Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (8.45 pm)-by leave-I move Australian Greens amendments (10), (11), (19), (20), (23), (28), (29), (34) and (62) on sheet 5786 together:

These amendments go to one of the most unjustified and toxic aspects of the carbon pollution reduction scheme. This is the issue of free permits to coal fired electricity generators. The issuing of free permits to the very industry that has caused the greatest problem, that as a sector generates the greatest number of emissions in Australia is the coal fired electricity sector.
Professor Garnaut, in his review, said:
There is no public policy justification for $3.9 billion in unconditional payments to generators in relation to hypothetical future ‘loss of asset value'. Never in the history of Australian public finance has so much been given without public policy purpose, by so many, to so few.
That is a big call, and I wonder what Professor Garnaut is saying now that the $3.9 billion has been massively increased to $7.3 billion? I repeat: there is no public policy purpose for these free permits going to coal fired power stations. Of course, they are not just bits of paper; they have monetary value.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (5:24 PM) -I am afraid I have to quote Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet: ‘A plague on both your houses.' The fact of the matter is that the CSIRO is nothing like the research organisation that it used to be. It has been cowed by successive federal governments, with the Howard government being an absolute champion at turning the organisation into one too afraid to say anything about climate change because of the attitude of the Howard government. It has continued under the Rudd government.

It is a disgrace, and I have to say that I totally agree with what Graeme Pearman had to say about the CSIRO's censorship under the Howard government. Why would I be surprised when the then management at CSIRO, Dr Garrett, employed Donna Staunton, a tobacco industry lobbyist, to be the Communications Officer for the CSIRO?

Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (3:56 PM) -I seek leave to make a short statement relating to Senator Barnett's motion which has just been passed.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -Leave is granted for two minutes.

Senator MILNE -The Australian Greens did not support the Howard government's establishment of these colleges because we believed at the time that it was a politically motivated decision, that the colleges would duplicate services already provided by existing institutions-the TAFE colleges in particular-and that the establishment of the colleges was part of the attack on the union movement. However, these colleges have been established. They are very well funded in comparison with similar colleges offering similar services and that disproportionate funding is inequitable.

Having said that, the Bartlett Labor government in Tasmania has made a complete and utter mess of the transitional arrangements to this new system of the academy and polytechnics and so on. There is no clear transitional arrangement for the 270 students and 35 staff in the Australian Technical College Northern Tasmania with its two campuses that we are discussing here today. There are no satisfactory transitional arrangements. There is no guarantee on staffing. We do note that the Bartlett government has now said that it will do everything it can to make sure that the colleges do not fail, and I am glad to hear that that is the case. So we are supporting this on the basis that those students and staff have proper transitional arrangements and that equivalent certification can be achieved as this process is worked through.

Senator MILNE (Tasmania) (10.15 am)-I move:
That the following matters be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2010:
(a) a reconsideration of the committee's findings in relation to Australia's Mandatory Last Resort Home Warranty Insurance Scheme, in light of:
(i) the 2008 Federal Ombudsman's report that demonstrated that last resort home warranty insurance is the worst performing insurance in the nation,
(ii) the Essential Services Commission's review of the Victorian Domestic Insurance Scheme which demonstrates that there is virtually no benefit to anyone other than the insurers and their brokers of this insurance product,
(iii) evidence to these inquiries which demonstrate that the Senate's conclusions were based on information now shown to be wrong, including the fact that the Senate estimated that less than 10 per cent of builders provided securities whereas 44 per cent of those in Victoria have done so since 2002,
(iv) the lack of competition in the market which is now down to three insurers, and
(v) the questionable legality of the deeds of indemnity, bank guarantees and securities demanded by insurers as a condition of eligibility for warranty insurance;
(b) any reforms which may lead to appropriate consumer and builder protection and improved housing affordability; and
(c) any related matters.