Fair play at the Joint Select Committee?

Level playing field?

A number of commentators have reported that the number of submissions sent to the Joint Select Committee (JSC)  far exceeds the number published. Figures of 4,500 public submissions have been floating around the blogosphere for a while, but it is clear from the JSC’s web site that only 73 have been published. What happened to the other 4,427?

Some confusion has arisen because there were in fact two submission processes taking place almost simultaneously, one organised by the Department of Climate Change (DCC), and another by the JSC. The DCC was very happy to allow multiple standard form letters supporting the tax (see here), probably spoon-fed by GetUp! and Say Yes, but it is very possible that less strict rules were in place for that process.

However, the DCC states that only 326 submissions were “received”, so at this stage we must assume the majority were communicated to the JSC.

An article in Quadrant shows evidence of bias against those opposing the bills, taking examples from both the JSC and the DCC:

The Department of Climate Change published this:

---

To whom it may concern,

I am writing to express my support for the Government to legislate to put a price on Carbon. I urge the government to continue to move ahead with the Carbon tax.

Rob Feith

---

The Department of Climate Change published this:

---

To Whom It May Concern

Even with all the confusion surrounding the Carbon Tax, I would like to support the move the Government is making. In order to reduce our Carbon Pollution you have to place a monetary value on the air we breathe. I hope this is a step in the right direction and, I hope the Government sets a model and digs their heels in to become a world leader in this arena.

My support is with the Government at present.

 Kerrie Chandler

---

The Select Committee did not publish this:

---

Submission on theClean Energy Bill 2011

To the: Joint Select Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future

By: Peter Smith

Opening Comment and Summary View

My submission is as a private citizen of Australia. I am basing my submission on the “Explanatory Memorandum” (“EM”) to the Clean Energy Bill (“the Bill”) and on media reports of the contents and implication of various parts of the Bill. I have neither the time nor resources to study and consider all of the constituent parts of the Bill in detail.

I note that the time given for considering the Bill and providing a submission is extremely short given its complexity and import. It is not clear why the Government has allowed so little time for the public to consider a piece of legislation which is described as a “major reform” and which is designed to have far-reaching effects.

Though it does not reflect on the Bill per se, the political process surrounding its introduction is disquieting. The Government went to the election only a little over 12 months ago with an explicit undertaking by the Prime Minister “to develop a Citizens’ Assembly to examine climate change over 12 months, the evidence on climate change, the case for action and the possible consequences of introducing a market-based approach to limiting and reducing carbon emissions”. She went on to link any action with the views of the group comprising the Assembly: “if I am wrong, and that group of Australians is not persuaded of the case for change then that should be a clear warning bell that our community has not been persuaded as deeply as required about the need for transformational change”.

Making a transformational change – one so hard to unpick – contrary to the PM’s undertaking, brings our political processes into disrepute and calls into question the trust we should have in our democratic processes. To be clear, election promises are not always kept; that is not the issue. The issue arises from the circumstances of the about-face and its dimensions. The Bill is making changes of great moment and effective permanency under no pressure of circumstances, contrary to a clear and explicit commitment which may have been instrumental in winning a very narrow election. I doubt whether a similar instance could be found in Australia’s past.

My conclusion is that whatever its merits, the Bill should be withdrawn because of the process surrounding its introduction. My quite separate conclusion, based on my comments set out below, is that the Bill will damage Australia, for no measurable gain, and should be withdrawn also on that account.

[Editors note: this particular submission elaborates further, and is cogently argued – see original post here]

If these allegations of suppression of dissent are correct, it is a disgraceful affront to open democracy, of which Labor (as the sponsors of the Clean Energy bills) should be thoroughly ashamed. Therefore, in order to try to get to the bottom of this important story, I have today filed a request with the Clerk Assistant (Committees) at Parliament House in the following terms, to establish the proportion of submissions received that were rejected:

Please would you provide, by return of email, the following information regarding the communications received by the above Committee:

1. Total number of communications received by the Committee (whether classified as formal submissions by the Committee or otherwise).
2. Number of communications received by the Committee (whether classified as formal submissions by the Committee or otherwise) SUPPORTIVE of the Government’s Clean Energy legislation.
3. Number of communications received by the Committee (whether classified as formal submissions by the Committee or otherwise) OPPOSING the Government’s Clean Energy legislation.
4. Number of communications from question (2) above rejected for publication by the Committee (for whatever reason).
5. Number of communications from question (3) above rejected for publication by the Committee (for whatever reason).

I will report any response I receive, although I won’t be holding my breath.