 2020, and is there an emissions trading scheme that you will accept?

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (10:58): We have an emissions trading scheme in Australia now; it was negotiated by the last government. Senator Singh has a very selective memory. I was in the Senate when the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd abandoned what he called the greatest moral challenge of all time. Before Copenhagen and after Copenhagen, the gang of four in the Labor Party decided to abandon emissions trading in spite of the compromise the Greens had on the table at the time. They said they would prefer to go after the mining tax and abandon carbon pricing. They went into the 2010 election with no policy on carbon pricing and it was only as a result of negotiations after the election that the Greens secured a commitment that we would introduce a price on carbon and it would be legislated and take effect from 1 July 2012.

So let's not hear any more of this arrant nonsense and also let's put on the record that the scheme negotiated between the former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the then Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull 'browned it down' so that it was next to useless. In fact, it was worse than nothing, in my view, because it would have locked in expanding free permits over time. It would have locked in mega compensation to coal fired power stations. It had no driver of renewable energy, no Clean Energy Finance Corporation, no Climate Change Authority and had a weak five per cent target with no capacity for the parliament to drive it higher. So it was a complete junk policy. We now have a very good policy which we should be proud of and the question before the chair is: will the Palmer United Party, which says it supports emissions trading, now support a scheme which has an 18 per cent target as a result of the 31 May deadline expiring? We now have an 18 per cent target in Australia. That is what makes it different now from earlier in the year.

Mr Palmer says he supports an emissions trading scheme. Good, so do I, so does the Labor Party, so let us vote to keep the one we have. The compromise here is to go to flexible pricing straightaway which would take the price from $25 down to $7 to $9, which is a more than reasonable compromise to put on the table. If Mr Palmer is serious about an emissions trading scheme then let us vote for this amendment together and secure the amendment to put it back to the government. I notice the minister still has not answered my question about whether he has had talks with the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group—who he has had talks with—in relation to securing an emissions trading scheme, because they are saying in the papers that that is what they want. Are they telling the government that?

There is another matter that I want Senator Cormann to answer. I understand the government has been having talks with the Palmer United Party about how to secure the price reduction obligation to be returned to consumers. It is now a circulated amendment, though not yet moved. Mr Palmer has said that he has had discussions with the government. Regarding these costs, directly or indirectly attributable, that are to be accounted for, I ask the minister two things. Firstly, if it is an indirect cost, how widely defined is that? There is no-one here from the Palmer United Party who can tell me, so maybe you can, Minister, since you have been in discussions with them. Secondly, they have just changed their foreshadowed amendment, obviously as a result of discussions with the government. So, Minister, can you tell us what conversations you have had with the Palmer United Party and what this new amendment is actually going to do?

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance) (11:02): Firstly, I remind Senator Milne that right now we are dealing with amendment (3) on sheet 7506 moved by Senator Singh, which seeks to modify the carbon tax as it currently stands and rebudget. I will deal with other foreshadowed amendments and other amendments that have been circulated at the time we are ready to go with them. The thing is we can continue to go around and around in circles, so I will just make two very quick points. Senator Milne talks about Australia having an 18 per cent emissions reduction target by 2020. No, we do not because this government, very transparently, went to the last election in a bipartisan fashion and committed to a five per cent emissions reduction target by 2020 based on 2000 levels. That is what we will deliver on. This debate has been going around and around in circles for so long. By the way, an emissions trading scheme is a government intervention. It is no more a market based mechanism than going into the market to ask people to competitively tender for the lowest cost opportunity to deliver emissions reductions. Whether it is a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme, these are government interventions that are highly regulatory and impose significant burdens on the economy. We have been very clear that we do not support it. We can continue to go around and around in circles. I suggest that the Senate now vote on the amendment moved by Senator Singh so that we can move on to the other amendments on the Notice Paper, bearing in mind the remaining time available to the Senate to deal with these matters.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the opposition amendment be agreed to.

Senator RUSTON ( South Australia — Deputy Government Whip in the Senate ) ( 11:1 3 ): I seek further clarification from the minister in relation to the emissions trading scheme. I am wondering if he can put on the record exactly what it involves.

Senator Milne: On a point of order, Mr Acting Chair. We have just voted on that amendment. We are now moving to the next amendment on the sheet. This is a stalling tactic to allow the Palmer United Party to get themselves in order.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN ( Senator Bernardi ): Thank you, Senator Milne. I do recognise we have voted on the amendment, but there is another amendment before the chair at the moment and Senator Ruston did have the call. She has posed a question to the minister and it is appropriate for the minister to answer it.

Senator Wong: What an arrogant government—filibustering your own guillotine! This is outrageous.

Senator CORMANN: We have Senator Wong interjecting loudly. Senator Wong was part of the government which went to the election in 2010 promising there would be no carbon tax only to introduce one after. They went to an election in 2013 saying they had removed the carbon tax only to vote to keep it after. It is not the same thing to rebadge it or modify it. Those of us on this side of the chamber—and no doubt that is why we are now part of the government—

Senator Kim Carr: Where is your yellow tie?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Order! Minister, please resume your seat for a moment. It is very difficult for me to hear you with the bellowing coming from my left.

Senator CORMANN: I know that the Labor Party are very embarrassed about their track record when it comes to imposing unnecessary and bad taxes on the Australian community such as the carbon tax.

As I was saying before, in 2010 then Prime Minister Gillard went to the election and said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' What did she promise? She promised to have a climate change assembly. It was to be a citizens assembly with 150 citizens working to achieve consensus on how to deal with this area of public policy. But, of course, straight after the election the then government did a deal with the Greens. They entered into a coalition with the Greens. Everything that followed after that is history.

Earlier today Senator Singh asked me, 'Why are you not accepting the science?' As I said then, we are accepting the science. What we are not doing is accepting Labor's carbon tax, because it does nothing to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, arguably it actually pushes up global emissions because it pushes up the cost of electricity in Australia, it pushes up the cost of gas and it pushes up the cost of doing business. It helps our competitors in other parts of the world become more competitive. It is helping our competitors in other parts of the world take market share away from us. It is helping our competitors in other parts of the world to grow jobs at our expense. In the process, it is shifting emissions to other parts of the world where arguably for the same amount of economic output they are higher.

You will never believe what else I was asked earlier today. I was asked why we were acting against the will of the Australian people. This really goes to the crux of this whole issue. Something that the Labor Party clearly has not understood is that we have a very old-fashioned method here in Australia to test the will of the Australian people on a regular basis. It is called an election. We had an election in 2013 and the Labor Party lost, with their carbon tax, and the coalition won saying that we would get rid of the carbon tax. What we are doing here without any ifs or buts is getting rid of the carbon tax and we are not supporting replacing it with a carbon tax by another name because it is not in the national interest for us to do so.

We have people here saying that an emissions trading scheme is a market based mechanism. No, it is not. It is not something that comes out of the market at all. It is a government intervention. It is government imposing a compulsory price on the market. It is government putting in place massive regulation. It is government putting in place a massive bureaucracy. It is government putting in place policing across Australia in order to enforce compliance with government regulation. Government regulation is not a market based mechanism. It might be in Pyongyang. In Pyongyang they might think that when you put government regulation in place it is a market mechanism. When you go to Pyongyang you might think that more regulation is like a free market. But here in Australia more regulation and more taxes are not because of the free market.

Our system is actually a market based mechanism. Our Direct Action policy is part of a market based mechanism. Our Emissions Reduction Fund is a market based mechanism. With our Emissions Reduction Fund we are going out into the market and asking the market to competitively tender to help reduce emissions in Australia in a way that is economically responsible and environmentally effective. We are forcing businesses and other people out there to compete with each other. When you force people to compete with each other, that creates a market. So here we are. We, the government, through our Emissions Reduction Fund and our Direct Action policy, are putting forward a genuine market based mechanism.

But the Labor Party does not really understand how the emissions trading scheme here in Australia—the largest and most comprehensive national economy-wide emissions trading scheme or carbon tax anywhere in the world—interacts with the fact that there is no such scheme anywhere else in the world. There is such a thing as a global economy. Australia is only a small part of a global economy. We represent less than 1.4 per cent of global emissions. The US represents 19 per cent of global emissions. China represents 23 per cent of global emissions. Europe represents 13 per cent of global emissions. We are a small part of a global economy. When we are imposing costs on businesses, individuals, families and pensioners in Australia that are not faced by people and businesses in other parts of the world, we are asking people in Australia to make a sacrifice that is not asked of other people or businesses in other parts of the world. In asking them to make that sacrifice, at least it should make a difference. The problem is that neither the carbon tax nor Labor's proposal for a modified or rebadged carbon tax do anything to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions.

I see that Senator Bullock is here in the chamber. I know that he will say to me that all he is doing is faithfully promoting Labor Party policy. I have a certain fondness for Senator Bullock because I believe that he is a fundamentally decent and honest man. He went to the WA Senate by-election saying, 'Labor is scrapping the carbon tax.' The only problem was that on the very same day that he was making that statement in Western Australia—and I am sure that he was told to make that statement by his party—his Labor colleagues here in this chamber were voting to keep the carbon tax. Labor in this chamber were voting to keep the carbon tax on the very same day that Senator Bullock was sent out into the community by his party to say that Labor was scrapping it. These are the sorts of political games that we have seen from the Labor Party for way too long: in 2010, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'; in 2013, 'We already have removed the carbon tax'; in 2014, 'Labor is scrapping the carbon tax'—all the way through, playing the game; all the way through, working to keep the tax that they are trying to make the people across Australia believe they have already got rid of.

And here we are still this week. On Monday, we had to have a debate all day on whether we could start the debate. Then later in the week they are saying, 'You're not giving us enough time.' We spent the whole day on Monday debating whether or not we could start the debate this week. What was that all about? The Australian people voted in September 2013 to get rid of this thing. They want the carbon tax gone, because the carbon tax is bad. The carbon tax is bad for the economy, it is bad for families, it is bad for jobs, it is bad for our international competitiveness and it is imposing sacrifices on our community without actually making a positive difference to the environment. There is absolutely no reason why we should have a carbon tax in Australia, either in the form in which it was legislated by the previous government or in the form that Labor now wants to rebadge it. That is at the heart, really, of why we are having this debate and that is of course why the coalition continues to persist with the approach we have taken.

It is always important for those of us here in this chamber, who represent our respective states, that we focus on the best interests of our states and on the best interests of our country. If we are serious about wanting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Australia and globally, we should be having a conversation on how Australia could best contribute to that effort. And guess what: in the great state of Western Australia, which I have the privilege to represent in this chamber, we have a wonderful opportunity to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in an economically responsible and environmentally effective way. We can have a win-win-win situation: we can increase the level of economic activity, increase the number of jobs and help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. How do we do it? It is by producing more LNG in Australia, not less, and exporting that LNG to China, to Japan and to other places around the world where it can displace less environmentally friendly energy sources.

Of course, Labor's carbon tax, or Labor's emissions trading scheme proposal, in the absence of an appropriately comprehensive global agreement, makes it harder for us to increase the level of LNG production, when that is something we could do here in Australia to help the world. There should be more LNG out of Australia. What does that mean? If we produced more LNG in Australia, helping the world, we would have to accept higher-emissions-producing LNG here in Australia domestically, but the good thing is that it would actually help reduce emissions by more in other parts of the world. So the net effect is beneficial, whereas the net effect of Labor's carbon tax and emissions trading scheme is to push up global emissions. So not only are people in Australia being asked to make a sacrifice; they are being asked to make a sacrifice, under the Labor-Greens scheme, which actually makes things worse for the environment, whereas our approach will help reduce emissions in Australia in a way that achieves a genuine, proportionate net reduction in emissions in the world. That is why we commend to the Senate our policy approach as a superior approach—and it is of course the approach that received the only tick of approval that matters, and that is that tick of approval from the Australian people.

I was asked whether I was aware of comments by X, Y and Z—this business, that stakeholder and whatever. We are of course aware of all of the comments that have been made by a whole range of people, but guess what: our sense of purpose is very clear—we made a promise to get rid of the carbon tax because that is good for the economy, because that is good for families, because that is good for pensioners, because that is good for jobs, because that is good for attracting investment in Australia and because it also means that, through a more effective alternative policy, we can reduce emissions in Australia in a fiscally responsible way. But, no, the Labor Party do not get this, even though this has been argued ad nauseam. The only time they get this is in the shadow of an election. If this carbon tax were still hanging around by the time of the next election, I bet that the Labor Party would go to yet another election promising to get rid of it. Why do we know that? Because in 2010 they said we would not get it; in 2013 they said they had removed it, even though it stayed; and since then they have voted to keep it. In 2014 they said they were scrapping it. They have not. But here we are today and the Senate has the historic opportunity to act in the national interest. Today the Senate has the historic opportunity to help ensure that we can reduce emissions in Australia in a way that is economically responsible, fiscally responsible and environmentally effective.

Clearly all the Labor Party and the Greens want to do is to shift emissions to other parts of the world—out of sight, out of mind. They do not care that they are making it harder for aluminium producers in Australia to be able to compete with aluminium producers in China, even though aluminium producers in Australia are 50 per cent more environmentally efficient, even though emissions in Australia, for the same amount of aluminium production, are much, much lower. They are quite happy for aluminium producers in other parts of the world to take market share away from us, even though that pushes up the level of emissions in the world. That is the short-sighted approach by the Labor Party and the Greens—imposing a negative impact on our economy, imposing sacrifices on families, pensioners, small business and big business, making it harder to create jobs, making it harder to attract investment. As the Parliamentary Budget Office independently assessed in the lead-up to the last election, getting rid of the carbon tax will deliver an economic growth dividend, and that is the economic growth dividend that Australia needs right now, because, as a result of the mismanagement of the previous government, the Labor-Greens government, we have an economy growing below trend. We inherited rising unemployment. We need to turn that situation around. Getting rid of this bad Labor-Greens carbon tax is a very important part of our economic action strategy to build a stronger economy where everyone has the opportunity to get ahead.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (11:29): It certainly takes a special blend of arrogance and incompetence to seek to both guillotine and filibuster in the same debate, and that is what this government is doing. It is fantastic. Not only did they use their numbers in the chamber this morning to put in place a guillotine; they now have a government senator asking questions of a minister who just went for 15 minutes on a Labor amendment, which has already been knocked off, in order to give the government time out there in the corridors to try and cut a deal to repeal the carbon price because they—and I use Mr Palmer's words—appear to have doublecrossed the Palmer United Party. As I said, it takes a special blend of arrogance and incompetence to both guillotine and filibuster, and that is what is occurring here.

While I am on my feet—and I will ask Senator Singh later, if she gets the call, to speak to this—the opposition opposes Schedules 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the following terms:

(4) Schedule 2, page 71 (line 1) to page 90 (line 27), to be opposed.

(5) Schedule 3, page 91 (lines 1 to 26), to be opposed.

(6) Schedule 4, page 92 (lines 1 to 29), to be opposed.

(7) Schedule 5, page 93 (line 1) to page 94 (line 4), to be opposed.

These amendments continue the position of the Australian Labor Party—that is, we want an emissions trading scheme.

I want to make sure we all understand what is occurring. The Senate had, obviously, a long debate yesterday—one of a number of debates—where the government sought without notice to come in and refuse to take up additional time that was offered up by the opposition to debate this legislation and to put in place a guillotine and a gag. In fact, I think I said by the end of this week we would see not five occasions on which the Senate was asked to support a guillotine and a gag on legislation, notwithstanding the offer by the opposition for more time. The government refused that. It got the numbers on a guillotine and a gag.

We then see a range of amendments being circulated in the chamber from Mr Palmer's party—and I understand they have a particular position. We had a sheet. We had one amendment, which was circulated. This morning we then had another revision to that amendment, which was circulated and, just before I got to my feet, there was a third revision to the Palmer United Party's amendment. We have Senator Cormann and Senator Ruston filibustering their own guillotined debate in order to enable further negotiation of the third version of the Palmer United's amendments on the carbon price. This is the calm, responsible and considered government that Mr Abbott promised. If you walk around the corridors, you can see all sorts of little huddles where these various amendments are being discussed.

Senator Kim Carr: Huddles? I thought you said cuddles.

Senator WONG: I didn't say cuddles; I said huddles. I want to ask some questions about the revisions of the minister after I finish this contribution. If the government did not try to subvert the Senate process in order to give Mr Abbott a media conference when he wanted to after he flew in from the Pilbara, then they would not be in this predicament of both filibustering and guillotining their own debate in order to give themselves time to negotiate the third round of amendments, to enable them to get the numbers in this chamber to repeal the carbon price. If they did not try to subvert this chamber's proper process, they would not be in the embarrassing position they are in now where they are running around trying to cut a deal with 15 minutes or so left on the clock—15 minutes, which of course is of their own making. Those of us on this side of chamber—obviously, not the Palmer United Party but the Greens and the Labor Party—made it very clear we wanted a proper debate on this bill. As I said—

Senator Williams: What about your history of guillotines?

Senator WONG: I will take the interjection, and thank you for providing me with something to respond to, Senator Williams, in the circumstances. I understand that parties of government on occasion have, when they are faced with a circumstance where they cannot get legislation through at the end of a session, sought to have agreed limitation of debate motions—they have; I acknowledge that. But it is quite a different thing to do it on the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of the first sitting week of the new Senate. The only logical reason the government has done this, as I said, is that it wanted to make sure Mr Abbott could have his press conference.

Why does Mr Abbott want a press conference today on this? You can see what has happened. As I said in the debate earlier today, this is a government that has turned on the people who elected it. It is a government that promised no cuts to education, no cuts to health and no changes to the pension, and it has broken all of those promises. This budget breaks all of those promises and many more: they have broken the promise around no cuts to the ABC, no cuts to SBS but, most importantly, no cuts to health and no cuts to education—a fundamental promise that Mr Abbott made not once, not twice but over and over and over again during the election campaign. Then they bring down a budget and completely turn their back on the commitments they made to the Australian people, because it is a budget which does cut health and education. It cuts our school system by around $30 billion. It cuts our health system by $50 billion and of course it imposes a GP tax and the tax on fuel—from the party that believes in lower taxes.

This is the context to why the government has gone to such lengths this week to curtail debate—to contain debate—though it did so unsuccessfully on a number of occasions. What they want is for Mr Abbott to be able to stand up at the Prime Minister's press conference today and say, 'I've repealed the carbon price, but let's not talk about the budget where we did you over.' That is what this is all about.

I want to return now to a couple of the points in the legislation and the amendments that Labor have moved. I note that on a number of occasions, Senator Abetz and Senator Cormann have waved around comments that Labor made prior to the election about the ending of the carbon tax. The Leader of the Government in the Senate seems not to understand Labor policy. We made very clear our position, which is that we think the fixed price policy needs to end. We do want to move to a market mechanism. We do want to move to a floating price. The amendments that I have just moved—the amendments that Senator Singh has circulated—and that we are debating are fundamentally about Labor's policy position, which is that we should move to emissions trading.

Let us recall the sorts of people who are on the side of emissions trading. They include John Howard, Mr Hewson, Mr Turnbull, Margaret Thatcher's cabinet minister and many other members of conservative parties around the world. The reason is that an emissions trading scheme is a market mechanism. I will take Senator Cormann's point in the earlier debate—when he was doing his interesting filibuster in a guillotine debate—where he said that an emissions trading scheme is not a market mechanism. That is the most ridiculous proposition. Who sets the price? The market. That is the point. You set a cap on pollution and—

Senator Cormann: Who sets the cap?

Senator WONG: That is a policy decision, just as government makes policy decisions in a whole range of circumstances. You set a cap on pollution because you make a policy decision that, firstly, 'We want to actually try to reduce the amount of pollution that this nation puts into the atmosphere,' and, secondly, 'We want to give an economic incentive for business to find cheaper, cleaner ways of doing business. That is what we want to do. We want to reward the clean energy innovators of today and tomorrow.' That is what we do. It is a market mechanism, unlike under Direct Action. So, instead of some public servant determining what is the most efficient way to reduce pollution, we have the market doing that, the market finding the most efficient way and the lowest cost way for emissions to be reduced.

That is why consistently economies from the time John Howard set up his task group on emissions trading in, I think, 2005-06 and onwards—and in fact prior to that, but from then on certainly in the context of the Australian debate—have said that they believe that emissions trading is the most efficient way to reduce Australia's emissions. So the minister's proposition that somehow this is not a market mechanism is a false one and really flies in the face of reputable economists here in Australia and around the world.

It seems remarkable that this comes from a party that believe in free markets. This of course is Minister Cormann's argument for the deregulation of university fees—also a market the government creates by a policy decision. His argument in favour of the deregulation of fees is that it allows the market to work. It seems remarkable that a party that allegedly believe in the power of the market would prefer a bureaucratically run scheme where public servants in fact find the cheapest way—supposedly—of reducing emissions.

We obviously have some amendments before the chair and there are other amendments that people seek to speak on. I do have some questions that I might jump ahead at this point and ask of the minister, given the time. In relation to the newly revised amendment by Senator Lazarus, which has been circulated but not yet moved, I would like to ask the minister a few questions. First, is the government—

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Wong, that question is not actually before the chair.

Senator WONG: That is true, but given that the debate is about to be truncated, I think it would be useful for the Senate to know if it is the government's intention for this amendment to be accepted in the House of Representatives. I think it is reasonable for the Senate to know whether or not this is an amendment that the government—

Senator Cormann: Why don't we quickly deal with your own?

Senator WONG: I am asking the question—

Senator Cormann: Let's deal with this amendment and then deal with the next one.

Senator WONG: I understand that it is technically not before the chair but I think it is in the public interest for the Palmer United senators to know if the government intends to accept this amendment on the floor of the House of Representatives—because, if it does not, and the minister is not prepared to say that in this chamber, then obviously the Palmer United Party might have been sold a pup.

Honourable senators interjecting—

Senator WONG: Sorry, I had to just say that once—just once. I promise I will not do it again—though others might. I just had to get that out once. I had to get that particular gag off my chest. I would ask if that could be made clear. I also want to ask the minister if he believes that this amendment is consistent with the government's deregulation agenda.

Senator EDWARDS (South Australia) (11:43): Given that the impost of this carbon tax has been estimated at $15.4 billion, I am very keen to know how abolishing this tax—if that comes to pass here this morning—will benefit the transformation of the automotive industry and how that will help the unemployment figures, which are currently for youth unemployment at 45 per cent for the northern suburbs of South Australia, and whether this will enhance the job prospects of every unemployed person in South Australia.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (11:44): If this were not so serious it would be laughable. We now have an amendment that is supposedly going to be voted on in this chamber in a matter of five minutes, and we have heard a version of it and we still have not heard, from those who moved it, what it actually means, what the differences are and what it actually is going to do. The way I read it at the moment, it is going to be the biggest introduction of red, green and yellow tape that you ever did see, because in relation to 'entity' it states:

entity means any of the following:

(a) an individual;

(b) a body corporate;

(c) an entity sole;

(d) a body politic;

(e) a partnership;

(f) any other unincorporated association or body of entitys;

(g) a trust;

(h) any party or entity which can or does buy or sell electricity or gas

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Edwards on a point of order.

Senator Edwards: I have a question before the chair—

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. Senator Milne has the call.

Senator MILNE: We do not know how this is different from the others. There is a penalty included in the second revised version. I have not even had a chance to look at the revised third version.

We are now talking about something that is critical to the future of our country, to future generations and to the natural environment, and it has all been stitched up in back rooms between the government and the Palmer United Party, and the Senate is being treated with contempt here. How are we supposed to look at what this actually means in the few minutes that are available to us? That is why it is important that the minister does tell us whether the government has stitched this up. We need to know exactly what deals have been going on behind here. Is this the way the parliament is now going to be run—in back rooms between these parties, and then accusing each other of duplicitousness? And we do not even have the opportunity to see what this amendment actually does.

This is a day when Australia will know whether we are going backwards or forwards—whether we are going to embrace the future or whether we are going to be landed back in a fossil fuel past, when we know this is a disaster for the planet and for the country. I would like the government to answer these questions: is this going to be accepted by the government; will you tell us what the differences are? Will you tell us what this amendment does? On this day the whole country wants to know whether we are going forwards or backwards, whether we are going to go with the rest of the world and address global warming or whether we are just going to go back to the last century. We need to know exactly what you have stitched up.

Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance) (11:47): I thank Senator Milne for her contribution. Embracing the future means getting rid of the carbon tax, because getting rid of the carbon tax helps build a stronger, more prosperous economy. It helps create jobs. It helps to reduce cost-of-living expenses. It helps families. It helps pensioners. It helps small businesses. It helps big businesses. It helps Australia attract investment. It is very good news for Australia if we finally get rid of the carbon tax.

Obviously, as we have said for a very long time, the government is committed to ensuring that the cost reductions that electricity generators, for example, are able to benefit from as a direct result of the repeal of the carbon tax are appropriately passed through to consumers and to small business. We have already made a series of provisions to make sure that that does happen. The Palmer United Party put forward some sensible amendments to ensure that that could be put even further beyond doubt.

As far as the government is concerned, the overarching objective of this government is to deliver on the clear commitment we made in the lead-up to the last election, which was to get rid of the carbon tax so that we can bring down the cost of living for families and for pensioners, so that we can bring down the cost of doing business in Australia, so that we can facilitate stronger job creation and so that we can provide opportunities for everyone to get ahead. Of course, this government is totally committed to doing everything we can to ensure that any reductions in the cost of generating electricity, generating energy, as a result of getting rid of the carbon tax are properly passed through to consumers and to small businesses. All of the regulators that set electricity prices have come out to say that that is what is happening. A number of the private energy generators have already made it very clear that they are committed to passing through the cost reductions that come as a direct result of the repeal of the carbon tax. The ACCC has powers and will have powers to ensure that they can take appropriate action to make sure that any cost reductions as a result of the repeal of the carbon tax are properly passed through.

Today is when the Senate, including the Labor Party, has the opportunity to finally rid the Australian people of this bad tax.

The CHAIRMAN: The time allocated for the remaining stages of these bills has now expired. I remind senators that under a guillotine I will put the question before the chair, and then the further amendments circulated at least two hours prior to this time. The question now is that in respect of the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No.2]—

Senator Xenophon: Could I please get clarification from you? In relation to the amendment on sheet 7511, revision 2, which has been circulated but not yet been moved by the Leader of the Palmer United Party, Senator Lazarus, does this mean that amendment cannot be put?

The CHAIRMAN: Under the standing orders it cannot be put unless leave is sought and given by the Senate. The original amendment will be put, because that was circulated prior to two hours before this time. But the revised ones will not be put unless leave is sought by the Senate. In respect of the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No.2], the question is that schedules 2 to 5 stand as printed.

Senator Singh: Could I seek clarification on exactly what we are voting on?

Senator Cormann interjecting—

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Cormann, I am sure Senator Singh is seeking clarification from me. In respect of the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No 2], the question is that schedule 2 to 5 stand as printed.

The CHAIRMAN: The question now before the chair is that amendments (1) to (20) on sheet 7511, circulated by the Palmer United Party, be agreed to.

Senator Milne: Mr Chairman, what you have just read out on the sheet: is that the third version? What you have just read out is the second version, so I would just like some clarity about which version we are asked to vote on.

The CHAIRMAN: Senator Milne, as I explained earlier to the Senate, for amendments to be considered they have to have been circulated prior to two hours before the deadline of the guillotine. The amendments we are considering are on the original, unrevised version of sheet 7511. If the Senate were to consider a revised version it would need to be with leave of the Senate.

Senator Wong: Mr Chairman, further to Senator Milne's question: is the intention to seek leave to amend, or are we voting on the old ones? No leave has been sought.

Senator LAZARUS (Queensland—Leader of the Palmer United Party in the Senate) (12:01): I inform the chamber that this is not my first speech. I advise I have nothing to move, as I have been advised that my amendments have been circulated in a form I do not approve. I seek leave to withdraw them.

The CHAIRMAN: So you are seeking leave to withdraw 7511. The revised ones were not going to be put by me anyway, unless you sought leave. I am going to put the question on the original 7511 unless you are seeking leave to withdraw that.

Senator LAZARUS: I am seeking leave, yes.

The CHAIRMAN: Is leave granted to withdraw amendments (1) to (20) on sheet 7511?

Leave granted.

The CHAIRMAN: The question now is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7506, circulated by the opposition, be agreed to.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:09): I seek the indulgence of the Senate in relation to the Australian Greens' amendment on schedule 5 and ask that it be put as a separate amendment. When you announced schedules 2 to 5, I was focusing on the PUP amendment and assumed schedule 5 would be coming next. I would ask that that amendment be put.

The CHAIRMAN: So you would like the question to be put separately in respect of schedule 5?

Senator Milne: Yes.

The CHAIRMAN: Is leave granted to re-put the question in respect of schedule 5?

Leave granted.

The CHAIRMAN: The question I now put is that schedule 5 stand as printed.

The CHAIRMAN (12:15): The question now before the chair is that table item 9 in clause 2 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2] as amended and seven related bills be agreed to.

The PRESIDENT (12:21): The committee has considered the Clean Energy Legislation (Carbon Tax Repeal) Bill 2013 [No. 2] and has disagreed to the bills. The question now is that the report of the committee be adopted. Senator Wong, did you seek to make a point of clarification?

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:22): I think I am now clear given the way the questions have been worded, but for those of us who, self-evidently, do not support the repeal, we would therefore vote yes to the report of the committee being adopted?

The PRESIDENT (12:22): If you do not support the bills, that would be correct because the committee has not agreed to the bills. The question before the chair is that the report of the committee be adopted. The committee, as we have just heard, reported that the bills have not been agreed to. I want to clarify this absolutely and completely because it is slightly unusual. This is an important thing to clarify. The effect of the motion that I am about to put would be that all bills cease any further action.

Prior to that, I seek the concurrence of the Senate on a matter. I have written to the president of the press gallery, Mr David Speers—copied to all leaders and whips of the Senate—responding to a request that photographs be allowed to be taken of divisions. I have stipulated some provisions in this letter: that the photographs be broad shots of the chamber only; that individual senators or groups of senators not be the focus of any particular shot; and that the media rules are otherwise complied with at all times. Do I have the concurrence of the Senate? There being no objection, it is so.

The question is that the report of the committee, disagreeing to all of the bills, be adopted.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (12:36): At the request of Senator Fawcett, I move:

That the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be authorised to hold private meetings otherwise than in accordance with standing order 33(1), followed by public meetings, during the sittings of the Senate, from 11 am to 1 pm, as follows:

(a) Monday, 1 September 2014;

(b) Monday, 22 September 2014;

(c) Monday, 27 October 2014;

(d) Monday, 24 November 2014; and

(e) Monday, 1 December 2014.

Question agreed to.

Senator BUSHBY (Tasmania—Government Whip in the Senate) (12:36): At the request of Senator Sterle, I move:

That the time for the presentation of the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on grass-fed cattle levies be extended to 23 September 2014.

Question agreed to.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:37): I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to set carbon emissions standards for new passenger vehicles and light commercial vehicles, and for related purposes.

Question agreed to.

Senator MILNE: 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 MILNE (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (12:38): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

Senator MILNE: I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansardand to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

MOTOR VEHICLE STANDARDS (CHEAPER TRANSPORT) BILL 2014

Brand new Australian cars guzzle more petrol than new vehicles sold in China, India, Europe and Japan. Australians are just wasting money on petrol when we really don't have to.

Under this Bill, Australians will be able to take back control of rising petrol prices and reduce our reliance on imported oil as we see the fuel efficiency of Australia's cars improved by over 50% within 10 years.

This Bill would align Australia's fleet with the existing EU 2020 standards to achieve 95 grams of CO2 per kilometre for passenger vehicles by 2023—a three year delay. To put that into perspective our cars average 192 grams per kilometre, far higher than the global average.

Australian motorists will save around $850 a year on petrol under the scheme. After three years of driving a new car they will have paid off the expected increased upfront costs and will have freed up valuable income to spend on other things that are more important.

Not only will this Bill help motorists, but it will send a strong signal to our automotive trading partners like Japan who have the highest fuel efficiency standards in the world that we will be an enduring market for high-quality and efficient automotive products.

We will join the three-quarters of all cars sold in the global market that have a strong fuel standard. By adding Australia to the list, we will create more competition for ever-more efficient vehicles, rather than driving them towards those global markets with standards in place.

The scheme won't place any more pressure on Australian automotive jobs because it won't start until 2017 when Australian automotive manufacturers are closing down their operations. On the contrary, it will inspire a new market for high-quality products that those in Australia's supplementary automotive manufacturing industry are well-placed to exploit.

It will require the Climate Change Authority to review the effectiveness of the scheme and recommend to Parliament further targets beyond 2023.

Finally, it will help drive down Australia's pollution levels. Passenger vehicles currently create 10% of Australia's total greenhouse gas emissions, but this is an area for easy pickings to drive massive reductions at no cost to government.

This Bill will save money for Australians, strengthen trade relationships, provide new opportunities for the automotive parts industry and rapidly reverse the 48% rise in vehicle emissions Australia has created since 1990.

It is for all these urgent reasons that I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator RHIANNON (New South Wales) (12:40): I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Special Minister of State, no later than 15 July 2014:

(a) all correspondence and documents, whether written or in email form, from the Special Minister of State's office and/or the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) relevant to:

(i) the decision of the AEC to have Mr Michael Cordover declared a vexatious applicant, and

(ii) the assertion that Mr Matthew Landauer colluded with Mr Cordover to harass the AEC; and

(b) the source code of the software by which Senate vote counts are conducted.

Question agreed to.

Senator McEWEN (South Australia—Opposition Whip in the Senate) (12:40): On behalf of Senator Dastyari, I move:

That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Finance, no later than 1.50 pm on Thursday, 10 July 2014, the Corporations Amendment (Streamlining Future of Financial Advice) Regulation 2014 (Select Legislative Instrument No. 102, 2014) and the associated explanatory statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion 333 be agreed to.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (12:48): The Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2014 represents an important step in improving Australia's law and justice system and demonstrates a commitment by the government to simplify and streamline the law. I thank honourable senators for their contributions, albeit of a limited nature, and commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (12:49): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator RYAN (Victoria—Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education) (12:49): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator LUNDY (Australian Capital Territory) (12:50): Since coming to government, the coalition have tried to unpick every policy Labor put in place to ensure that Australia took meaningful action to combat climate change. While the events of this morning are still fresh in our minds and show that they are not always successful in these endeavours, we are still faced with a bill before us now that seeks to abolish the Climate Change Authority.

The policies that Labor put into place to address climate change were developed in consultation with Australia's leading climate scientists and economists. They were policies that evolved out of decades of discussion and debate among those economists, scientists and, indeed, politicians. The policies which emerged with a consensus across a range of spheres of our civil society included a broad acceptance of a market based solution to transition Australia's economy to a low-pollution economy. This emerged solidly during the period of the former Howard government. We certainly adopted a very strong stance when Labor came to government in 2007. That consensus only dissolved when Mr Abbott took over the leadership of the coalition. Since that time, we have seen a number of coalition representatives crawl out from under their rock, presumably with some neoconservative briefing, fuelling the politics of fear and giving them a run in Australia. We saw the fearmongering and the conspiracy theorists starting to unpick what was a very sound and, as I said, very rational—in fact, quite dry—approach to helping Australia's economy transition to a low-pollution economy.

What the coalition promoted in place of that is a policy that has been discredited. They called it Direct Action, and it is at worst a fig leaf, cynically designed to distract the Australian public from the fact that the government has no real interest in addressing climate change and so no real interest in reducing our carbon emissions. In contrast to Labor's policy, which made Australia's 370 largest polluters pay for their pollution, the Abbott government's policies are trying to make Australian taxpayers finance a fund to pay polluters so they will cut their emissions. It is ludicrous. This slush fund does not even require polluters to provide guarantees that emissions reductions are actually occurring. It is a policy that all experts agree will cost Australian households more, while achieving nothing in the effort to reduce Australia's carbon emissions. It is a policy that will inevitably cause Australia to default on its 2020 reduction targets and thereby undermine Australia's previously strong stance on the international stage in the collective fight to mitigate the damaging effects of climate change.

The Prime Minister has already indicated that he intends to abandon Australia's emissions reductions target when Direct Action fails, and the sad truth is that Australia has a government which is happy to sit back and stubbornly continue to ignore the advice of its scientists, public servants and economists and instead watch Australia default on its international commitments to reduce its carbon emissions and, by definition, pollution. I think that is exactly how Direct Action will be viewed by the international community—as a stubborn, ignorant and, I would even argue, arrogant attempt by the Australian government to avoid doing its part in the challenge of mitigating climate change.

The damage does not stop there. The government plans to do more to damage this effort. It is not enough for the government to hand all the power back to the big polluters so that a few companies can sacrifice the long-term interests of Australia. This government also wants to prevent scrutiny of its own climate change policies. Upon taking office, the first order of business for the Minister for the Environment, Mr Hunt, was to dismantle the Climate Commission. This was an institution created by the former Labor government to provide the Australian public with independent, easy-to-read, accessible, digestible information about climate change. It was an organisation dedicated to dispelling the myths and pseudoscience that had plagued the climate change debate in Australia and ensuring that the Australian people were kept reliably and independently informed on the impacts of climate change and what their government was doing to mitigate these impacts. Unfortunately, keeping the public informed was not a priority of this government, and today the government is again trying to shut down scrutiny of its climate change policies by this attempt to abolish the Climate Change Authority.

The Climate Change Authority was established to provide the government, the parliament, and the Australian people with the highest quality advice about the effectiveness of Australia's climate change policies. In formulating its advice, the authority takes into account expert scientific and economic evidence as well as developments across the international arena. It does so in order to circumvent the toxic politics that have tended to surround the climate change debate here in Australia and frame them in a context of actual science, evidence and all the discussion and debate that takes place in the scientific world, in order to move away from a situation where fear and denial and pseudoscience have become the characteristics of a lot of the public conversations around climate change.

The authority is independent of the government and is tasked with undertaking regular reviews of the government's climate change policies. I cannot think of a better check and balance to assure those sceptics out there that the policies they are being asked to support are valid. They are being tested independently. This is what the authority is charged to do. These policies include initiatives like the Carbon Farming Initiative and indeed the renewable energy target itself. The environment minister's direction over these reviews is deliberately limited to general matters only, and the minister cannot direct the conduct of a review, nor influence the content of a report. To ensure transparency and accountability, the authority is required to hold public consultation as part of its reviews.

In short, the Climate Change Authority provides the facts and the advice for everyone to see, and the government and the parliament decide how to act on it—it is simple, it is independent, it is transparent and it works. But we are faced with a bill that abolishes the Climate Change Authority and transfers its responsibilities to the office of the Minister for the Environment, to Mr Hunt. This includes the responsibility for undertaking reviews of the government's climate change policies and, in doing so, demolishes the transparency and independence of these reviews.

We are left in opposition, as I am sure many members of the public are, to ask the question: why? Why is the government so determined to ensure there is no formal independent organisation left to scrutinise Australia's climate change mitigation strategies? We have been told that the Climate Change Authority is redundant, because it only exists to monitor the carbon price; and the carbon price, so the government says, is on its way out. This is not true.

The Climate Change Authority exists to monitor Australia's climate change mitigation strategies, of which the price on carbon is but one part. If the government seek to use that as an argument to abolish the Climate Change Authority, they are not telling the whole story; they are only telling a very small part of the story.

More importantly, the Climate Change Authority's brief, because it is so broad, should include the coalition's direct action policy. It makes perfect sense for the authority to continue and also oversee in a transparent and independent way the operation of the coalition's direct action policy, if it is ever legislated.

I have heard no reasonable argument as to why direct action should not receive the same scrutiny that the previous government's climate change policies were happily and willingly subjected to by the Climate Change Authority. We, in the opposition, believe that that scrutiny of direct action and other policies and strategies the coalition may put in place should come from an independent and transparent body like we already have, like the Climate Change Authority.

The authority demonstrated its continuing relevance in February this year when it incorporated the government's direct action policy into its Targets and Progress Review, stating:

The Authority has taken the Government’s different policy approach into account in the analysis for this Draft Report. In the Authority’s view, this Report remains highly relevant despite the changing policy landscape. Its primary focus is Australia’s goals for reducing emissions. The setting of these goals raises the same critical questions, whatever the particular policies adopted to meet them.

Other nations have similar bodies in place to scrutinise their own climate change mitigation policies. The United Kingdom has the Committee on Climate Change. It was established in 2008 with the express purpose of advising the UK government on emissions targets and reporting to parliament on the nation's progress towards reaching those targets. Its responsibilities are identical to those of the Climate Change Authority here in Australia.

I note with great interest that when the Conservatives—the coalition equivalent political party—came to power in the UK they did not scrap the committee on climate change. The British Conservatives saw the sense in retaining an organisation that provided unbiased advice on climate change mitigation strategies. This is the ideological parent of the Australian Liberals, and even the Conservatives can see the sense in retaining an independent advisory body for climate change policies.

So why does the Liberal Party see things so differently to their ideological counterparts in the UK? We can speculate on this. I suspect it has very little to do with what the relevant stakeholders think. Numerous environmental organisations and climate change action groups provided submissions to the government asking that the Climate Change Authority be retained, even if the government were successful in abolishing the carbon price. The World Wildlife Fund's submission said:

… it is critical that the Climate Change Authority or similar body is retained to ensure Australia’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are informed by independent scientific, economic, energy, and policy experts with a level of distance from stakeholder influence.

The business community also outlined their support for the Climate Change Authority during the submission process. For example, the Investor Group on Climate Change argued that the analysis provided by the authority is valuable for Australian businesses stating:

Regardless of the policy tools that Australian governments choose to implement, the CCA’s analysis assists investors to interpret the likely future emissions reductions trajectory for Australia and the scale of policy response that will be required.

So if both environmental organisations and the business community support the Climate Change Authority, why then is this government moving to scrap it?

If other conservative governments around the world see the sense in retaining an independent body to scrutinise their climate change policies, why does Australia's conservative government feel differently? Personally, I can only think of one explanation and it speaks to the arrogance of the Abbott government. The government do not want to preserve the Climate Change Authority because they do not want their climate change mitigation policies scrutinised. The government want the Australian parliament and the Australian people kept in the dark over the effectiveness of their so-called direct action policies, because they know what we all already know—and that is that their so-called direct action policy is ineffectual, it will waste taxpayers' money and do nothing to combat climate change.

Just as they did when they refused to release the Commission of Audit's final report until after the South Australian and Western Australian state elections, the government are developing a very firm habit of deliberately trying to shut down public scrutiny of their policies and indeed their activities. We know that this government have contempt not only for the expert advice provided by Australia's climate scientists but also the well-cited global expertise available through the scientific community. They shut down the Climate Commission when they came to power and they are planning to savagely cut our premier scientific organisation, the CSIRO. There was a $115 million cut to the CSIRO, which we know will cost that organisation 420 staff in the next 12 months and an estimated loss of some $49 million in external revenue. We have had feedback from the CSIRO Staff Association that they believe that carbon capture is one of the areas of research that will be adversely impacted by these cuts. And here we are today debating this bill, showing the coalition going after another group of climate change experts by destroying the Climate Change Authority.

We know that many members of the government are suspicious, are sceptical, about climate change and others flatly deny it. But, if that is the case, why would you remove the one independent body able to provide accurate, independent, clear and transparent advice to this place and to them—as sceptics, as climate deniers—so that we can, at the very minimum, as elected representatives in this place, keep ourselves informed of the facts as they are presented? We will obviously make our policy decisions, as political parties do, but the facts are the facts and they should prevail.

Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (13:10): Well, what an extraordinary day it is where we have rolled straight into the debate on the proposed destruction of the Climate Change Authority through this bill, the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013 [No. 2], directly after the extraordinary shambles that the government's plans to wreck the Clean Energy Act were thrown into by the vote that we saw in here just a few moments ago. The Senate voting to oppose the government's repeal bills clearly was not in the Prime Minister's talking points for this week—but such was the sheer folly, the aggressive stupidity, that the government has shown in tying these votes together. By now we were meant to be, I guess, recoiling at the destruction of the vast bulk of the Clean Energy Act. We understand, after negotiation with Mr Palmer and his Senate colleagues in here, they had tied to this vote the introduction of an ETS that would effectively have a nil trading value and a carbon price, as far as we can tell, with all of the compliance costs and overheads and not requiring anybody to pay any money for emitting carbon pollution. But it does not appear to have worked out very well for you, has it?

What kind of government would propose the elimination of an expert body like the Climate Change Authority, that rests at arm's length from the political turmoil in here, that is staffed by scientists, experts, economists and researchers—people not necessarily polluted by the political churn and the argy-bargy that goes on here? It effectively sets those targets that are so essential and goes beyond the pointless one-dimensional talking points of the so-called bipartisan five per cent emissions reduction target, which I guess has served as a fig leaf for the last couple of years or as a proxy for a government that is deeply unhappy with the climate imperative but knows it needs to pretend that it is at least faintly interested.

One of the key functions of the Climate Change Authority is to review our emissions goals—that is, look at the audits; get a sense of how our emissions profile is tracking; look at what sectors of the economy are performing well and what is performing poorly; look at what restructuring is occurring, what the barriers are and where the resistance is; and then model how we are progressing towards the goals outlined in the renewable energy target and what Australia's target should be. Of the hundreds of expert bodies that this government abolished under public policy masquerading as some kind of drunkenly wielded chainsaw, the Climate Change Authority is one of the most important of all.

Let us take a quick look at the context here. In the wake of the remarkable rebuff that the Australian Senate just sent back to the Prime Minister's office this afternoon, I think it is worth scoping some of the context here. Let us take a quick traverse since just before the last election at the scope of the damage that this government has sought to do to the climate science community, to the clean energy industry and to ordinary people who are caught up in this government's fatal paralysis on the climate imperative. How about these. Axing the national partnership agreement on certain concessions for pensioners and Seniors Card holders, which supports state and territory concessions for senior citizens, including energy rebates. That was a pretty low act. Breaking a promise to have one million more solar roofs across Australia and at least 25 solar towns. It was clear as day—a black and white announcement by Minister Hunt, and the Prime Minister made him look like an absolute muppet in the wake of this rather humiliating backdown, where he had to admit that the money simply was not there. Here is another one: scrapping a range of grant programs aimed at funding innovation and start-up businesses, including Australian Industry Participation, Commercialisation Australia, Enterprise Solutions, the Innovation Investment Fund, the Industry Innovation Councils, Enterprise Connect, Industry Innovation Precincts, Textile Clothing and Footwear Small Business, and Building Innovative Capability. All of these things have direct bearing on energy efficiency—for example, more efficient production practices. It is almost like you have done a random word search and anybody who looks to have anything at all to do with innovation or anyone who has innovation or expertise or efficiency in their title has just been abolished without anybody caring too much about what it was they were doing. That was in the budget.

Next there is axing industry and community clean energy programs, including the Low Emissions Technology Demonstration Fund, the National Low Emission Coal Initiative, Energy Efficiency Programmes, the National Solar Schools Plan, Energy Efficiency Information Grants and Low Carbon Communities. All wiped out at the stroke of a pen. Next, breaking a very clear and unambiguous election promise by proposing to scrap the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. The Senate just sent that one a bit of a punch in the face, but nonetheless it was your commitment after the election to scrap the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. What ARENA does is promote innovation in projects that are not quite ready for commercialisation—getting Australian innovators on their feet for projects that are not ready to take to the bank yet, but could be. That is number five.

Six is blaming carbon pricing for the closure of Alcoa smelters and rolling mills and the loss of nearly a thousand jobs, despite the fact that the company made a profit from the carbon price by selling their free permits. It is a bit similar to Prime Minister Abbott claiming that BHP Billiton's decision not to go ahead with the expansion of Olympic Dam operations in regional South Australia was because of the carbon tax, even though the company's statement said the direct opposite. Utterly delusional. Next, appointing a climate change sceptic to head a review of our Renewable Energy Target, to deliberately stop investment through deliberate creation of uncertainty. Another broken election promise. Next, that a renewable energy review did not need to happen, because that is one of the things the Climate Change Authority is tasked with doing under its act. Next, cutting funding to the Energy Efficiency Opportunities Program, which made it mandatory for large-energy-using businesses to improve their efficiency and therefore save a fair bit of money. What is it that you hate about energy efficiency? That is really strange. You spend a lot of time on the government benches talking about productivity, which it great. It is a lively discussion and a good one to have. But what about energy productivity? Why on earth does a political party assume a hatred of energy efficiency? It is just bizarre.

Next, scrapping the Home Energy Saver scheme, which helps struggling low-income households cut their electricity bills. Of course you would cut that. Why would you want to help people on low incomes save money on their electricity bills? Weird. It is really peculiar. Feel free to interject and explain if I am missing something obvious here. Next, a budget freeze on the indexation of the Clean Energy Supplement, which helps pensioners, veterans, students and the unemployed—obviously not key coalition constituencies—'We will support them as long as they do not try to use energy more efficiently!' Very strange. Next, abolish the Clean Technology Investment Program, which leveraged co-investment for manufacturers and food producers to make capital improvements to reduce energy costs. Energy costs? I thought that was your thing. It is in most of your slogans. It has been in most of your dopey little pamphlets. Energy costs—no, that was abolished.

Next, seeking to abolish the Climate Change Authority through the bill we are debating today. Also, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Why would we want an investment arm of the Commonwealth making money for taxpayers while bankrolling innovation in the clean energy sector and leveraging private sector finance to get large-scale renewable energy plants built? Why would we want that kind of subversive activity going on in Australia! Best to abolish that.

Next, move to destroy farmers' and Aboriginal communities' opportunities to raise revenue through the Carbon Farming Initiative by removing the market and replacing it with Direct Action, which nobody believes will work. Everybody knows it will not work. It is policy designed by people who do not care whether it works. Next, making solar deployment in mines less competitive by restoring the full diesel rebate, by removing the carbon charge in the clean energy package—a pre-election commitment. Next, abolish the carbon price, which drives investment away from dirty industries and into clean new industries. You were fairly clear about that before the election. It is one of the few pre-election commitments that Prime Minister Abbott has elected to try to keep. Nonetheless, transferring money away from polluters and into clean energy innovators is clearly not a light-bulb that has gone off over any of your heads.

Finally, requiring departments to remove the link between extreme weather and global warming. That was recently reported in the media. You are really quite deliberately blindfolding yourselves to the consequences of the policy decisions you make. You do not want those experts to still be in the field to critique the things that you were doing. It is remarkable hostility. I would be interested to know whether it actually is coalition policy to drive renewable energy investment offshore. Is that actually the objective? Is this happening deliberately or just through a process of extraordinary coincidence, at exactly this time, as a consequence of the 16 policy initiatives I just put to you?

One of the things the Climate Change Authority is responsible for is protecting Australians from the worst consequences of climate change. In tracking these targets and making sure that our economy, along with others in the industrialised and industrialising world, is making that transition—that the transition is underway. It effectively makes the choice for us with foresight rather than regret as to whether we think we could cope with two degrees of average global warming, or more. When you look at the targets that have been set and hear the numbers that have been bandied around, like 350 parts per million, 80 per cent of the world's unburned fossil fuel needing to remain below ground or two degrees average surface temperature global warming, those rough numbers are to give teeth to the concept of whether you want to live in a world of dangerous climate change where impacts are costly, deadly but ultimately potentially manageable or a world in excess of two degrees of average global warming, of catastrophic climate change, where the impacts cascade and overlap and become eventually unmanageable.

That is the kind of world that the United States Department of Defense and some of its research arms envisage, and our US allies are making national security decisions. The US Navy has been at this since at least the 1990s and probably earlier. They have been making security and procurement decisions based on that kind of world. They are not hippies or fringe voices. That sense of impact on military doctrine or procurement strategies in Australia simply has not made any kind of impression at all. You are so hell-bent on closing down and eliminating from the public debate the voices of those advisory and expert bodies who do exist in Australia that you have advised departments not to link extreme weather events to climate change, even though that is mainstream scientific opinion. I have absolutely no idea how you look at yourselves in the mirror each day.

This is the kind of government that, having turned away from the extraordinary opportunities that present themselves in embracing the clean energy economy, is determined to back its way into the 21st century, clutching on to the remnants of the fossil fuel economy until it is far too late. These are the kinds of decisions that you end up making. It is a rather tawdry imitation of the Tea Party tactics in the US. It is a bit like the Tea Party without the passion. It is like a banal, less weaponised version of the Tea Party here in Australia; it is not as interesting but, effectively, a lot of the same thought processes are being brought to bear.

Senator Cameron: It is still pretty scary.

Senator LUDLAM: I am not denying, Senator Cameron, that it is scary. It is just not very interesting. WA MP Dennis Jensen, who for a while had pretensions of being Australia's science minister until you abolished the portfolio, noted:

Another scheme that lamentably fails the Lomborg test—

which is pretty funny when you think about it—

is that of the Renewable Energy Target, which is certainly worse than direct action and should be dumped.

One of the few scientifically literate voices on the coalition side—

Senator Ryan interjecting—

Senator LUDLAM: He is actually very impressive on the Joint Strike Fighter, so I do line up with Mr Jensen.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Smith ): Order!

Senator LUDLAM: Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, the interjections are so tantalising, I can scarcely ignore them. Mr Jensen, who is obviously one of the few on the coalition benches with scientific credentials, is a climate change denier. What on earth are we to make of that? This is not just the case with the federal Liberal Party room. Our present Treasurer in Western Australia, the former executive director of the IPA, Minister Mike Nahan, said:

Not only is the fact of global warming unclear, but a fully honoured Kyoto Agreement would have had only a trivial effect on temperatures.

There it is in a nutshell. For a remarkably condensed way of thoroughly misreading the science and the geopolitics of global warming, I am not sure that I could do that any better myself.

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator LUDLAM: Hello, Senator Macka! Lovely that you could join us. There was a book launched last year, edited by Peter Christoff, that scoped out what a four-degree warming world would look like. Four degrees does not sound like a great deal when the temperature in this town can fluctuate by a matter of 20 or 30 degrees in a day, but an increase of global mean surface temperature of four degrees puts an absolute blowtorch on the North and South poles. The book, which is titled Four degrees of global warming: Australia in a hot world, effectively maps to the greatest degree of precision possible, obviously with wide ranges of interpretation, what Australia will look like under those kinds of conditions—under the conditions that are set in train by policies of this coalition government and by your Tea Party allies in other parts of the world, where effectively we just say: 'Let it rip. Just burn everything.' It is not the world that I believe that we are heading for and it is not something that I think any of us would want to pass on to the next generation and the ones after that. But, nonetheless, there is some precision in the estimates available on exactly how dangerous that world would be.

Australia in a four-degree warming world will have a quarter of a million coastal properties inundated by rising sea levels at an approximate cost $63 billion. There are not a lot of global warming deniers in the insurance community, funnily enough. There are a lot of sceptics or very hard headed people trained in actuarial science in the insurance industry, and they estimate a cost of up to $63 billion. They are already refusing to insure people in particularly vulnerable parts of the country. There will be 17,200 heat related deaths a year, up from just under 6,000 today. Snow will disappear from all but the highest alpine peaks, which will lead to a cascade of regional extinctions in those ecosystem. A quarter of a billion people in the Asia-Pacific region will be displaced. These communities will somehow have to try and choose between defence and evacuation of their coastal settlements, their fishing grounds—places where people have lived for millennia. This is a quarter of a billion people. With the shrieking that we hear from the government benches about the tiny fraction of people who have managed to escape to our region from the horrors perpetrated by the Sri Lankan government, the Iranian secret police or the Taliban, can you imagine—

Senator Ian Macdonald: I thought we were on climate change.

Senator LUDLAM: Yes, Senator Macdonald. Sometimes I really feel for you, because you will not be around when these impacts are in full swing, but my little nephew will, and he did not get to vote last September.

Senator Ian Macdonald: Is that why you didn't win!

Senator LUDLAM: One more would have helped. On the issue of displaced people in our region, Senator Macdonald, since you have queried my comments: can you imagine the politics of immigration and border protection with a quarter of a million people on the move? These are credible estimates. They come from people who study these things for a living—from people inside the US defence community and the United Nations. It is not possible to adapt gracefully to mass movement of people on that kind of scale.

Colleagues, there is still time—and the Senate vote earlier this afternoon has proven that the Senate's reputation as a house of second thoughts is well grounded. The smartest thing we could do today would be to leave the Climate Change Authority in place so that it can continue to provide the advice that we need on the mitigation options, on the adaptation strategies and on ways that our country and our region can survive in a world threatened by the very serious life or death impacts of global warming.

Senator IAN MACDONALD (Queensland) (13:30): I want to make a few comments on the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013 but, before doing that, I want to refer to some things that the previous speaker, Senator Ludlam, mentioned. I am not quite sure what it has to do with the Climate Change Authority bill, but he seemed to be warning us that Sri Lanka is a bad place to be and that it is a bad international citizen. It begs the question: why did your leader go for a much-publicised holiday to Sri Lanka? I think she publicly made some very favourable comments about Sri Lanka. That is not really relevant to the bill, but it simply shows again the hypocrisy of the Greens political party. On one hand they criticise Sri Lanka; on the other hand, the leader of the Greens political party goes there for a holiday and speaks glowingly about it. How can anyone in Australia take any notice of what the Greens might say?

The Climate Change Authority was set up by the Labor government, with the support of the Greens, as 'an independent advisory climate change body'. I suspect that all of the board members of the Climate Change Authority are clever people, probably committed to their own views, but you can just look at them and see how independent the authority is. One of the members of the authority is Mr Bernie Fraser, former Reserve Bank Chairman. You do not need to be a keen student of Australian politics to understand that Mr Fraser has always been of a left-wing inclination.

Another board member is a Professor Quiggin, from my state of Queensland. He is obviously quite an intelligent man; he is a professor at the University of Queensland. But I have never heard him say anything or write any document that is not supporting the Labor Party. I am sorry—I have seen him do stuff where he does not support the Labor Party but only because he is supporting the Greens party. This is the sort of independent advice you get on climate change. I could go through a few of the other board members. We have also got Ms Heather Ridout. How many boards was she appointed to by the Gillard government? How many times did she get up and publicly praise the Gillard government? No doubt these are very good and able people, but to put them on as an advisory body that is supposedly giving independent advice is just a joke. That in itself is a reason to get rid of this allegedly independent advisory body.

Professor Hamilton is another board member. Again I am sure he is a very good person, quite bright, but he set up the Australia Institute. Ask anyone what the Australia Institute is about. It is there to promote the views of the very left of Australian politics, represented in this place by the Greens and the Australian Labor Party. So 'independent' climate change authority it is not and never has been.

That authority costs Australian taxpayers something like $8 million a year. That is not a big amount in the scheme of things. We almost pay that amount each day in interest on the borrowings from the Labor-Greens government that occurred over the last six years. The interest that we pay on the debt that was run up irresponsibly by the Labor government, supported by the Greens, is costing us something like a couple of million dollars a day. So I guess $8 million for the Climate Change Authority is not a big amount, but every amount counts. When you have a financial crisis, as we do in this country, when you have a country that is heading towards owing something like $500 billion to foreign lenders, then every little bit of a saving that you can make is important.

Most senators will recall that when the Howard government left office we had some $60 billion in credit, plus $60 billion put aside for a rainy day. Within a couple of years, that $60 billion in credit had disappeared under the profligacy of the Labor-Greens government and, worse than that, we had borrowed over $100 billion from foreign lenders. Now we are on a trajectory towards a debt of almost $600 billion. Just calculate—you do not need to get out your calculator—$600 billion and put interest at anywhere between two and six per cent, whatever you like, and work out what that sort of mismanagement is costing our country at the present time.

Senator Ludlam: How much?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: I could pause my speech and find the calculator, but you can do that, Senator Ludlam. You perhaps do not have much else to do at the moment. Perhaps one of the smaller benefits of abolishing the Climate Change Authority is that there will be an $8 million saving to the Australian taxpayer.

What was that particular body supposed to do? Was it supposed to give advice on climate change, on climate and on matters related thereto? It may have escaped the attention of the Australian Labor Party and the Greens that we actually have a very highly regarded Bureau of Meteorology that is very capable of giving any government advice that it might need in relation to climate change matters. We also have the highly regarded and highly respected CSIRO that has very good independent people who are able to give the government advice should the government need it. So why did we then set up another body? Apart from giving some Labor-Greens fellow travellers a job on the board, apart from setting up yet another bureaucracy in this town and leaving the Australian taxpayer to pay for it, I cannot see any reason we needed a Climate Change Authority. I suspect that I—and if it were not I it was certainly others from my side of the parliament—said that when this authority was established under the Labor-Greens regime in government.

If it were doing its job and did not have this obvious left-wing bent, what I would like the Climate Change Authority to tell me is: how is what we do in Australia, where we emit less than 1.4 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon, going to impact on the climate of the world? I keep asking that in this chamber. It is not a new question. In the long time we have been debating these matters, nobody has ever been able to give me an answer to that. Remember, it is not as if the Labor Party's carbon tax were going to stop the 1.4 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon. It was only intended to stop five per cent of Australia's 1.4 per cent. If you calculate that down, the absolutely infinitesimal impact that such an action would have on the climate of the world is very obvious. In the debate this morning, the minister kindly gave me figures. I did not write them down. Approximately, he indicated figures such as: China emitted 23 per cent, the United States emitted 19 per cent, the European Union emitted 13 per cent and Australia emitted 1.4 per cent. And yet, if you listen to Senator Milne and the Greens political party, all of the cyclones, all of the floods and all of the natural calamities throughout the world are caused by Australia's emission of 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, and under Labor and the Greens we were going to reduce that by five per cent.

You can see the stupidity of the argument and you can see the hypocrisy of the Labor Party and the Greens on this issue. I was recently alerted to some comments by a retired English politician, Lord Deben. I thank Senator Singh for very cleverly pointing out to me that I was pronouncing his name wrongly previously. This member of the august House of Lords, an unelected body in the United Kingdom, suddenly appeared in Australia a couple of days ago and was roundly critical of the Abbott government because it was trying to get rid of Australia's carbon tax. I wonder why Lord Deben did not make a comment about his own country and the European Union, of which the United Kingdom is part. He did not seem to worry about the 11 or 12 per cent of emissions from his own country, but he thought Australia's emission of 1.4 per cent, which the Labor Party was trying to cease by five per cent, was suddenly a huge issue. Of course, when you have a look at Lord Deben's background you will see that he is chairman of a consortium of some of the biggest wind development companies in the world. He also has a couple of other interests in that particular area. I read on Google that, for just one of his board positions, he was getting something like 35,000 pounds of English taxpayers' money. I do not attribute bad motives to Lord Deben, but it does raise the question of whether his interest is more than just his alleged interest in climate change.

There is another question I have asked the Greens and the Labor Party on every occasion I have spoken. It has been many times over many years, but never once has anyone attempted to explain this to me. Once upon a time, the world was covered in ice. Once upon a time, the centre of Australia was a rainforest. Once upon a time, there was an inland sea in Australia. All of those things changed. I am the first to agree that the climate does change. My opponents opposite call me a climate change denier. It is typical; they never let the truth get in the way. I accept climate change; I always have done. The climate has clearly changed, because if it had not we would still be covered in ice and snow. Clearly, it has changed. But is it man's emissions of carbon since the 1850s that has caused that?

Senator Ludlam: Yes.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Sorry—I do not think man was emitting industrial carbon at the time we were covered in ice or at the time when there was a rainforest in the centre of Australia.

Senator Ludlam: You haven't moved past year 9 science.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Well, explain it, Senator Ludlam; don't just sit there and shake your head. Of course the climate is changing—I agree. But is it man that is doing it? Well, I do not know, and I am always very open about that. I am not a scientist. I have read both sides; they both sound good to me. But there are as many well-qualified scientists who disagree as who do agree.

Senator Ludlam: Ninety-seven per cent agree.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Well, '97 per cent'—that is when you count them, Senator Ludlam! We have had in this chamber the vilification of anyone who did not happen to agree with Ms Gillard or Senator Wong or Senator Milne. If you had a different view to them, you were clearly—well, I will not go into that, but you were clearly, in their view, someone of lesser understanding, if I could put it politely. And they were loud in their vilification of anyone who had the temerity to have a different view.

I know any number of highly qualified scientists who have a different view but, because they have a different view, under the Greens-Labor regime they were never able to get a grant for research out of the Labor-Greens government. I can give you the names of two, and I know there are hundreds more whose university careers were destroyed simply because the research grants that are so important in the careers of university academics would never come their way because they had a view that the Gillard government and the Greens political party did not like. That in itself is a scandal. I wonder where the Human Rights Commission and all those other groups that are so vocal when it suits them were when this little piece of information came around? I have an answer to a question on notice back in 2009 from the good Senator Kim Carr here, when he was the relevant minister, listing pages and pages of research grants that had gone to people who were trying to prove the political case of the Labor Party and the Greens political party, the alliance in government. I could not identify any grants—I believe there were one or two—in these dozens of pages of grants that went to anyone who was trying to question the orthodoxy.

Senator Kim Carr: Did they apply?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: They have always applied, Senator, and I can give you the details if you want them. But, under your regime, they knew it was just a waste of time.

Senator Kim Carr: Did they apply?

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Yes, they did apply.

Senator Kim Carr: But they didn't get up. They weren't good enough.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Smith ): Order! Senators on my left!

Senator IAN MACDONALD: They might put it up again under this government, but, under you, Senator Carr, they had to follow the government line.

Senator Kim Carr: I didn't pick them—unlike you, I wouldn't do that.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Order! Senators on my left!

Senator IAN MACDONALD: They had to follow the line of Ms Gillard, Senator Carr and Senator Milne. If you did not follow that line your chances of getting a research grant were zero, zilch—non-existent.

Senator Kim Carr: Rubbish! They weren't good enough.

Senator IAN MACDONALD: Well, 'weren't good enough', Senator, because they would have said something that did not fit your political line. Remember: it was your leader who promised the Australian people before the 2010 election: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' She told us it would never happen. Why did she tell us that if she subsequently said it was a good thing to do? You do not need to delve too closely into what happened to understand the hypocrisy, and the downright dishonesty, might I say, of the Australian Labor Party. Ms Gillard and Mr Swan promised there would be no carbon tax. The minute they could, they got in and broke that promise.

I just want to ask: if it was such a good idea, why did Ms Gillard promise not to do it? Has anyone ever answered that? I repeat my question in the hope that someone might be able to explain it. Australia emits less than 1.4 per cent of the world's carbon emissions; how is reducing that by five per cent going to save all the cyclones and floods that the Greens tell us will come upon the world if we do not reduce our 1.4 per cent emissions by five per cent? Is there anything in that that is believable? Similarly, the climate has changed. What was the cause of that climate change prior to the industrialised era of this nation? Something was doing it. It clearly was not man's emissions of carbon, so tell me what it was. That is why this whole debate is never as clear cut as the Greens and the Labor Party would have us believe. I retain an open mind—

Senator Wright: An open mind!

Senator IAN MACDONALD: You see, this is the thing, Mr Acting Deputy President: if you cannot win the argument, just shout abuse; just belittle those who do not agree with you; abuse them—that is the Greens' position. (Time expired)

Senator WRIGHT (South Australia) (13:50): Well, what an extraordinary day it has been so far. We have had the Abbott government failing to destroy the carbon price, although that was the promise that they said they made. And we have just had the opportunity to hear such an erudite—I know Hansard does not pick up irony and sarcasm, so perhaps I had better say 'not such an erudite' contribution from Senator Macdonald. He accuses others of vilification, but I think he is a dab hand at vituperation. He is pretty good at that, and at misrepresentation.

Today I am rising to speak on the Climate Change Authority (Abolition) Bill 2013 [No. 2] which will seek to abolish the Climate Change Authority and thus give additional succour to the government's anti-science, anti-evidence climate change denial—and we have had an excellent example of that in Senator Macdonald just now—that we have witnessed in this place since they came to government. I know that there are members of the government who indeed do know that climate change is happening right now and that it is a serious risk to our health, our environment and our prosperity, as a nation and globally. But, for some reason that I just cannot understand, given the privilege and the power that we have in this parliament to make decisions about the future, they are resolutely silent and they allow the misrepresentation to occur.

I keep thinking to myself: do those people think about their children and their grandchildren? How do they live with the knowledge that they are actively allowing the government that they represent to tear away the effective action we are taking at the moment and go backwards? But this action is not as effective as it could be; we all know that the aspiration of reducing emissions by five per cent is absolutely inadequate. That is one of the things that the Climate Change Authority, which this legislation seeks to abolish, has been very clear in communicating to us. And I suppose the Climate Change Authority giving messages that the government does not want to hear might be one of the many reasons why the government is seeking to silence the messenger.

The rest of the world has moved beyond the debate about whether climate change is occurring and accepted the irrefutable evidence that it is and that it is anthropogenic—that it is being caused and contributed to by human activity—and has made decisive moves towards reducing emissions. But not so this government. We have a government that is attempting to abolish, repeal and ignore anything or anyone who disagrees with their reckless path—which basically was designed to get them into power. The trouble is that, once you are in power, you need to be doing things that are in the national interest—that is why you are elected in the first place—but that is not what we are seeing here.

It seems to me that the government thinks climate change will no longer exist if it abolishes the Climate Change Authority—having already abolished the Climate Commission—repeals the price on pollution, which economists almost universally say is necessary to change the behaviour that is causing the problems we are confronting with climate change, and ignores the world's climate scientists. It is a short-sighted, futile, reprehensible and irresponsible way to deal with one of the most significant challenges that we will face this century and that we as a parliament will be asked to deliberate on and make decisions about. It is a privilege to stand in this parliament with the trust of the Australian people to make difficult, challenging and hard decisions not only for the current generation but for future Australians. It is not a responsibility that I take lightly but, unfortunately, it seems very clear that politics is going to prevail over policy and principle on this issue.

Today we have witnessed the government's ruthless attack on a price on pollution. It has not been successful yet, so this will live on for at least some more days. We will see. Hope springs eternal. Who knows what will happen between now and next week. But the government is not discriminating in its bid to rip down any skerrick of action on climate change. It will leave no stone unturned, it seems. The next on the list is the Climate Change Authority. This is an independent body established to provide balanced, expert advice on a range of climate change issues. Maybe that is where the problem lies initially—'independent, balanced and expert'—and in what we have already seen in terms of decisions that have been made by this government in appointing hand-picked people to give advice when it knows the results of the advice and what the views of those people will be. We know that those people will be giving ideological advice across the spectrum. Whether it is in relation to renewable energy or the education curriculum, this government has a practice of hand-picking people whose ideology it knows and hearing advice from them.

Of course, that is not the case with the Climate Change Authority; it is 'independent', it is 'expert' and it is 'balanced'. Those are words that severely disconcert this government because they do not want to be hearing that sort of advice, information and evidence. The Climate Change Authority is required to take into account the latest science—and the idea of 'science' probably creates great problems for some members of the government—and what other countries are doing around the world and make recommendations to the government about the emissions reduction targets, the carbon budgets, the renewable energy target, the Carbon Farming Initiative and the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting System. These are all aspects of the framework designed to reduce Australia's carbon emissions and encourage innovation in clean technology and clean energy. These are all measures that are designed to usher Australia into the future. These are all measures designed to secure a safe and liveable climate for our young people—the young adults who will be inheriting the legacy that we leave for them.

But this government does not want to hear from experts, does not want to hear from independent people and does not want to listen to the science. Its anti-climate agenda is completely ideological—no room for facts here, thanks very much! And, of course, we know that the Climate Change Authority insists on telling the government things it just does not want to hear, including that Australia should triple its minimum target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, that the current goal of five per cent is inadequate, and that if we fail to significantly ramp up action on climate change Australia will fall behind dramatically and not be able to play its global role in avoiding climate change.

The Climate Change Authority chair, Bernie Fraser—that renowned hippie, that renowned wild, extreme thinker!—has said that sticking with the five per cent target will make it 'virtually impossible for future generations trying to prevent a two-degree rise in global temperatures'. Another thing the Climate Change Authority insists on telling the government that it does not want to hear is that Australia's minimum commitment is out of step with current global efforts—those of China and the US. And yet another thing it is saying that the government does not want to hear is that Australia should be reducing emissions by 19 per cent from 2000 levels by 2020 if we are indeed to do our fair share of the heavy lifting. And we know that this government is always talking about the 'lifters' and the 'leaners'. Well, if we go down the track that the government is proposing in relation to our action on climate change we will certainly be leaners. As a result of the actions that we are failing to take, there will be many people within our own Pacific neighbourhood who will bear the brunt of that and end up homeless because of the incursion of seawater onto their low-lying homelands. And what will we be doing then? Again, given the track record of this government of openly welcoming refugees to Australia—I am being sarcastic—no doubt we will say: 'Come and be here in Australia. You don't have homelands anymore. We haven't taken decisive action on climate change, so you are welcome to come here because we have a moral responsibility to welcome you.'

Debate interrupted.

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Women) (15:48): I present two government responses to committee reports, as listed at item 14 on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated into Hansard.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows—

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES INQUIRY INTO THE ALLOCATION OF LAND TO DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (ACT)

Preamble

The Australian Government (the Government) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and the External Territories' (Committee) Inquiry into the Allocation of Land to Diplomatic Missions in the Australian Capital Territory (Report), published in March 2013.

The inquiry highlighted the need for an Australian Government policy to address the shortage of National Land to accommodate the anticipated future demand for diplomatic missions, supported by a National Capital Authority strategy for long term allocation of land.

This response seeks to balance the interests of the Commonwealth, the ACT Government, the diplomatic community and the residents of the Canberra community given the uniqueness of Canberra ' s purpose built, planned city and the nature of the zoning of land as National Land or Territory Land.

It also takes into account Australia's international obligations under the ViennaConvention on Diplomatic Relations 1967 to facilitate the acquisition of diplomatic missions and safeguard the mission against intrusion or damage.

Considerations for Diplomatic Missions in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT)

Diplomatic missions play an important role in signalling a country's profile in and relationship to Australia, channelling communication between the country and Australia, representing and promoting the country's interests to Australia, and fostering and developing economic and cultural links with Australia.

Currently, Canberra, as the National Capital, hosts 101 diplomatic missions, 53 of which are located in the diplomatic estate. Given Australia ' s increasing international role and importance, the demand for land for diplomatic missions is strong. Processes are in train for the establishment of four new diplomatic missions and enquiries have been received regarding the establishment of a further seven diplomatic missions. The Government understands that open National Land in the ACT, such as Stirling Ridge, is used recreationally and enjoyed by residents. The allocation of land and establishment of diplomatic missions needs to be considered in the context of national interest, security, and maintaining productive foreign and trade relations noting international obligations.

There are also the financial implications of purchasing Territory Land if suitable National Land is unable to be obtained.

In recognition of these complex issues, it is imperative that a long term strategy regarding the allocation of National Land for diplomatic missions be developed.

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that, in order to better utilise limited resources for the allocation of land to diplomatic missions, the Australian Government implement:

* Strengthened policies and regulations surrounding diplomatic leases to ensure compliance, with the policy of resumption of land within 36 months where development has not commenced being rigorously enforced

* Medium- and high-density options for housing chanceries

* Policies to allow the subdivision of existing sites within the diplomatic estate

* A policy framework that allows more extensive use of residential and commercial properties to house chanceries, along the lines adopted in Washington DC

* In the future, a steady evolution towards a more commercial approach (as in

Washington DC) should be encouraged.

Agreed

The Government supports the Committee recommendation to improve the policy regarding land allocation for diplomatic leases. At present there is no specific plan or policy governing the location of diplomatic missions. This function is managed by the National Capital Authority on behalf of the Commonwealth, in consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and relevant security agencies. There are no legislative criteria for managing the location of diplomatic missions and administrative arrangements have evolved over time in an ad hoc manner. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development will develop an Australian Government land allocation policy to address the shortage of National Land to accommodate the anticipated future demand for diplomatic missions, supported by a National Capital Authority strategy for long term allocation of land.

The development of a policy will ensure a better coordinated and consistent approach to land allocation for diplomatic missions and will aid in providing greater clarity on diplomatic leasing issues.

The development of a policy will need careful consideration and time given the complexity of these issues. The Government has commenced early engagement with relevant government stakeholders to progress matters arising from the report.

The Government notes that there are a number of complex issues concerning diplomatic land allocation including maintaining diplomatic relations and the security of foreign nationals whilst also being sensitive to community interests. The policy will need to be developed with specific regard to the Australia's obligation under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1967.

In the interim, site allocation issues will be addressed on a case-by-case basis involving careful consultation with relevant ministers, the community and the National Capital Authority.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the National Capital Authority develop a long term strategy for the allocation of land to diplomatic missions in the Australian Capital Territory. This strategy should be developed in conjunction with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Australian Federal Police and ACT Government and integrated with the National Capital Plan and the Territory Plan. It should forecast demand and supply and establish the various mechanisms by which these forecasts may be met, including:

* Designating sites for future diplomatic enclaves

* Establishing a clear and binding framework for the granting and resumption of leases to diplomatic missions

* Creating a policy for medium and high density properties

* Establishing a framework for more extensive use of residential and commercial properties for chanceries

* Managing impacts on local residents

* Working out what role the private market might play.

Noted

The Government noted the Committee recommendation for the National Capital Authority to develop a long term strategy for the allocation of land to diplomatic missions in conjunction with key stakeholders.

The Government understands the importance of balancing the needs of the national government, local government, diplomatic community and the residents of the Canberra community to ensure that Canberra's diplomatic, economic, cultural community links are maintained.

The Government will ask the National Capital Authority to develop a strategy for long term allocation of land to ensure an inter-jurisdictional approach and alignment with the land allocation policy.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that Draft Amendment 78 (DA78) be withdrawn.

Noted

The Government notes this recommendation and considers this a matter for the National Capital Authority.

The Government understands that the National Capital Authority responded to the Committee's report on 17 April 2013 and, in line with Recommendation 3 of the report, will be withdrawing Draft Amendment 78.

Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE REPORT OF THE JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL CAPITAL AND EXTERNAL TERRITORIES INQUIRY INTO THE PROVISION OF AMENITY WITHIN THE PARLIAMENTARY TRIANGLE

Preamble

The Australian Government (the Government) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and the External Territories' (Committee) Inquiry into the provision of amenity within the Parliamentary Triangle (Report), published in June 2013.

The terms of reference of the inquiry were broadened by the Committee, from investigating amenities in the 'Parliamentary Triangle', a colloquial term used to define the land bounded by State Circle, Commonwealth and Kings Avenues, and Lake Burley Griffin to the 'Central National Area' (CNA).

The CNA is formally defined as the Parliamentary Zone and its setting; Lake Burley Griffin and Foreshores; the Australian National University; the Australian Defence Force Academy; Duntroon; Campbell Park and Canberra Airport/RAAF Base Fairbairn. Also included are diplomatic lands at Yarralumla, O'Malley, West Deakin and Red Hill1. This broadening of scope ensures consideration of the suburbs of Russell and Acton, areas that will be impacted by the introduction of pay parking on National Land, a precursor to the inquiry.

The Report makes three recommendations to improve amenities in the CNA by proposing the National Capital Authority (NCA): (1) develop a strategy for the provision of amenity, with funding from the Government; (2) report regularly on that strategy; and (3) that the NCA work with the ACT Government to improve access to public transport to and in the CNA.

In addressing the recommendations of the Committee, the Government is aware that one of the responsibilities of the NCA is to maintain or enhance the character of the National Capital. With this in mind the Government is keen to ensure the integrity of the CNA is maintained, including Commonwealth and National Heritage Listed areas and buildings, while accommodating amenities to meet the requirements of workers in the CNA.

Recommendation 1

The Committee recommends that the Australian Government direct the National Capital Authority to develop a strategy for the provision of amenity within the Central National Area, including the Parliamentary Zone, and provide funds for the development of the strategy in the 2014–15 budget, incorporating:

Provision of retail services

Provision of parking

Provision of access by public transport

Provision of childcare

Timelines for development

Development responsibilities

Agreed in part

The Government agrees that the NCA will develop a strategy for the provision of amenity within the CNA including timelines and responsibilities. Any funding required for the NCA to develop the strategy would be considered as part of normal Budget processes and made within the overall Budget settings and in consideration of Government priorities.

The NCA will conduct a comprehensive audit to identify any shortfalls in the CNA precincts in order to prepare a baseline needs analysis for services. The NCA will also consider the impacts that increased amenity and increased public transport would have on parking availability in the CNA. Based on this, the NCA will employ strategies to address any shortfall and amend or develop policies to ensure the strategies can be employed. If appropriate, the NCA may showcase demand and assist industry in working efficiently with the NCA to provide services in the area.

The Government notes that there are no legislative or planning obstacles currently in place which prevent amenities operating in the CNA, and in some precincts planning frameworks mandate that amenity space be provided. While the Government has a legitimate and important role in encouraging appropriate commercial development in the CNA and ensuring appropriate regulatory settings exist for such development to occur, it is the role of retailers, services suppliers and building owners to make commercial decisions regarding the viability of setting up businesses. The Government notes that the NCA has already engaged with owners of existing businesses encouraging them to consider expanding their services.

Specifically in considering the provision of childcare services in the area, should new centres be required, the planning and development of centres would need to take into account the relevant regulatory requirements.

The NCA will also work with the ACT Government to promote and negotiate any strategies that may enhance the provision of public transport in the CNA including negotiating a 'park and ride' facility on a suitable site as recommended in Recommendation 3.

Recommendation 2

The Committee recommends that the National Capital Authority provide a twice yearly report on development of amenities to the Committee as part of its regular biannual briefings.

Agreed

The Government agrees that the NCA will provide a report on the development of amenities, as proposed in the response to Recommendation 1, to the Committee on a biannual basis.

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that the National Capital Authority negotiate with the Government of the Australian Capital Territory upon the development of a 'park and ride' facility on a suitable site in order to improve access by public transport to the Parliamentary Zone, and making permanent the Centennial Year shuttle bus.

Agreed

The Government agrees that the NCA will work with the ACT Government regarding a 'park and ride' facility on a suitable site and explore options for a permanent shuttle bus based on the Centennial Year bus route.

The Government notes that the NCA has already publicly committed to working closely with the ACT Government to ensure public transport services meet levels of demand in the CNA.

Appendix A: Acronyms and Abbreviations