News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 ETS vote: Senate faces an endless day 

ETS vote: Senate faces an endless day

29 Nov, 2009 05:27 PM
THE Senate will sit indefinitely - in what one Government source described as "an endless Monday" - as part of a last-ditch attempt to get the emissions trading legislation passed.

Both houses of Parliament will resume Monday morning and the Senate will keep sitting through the night.

"The Senate will keep sitting until it has disposed of the issue some way or other and we, of course, want it passed and we would like it passed on Monday," Minister Assisting for Climate Change Greg Combet said yesterday.

The Government will not move to end or suspend the debate, instead preferring to let Senators work through the night.

If the Opposition tries to end the debate, then the Government will be able to accuse it of shutting down discussion on climate change.

The only way Parliament can end is if there is a vote on the legislation, if the legislation is referred to a committee for further investigation or if it is deferred until next year.

The Government will not support any further inquiries.

There have been 13 parliamentary inquiries and reports on the emissions trading scheme in the past two years.

Instead, the Government is still holding out hope its legislation will be passed with the support of the Coalition and is refusing to speculate on what will happen if it does not pass.

"We have endeavoured from the outset to get the emissions trading arrangements, our climate change legislation, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme through because it is just a critical public policy issue," Mr Combet said.

Liberal Senator Gary Humphries said he feared the Government would keep the Senate sitting throughout Monday night and into Tuesday before calling a vote on the legislation as Coalition members went into the partyroom meeting.

"It's a very ugly and untidy way to try to resolve what is one of the major issues facing the Australian community at the present time," Senator Humphries said.

"We really can't afford to descend into that level of chaos on an issue as important as this."

Government sources said the suggestion was implausible.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
It is frightening that we are being dictated to by the likes of Greg Combet. What does he know about the cause of climate change when his previous life was the trade union movement? At least the coalition do not sit up in parliament like a pack of monkeys, unable to express their view as Labor does. This is what a democracy is. It is a pity that all parties do not allow a free vote on something as devastating as the Rudd TAX.
Posted by jerangle, 30/11/2009 5:53:20 AM, on The Land
The revelation that examination of New Zealand's 150 year temperature records shows remarkable long term stability surely knocks the wheels off the AGW push. The official alarmists have declared that NZ's temperatures have risen at 0.92 degrees per century, while in reality there has been no apparent change over 150 years. The data in the NIWA's computer model had been "adjusted", without there being any good reason for this "adjustment", and it was the "adjusted" data which gave the impression of warming. This "adjusted" data is linked with Britain's Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which is one of the leading proponents of the AGW theory. Intelligent observers have long noted that the "science" of AGW as published in the media appeared to not meet the rules, did not pass the test of true science. Furthermore, alarmists refused to allow outsiders to scrutinise their work, even, it is reported, going to the extent of "losing" or destroying records. It is now clear that they did, indeed, have something to hide.
Posted by Ted O'Brien, 30/11/2009 6:34:59 AM, on The Land
If Greg Combet believes so strongly in man-made global warming and rising sea levels, etc etc, why did he buy a beachside house? The ETS is just a massive tax that the government needs to pay off the debt from the cash-splash. Why can't politicians be honest about this?
Posted by Arden, 30/11/2009 8:10:17 AM, on The Land
Penny Wong says the ETS tax is in the national interests. But is it? Is it fair to put further taxes on primary industries that are struggling to survive. A tax that threatens to push more farmers to out of existence - not designed by Penny to help them. A tax that will make it difficult for our mines to compete on world markets. The well paid mining employees who are currently the backbone of our economy could suddenly find their jobs are no more. All this just because the government needs to collect more tax to balance their budget and ensure parliamentarians will keep their super pay outs. A tax which will help the greedy financial sector feed its' cannabalistic appetite. Is it really in the national interest? I don't think so and it is based on flawed science as Ted points out. If this tax is passed it will push more land in disuse and waste to literally burn from lightning strikes. There are currently fires in at least 2 states spread over vast areas which have been started by lightning. How does this help reduce global warming?
Posted by Common Cents, 30/11/2009 8:30:45 AM, on The Land
Lets not panic and commit ourselves before the details in the ETS are put through decent public scrutiny. Rational debate should NOT be over climate change, regardless of position/belief in the subject. The debate SHOULD be concerned on the actual outcome of the policy, ie ETS and what it WILL achieve. Here is where things get dirty. When has taxing actually made us give up our habits? We use, we pay what we can afford, don't put it all back on industry - they merely supply a market. If consumers were really concerned about emissions there would not have been a sell out on air conditioners at the first hint of another hot summer! Let's make sure that when we act to adapt to our environment we make wise choices (maybe using natural gas via new infrastructure; piping irrigation channels for massive savings on evaporated water; shipping bio-solids back to the country as fertiliser; increased rail infrastructure...) There are so many things that are tangible, more efficient and less devastating than a TAX. Rushing it through won't make it right.
Posted by Rebecca Dance, 30/11/2009 12:35:45 PM, on The Land
I am supprised how many people have been caught up in the misinformation and disinformation that has been pushed into the media from websites and bogus organisations setup by big corporates to confuse the debate on climate change. The so called "scientific studies" by "scientists" that have not been put into any scientific peer review journals. They have setup their own "peer review journals". It is the same method used by tobacco companies to convince the public smoking was good for you, decades ago. It is called Astroturfing To see Astroturfing in action, go to http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html Their ploy has worked brilliantly, and I think because there are people that just wanted to find some reason that they could continue along without having to change the way they live or farm. Just leave that problem to our children. We are at peak oil and peak phosphate. What do you expect prices to do in the future? If we don't change our kids and the economy is going to be hurt far more adjusting to no oil. But if we turn our economy into a low carbon one Australia will be in the box seat, this is why the government is doing what it is doing, it is for our future.
Posted by Mike, 30/11/2009 4:15:12 PM, on The Land
Have you all noticed the only ones in favour of ETS are those who can afford to pay the enormous TAX INCREASES. Let's all vote for those to pay for the ETS rather than put our lives in jeopardy!
Posted by Monty, 30/11/2009 4:34:49 PM, on The Land

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
POLL
Q: If an election were held next weekend, for which party would you vote?

Labor
(13.8%)

Liberal
(31%)

National
(34.5%)

Greens
(12.7%)

Family First
(1.3%)

Independent
(4.3%)

Other
(2.4%)

Total Votes: 1267
Poll Date: 29 November, 2009
SPECIAL FEATURES

Most popular articles




The Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...