Environmental Policy Act of 2009 (Final Vote)

[Smid]

I don't mean to make it sound like Australia has all the answers, but in relation to Section 3, our government brought in a phase-out programme a few years back.

You can purchase energy efficent bulbs that last longer and use less power - thus reducing your energy bills. There is no reason for the government to subsidise something that will save the consumer money in the long run. A better alternative is to legislate that after a certain number of years, these bulbs will no longer be able to be sold. This means that the market can ensure that production of these bulbs will meet demand by the time of the phase-out, preventing a shortage of bulbs, while simultaneously providing an incentive for bulb manufacturers to produce energy saving bulbs.

Here's the Australian government site about this:
http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/energyefficiency/lighting.html

[Smid]

Nay, I support sections 2, 4 and 5 so I can't vote for this amendment.

ah, so do I!

My amendment eliminates the repeal of those sections...thereby keeping them actually

Thanks for the clarification, it was confusing language and I was wondering about the double negatives.

A quick query - would the increase in the gasoline tax/fuel excise be limited to petrol/gasoline, or would it include other fuel types such as biodiesel and fuel that contains ethanol? Leaving the level of taxation constant on biodiesel and fuel with an ethanol content (or at least an ethanol content of more than 5 or 10%) would consequently make that fuel cheaper and therefore create an incentive for people to convert their engines/buy cars which can run on these types of fuel. The tax on gasoline could also be funnelled into a subsidy for converting engines and/or new cars using those types of fuel. A subsidy would require a further, future amendment but I'd still like a clarification on the extent of the additional fuel tax.

[Smid]

Nay, I support sections 2, 4 and 5 so I can't vote for this amendment.

ah, so do I!

My amendment eliminates the repeal of those sections...thereby keeping them actually

Thanks for the clarification, it was confusing language and I was wondering about the double negatives.

A quick query - would the increase in the gasoline tax/fuel excise be limited to petrol/gasoline, or would it include other fuel types such as biodiesel and fuel that contains ethanol? Leaving the level of taxation constant on biodiesel and fuel with an ethanol content (or at least an ethanol content of more than 5 or 10%) would consequently make that fuel cheaper and therefore create an incentive for people to convert their engines/buy cars which can run on these types of fuel. The tax on gasoline could also be funnelled into a subsidy for converting engines and/or new cars using those types of fuel. A subsidy would require a further, future amendment but I'd still like a clarification on the extent of the additional fuel tax.

I apologize for not clarifying that. I intended for that to only include gasoline.

On the clarification that it will only be on petrol/gasoline and not other products and additives such as biodiesel and ethanol, I shall support the amendment.

Aye.

[Smid]

Aye.

I think 1 January 2011 would have provided greater chance for stores to reduce their stockpile of already produced globes, so in light of this I will move the following amendment once the current vote has concluded:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Smid]

Aye.

[Smid]

Could someone post the Bill as Amended that we'll be voting on?

[Smid]

Thank you, Senators.

I think it looks better this way...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Smid]

One small thought - and it may be too late to do something about this...

Section 4(a)(ii) states that up to one half of the cost of the vehicle - one half is a pretty substantial amount, and the words "up to" are somewhat ambiguous. It may be best to set a specific subsidy amount in here of, say, $5,000 which would probably offset virtually any additional cost of purchasing an alternative-energy vehicle when compared to a similar conventional-fuel vehicle. This would make two comparable vehicles - one that uses conventional fuel and one that uses alternative fuels roughly comparable in price.

[Smid]

One small thought - and it may be too late to do something about this...

Section 4(a)(ii) states that up to one half of the cost of the vehicle - one half is a pretty substantial amount, and the words "up to" are somewhat ambiguous. It may be best to set a specific subsidy amount in here of, say, $5,000 which would probably offset virtually any additional cost of purchasing an alternative-energy vehicle when compared to a similar conventional-fuel vehicle. This would make two comparable vehicles - one that uses conventional fuel and one that uses alternative fuels roughly comparable in price.

I was thinking that the individual regions could deal with the specifics of which vehicles would be subsidized which amount and whatnot. It seems, to me, a bit too much micromanagement on our part.

That's fair enough.

[Smid]

Aye.