Leave granted.
The opposition will be supporting the substance of this motion in relation to the order for the production of documents but will await the response before deciding whether the Minister representing the Minister for Defence should be required to attend the chamber to explain.
]]>We don't have to take the Premier's word for it—or mine, for that matter. Perhaps Kade Wakefield, the Assistant National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union is someone that the government might like to take note of. He said:
The government has been dragging its heels on this review but at the end of the day Tanya Plibersek will have to decide what she thinks is more important: the livelihoods of blue collar regional Tasmanian families or the overblown concerns of inner-city activists about a fish they've decided to make famous.
Or perhaps they'll listen to the mayor of the West Coast, Shane Pitt, who said:
I urge Minister Plibersek and the Prime Minister to think about the people here on the West Coast. It's cruel to let the kids and the families start the school year with this hanging over their heads.
We are well into the year; it's almost the end of February and this Damocles sword still hangs over the heads of the people in this community on the West Coast of Tasmania and this industry.
This government, supposedly the friend of the worker, is doing nothing. So at this state election, I hope Tasmanians remember which side of politics supported this industry and which side of politics stands up for workers; it is not the Australian Labor Party.
]]>… they should be brought to the attention of the legislature and the executive.
Minister, the legislature was bypassed in the approval of funding for this organisation and the judiciary has slammed, as you've just mentioned, the EDO's dreadfully unethical practices. So I ask the executive, through you: will the government now cease funding this terrible organisation?
]]>Question agreed to.
]]>Two words from Senator Hanson-Young ring in my ears: 'no more'. There'll be no more new gas to bring down prices, no more support for households struggling with the cost of living, no more jobs for people in the regional communities where many of these projects exist. Certainly, there'll be no more answers to the questions that have been asked. That's not because the minister can't answer them or doesn't want to. There are no answers to these questions. Senator McAllister is, I think, one of the finest ministers in this place, and I really do look forward to seeing her elevated to the cabinet, because I think there is some room for improvement there, but there are no answers to the questions we're asking. Consultation? Regulatory impact statement? Any impact on the cost of living? No answer, no answer, no answer. This is what happens when, behind closed doors, under the cover of darkness, in smoke-filled rooms—whatever analogy you want to come up with—you find Labor and the Greens doing dodgy deals. Their smiles get bigger the worse this is for Australian households and the economy. Senator McKim's smile couldn't be bigger.
So, Australia, watch out. It's going to be a dark, dark Christmas, with the cost of living going through the roof. They are as happy as they can be because they got their deal. It is a bad day for Australians. But this is what we have come to expect in this brave new world of Labor-Green government—
]]>In the last answer that was given to me by the minister, it was put to me that a range of entities, individuals and organisations were consulted—no names. I'd appreciated it if there were names provided. I'd also be interested to know whether a regulatory impact statement was undertaken by the government in preparing these last-minute amendments. I'd also be interested to know exactly when these amendments were finalised—the date and time they were finalised—because, as I've already put on the record number of times in this debate, we received these amendments at 5.52, with the supplementary explanatory memorandum.
There are big changes afoot. They're going to have a significant impact. I think we're going to see a huge amount of duplication. These changes, I believe, will just pave another road for green lawfare to occur. That's great news for the environmental defenders office and bad news for gas consumers, bad news for the economy and bad news for the cost of living. But, I tell you what, that is exactly what certain people in this place proudly fight for, and good on them. That is something that they can stand up for. But I just have to reflect, in asking these questions, on the shambolic nature of where we are today. Just a day and a half away from this place rising for the summer break, from people going back to their electorates, we are rushing this legislation through as if it is going to change the world.
Just last Friday, contributions were sought from senators in relation to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill. There was the majority senators report, which of course told us the bill was amazing and needed no change whatsoever and recommended that the Senate pass the bill as drafted. There was the coalition dissenting report. Our position remains the same on this piece of legislation. We still think it's terrible. We still think it's bad. We still think it's unnecessary to go down this path for all of the reasons I've already outlined—all of the uncertainty it's going to bring about.
We can go through the various contributions to the committee inquiry. Lyndon Schneiders is the executive director of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation. There was a big element of the debate that took place in relation to these bills during the committee process, and that was a fundamental principle that I thought everyone—or at least non-government senators—shared and stuck to. That was the need to deal with the EPBC Act first, to be able to get a framework legislation around national environmental approval laws in place, have the national environmental standards bedded down and have all of the other relevant elements put in place so we knew exactly what the landscape was going to be. That suddenly isn't a problem anymore. I will quote Lyndon Schneiders again, someone I probably won't quote too many times in this place. The executive director of the Australian Climate and Biodiversity Foundation said:
We recommend that the NRM (Nature Repair Market) Bill be delayed until Parliament has been presented with key EPBC reforms, including proposed National Environmental Standards for environmental offsets, regional planning, and threatened species protection, to demonstrate that a rigorous and high integrity regulatory system will support the operation of the Nature Repair Market.
Those concerns appear to have fallen on deaf ears tonight because we are wading into this area of legislative change, which is going to have significant impacts—and I do dispute what the minister said in the claim that this will have zero impact on the cost of gas because it won't affect existing projects. Sadly, supply is a key element to being able to meet demand and therefore has an impact on gas prices. So I don't buy that, and I think you will rue the day that you made those comments.
Given the concerns around that—and, in one of the hearings, Senator Hanson-Young herself made those very comments to departmental officials about this bill being in tatters and it being an absolute sham. But suddenly now it's okay to support it because of some amendments that appeared out of nowhere on the day we're debating this legislation. It just smacks of a Labor-Greens stitch-up, something we should have come to expect in this place. It's something that, sadly, is becoming a hallmark of this government in this term of parliament, where it looks like there's a proper fight on and that there's going to be some consistency and integrity shown by political parties, who go into a process saying, 'You know what? These are our red-line issues and we're not going to budge,' until they budge and they get a deal done behind closed doors, where there is no scrutiny and where there is no regulatory assessment of the impact that these new laws and regulations will have.
There is no modelling done on what cost implications there will be for individuals or entities seeking to commence a new project. We don't know how many organisations will be caught up in this, with projects that are planned. Surely the government, who work with entities out there, have some understanding of exactly what is in the offing. I haven't got an answer to that and I suspect we won't have one because there is no modelling and there is no concern for what this might mean for the economy, for the community and for the cost of living. It is, as I said before, simply about getting a deal done so that they can claim they have a win at the end of the year in order to try and cover over what has been one of the most shambolic fortnights in parliament, where we have seen terrible things happening and the government trying to pretend there are no issues at all.
More broadly, against the backdrop of a government that can't get its act together when it comes to environmental policy, we were promised that the national environmental law replacement, the replacement for the EPBC Act, would be in this place before the end of this year. We have a couple of days left, and there is nothing—not a thing to be seen with regard to that promise that was made by the government. And I wonder why. Why have they done the go-slow on that? Again, it points to the need for this government and this minister, Minister Plibersek, to get a win. And today she gets a win and the Australian Greens get a win. The people of Australia are the ones who are going to pay for the deal.
But, again, I'd love to know exactly who was consulted in the preparation of these additional consequential amendments that we're discussing right now. Was a regulatory impact statement done, and when, precisely, were these amendments finalised with the Greens given, as I said before, they were tabled at 5.52 this evening?
]]>To that end, I'll go back to the supplementary explanatory memorandum that's been tabled by the government in relation to the consequential amendments. The minister talked about having worked closely with Minister Bowen and other entities. I presume the Australian Greens were in there. I'm trying to understand what has been proposed here. We have the backdrop of the cost-of-living crisis that this country is engulfed in at the moment. The people who frequent the public gallery to observe debate here are probably disappointed. Lack of supply has an impact on the price of gas. We talk about certainty about what will be provided as a result of this bill.
The water trigger that we are being asked to pass with an hour and five minutes of debate remaining was only tabled at 5.52, less than two hours ago. I'm wondering what consultation has occurred with industry. I know we get derided by the Australian Greens political party for talking about that—
given, as Senator Scarr points out by way of interjections, the jobs they create and the resources they provide to the economy. As far as I can recall from the committee hearings I attended and the evidence I read, this was not actually contemplated by the Senate committee. What consultation was undertaken with industry about these consequential amendments that were moved by way of very vague motion? Which projects does the government know will be caught up and what modelling has been undertaken around the impact of the passage of these extraneous amendments?
]]>We're seeking to suspend standing orders to be able to bring on these extraneous amendments relating to another act, which were referred to in a nebulous fashion yesterday, and we don't know what the extent of the consequences is going to be. But do you know what? I suspect the government have got the numbers. They've done a deal. We still don't know what price has been paid for these amendments to be supported by the government—this expanded water trigger that is going to have massive impacts—or whether any modelling has been done on the costs to people who may wish to get a project up, to create jobs, to provide energy to the market. We don't know. Has there been a regulatory impact statement, which is something good governments normally do? I'd be interested to know, to foreshadow that question. I'm sure Senator McDonald has similar questions as well. Again, I'll take a punt on that: I don't reckon any of this has been done, because it is the last week of the year, ladies and gentlemen, and it's all about getting a deal. It's all about getting a win. It's all about looking like we're in control and we know what we're doing.
Not only are the impacts of these amendments unknown and we've barely had an hour to read through the documents that have been dropped on our desks but, in fact, we don't know about a range of amendments that the minister has already said the government have agreed to and what impact they will have. We will consider our position on all of them, but, at the end of the day, I'd just say that this year ends as it has been all the way throughout—that is, shambolic. This is a government that lurches from one problem to the next and does dodgy deals to try and look like it's in control. This is not the bill they had on the table all the way through the committee process. They have cut off scrutiny because they are embarrassed about where they're going. It's all about getting a win. They don't care about the Australian people, and these amendments just prove that.
]]>I might remind the Senate that, of course, just yesterday we voted on a motion to end a further four months of scrutiny on the Nature Market Repair Bill and the associated bill—legislation which, up until yesterday, no-one other than the government supported. In relation to the Australian Greens, I read Senator Hanson-Young's comments in the committee hearings saying that the bill was in tatters, that it had no friends and that it was going to leave the environment worse off. Now here we are with an arrangement between the Australian Labor Party and the Greens political party rushing to have this bill voted on and passed before parliament rises. So urgent this is that we must get it done before the parliament rises! As a sign of disrespect to this chamber, the people we represent and the industries that keep our economy ticking over, we're going to rush these amendments in with no or little information or clarity around what they're actually about. I'm glad we have at least an hour and a half of committee stage to interrogate this flurry of amendments, including the amendments from the government that have been talked about here by Senator McAllister. She gave some clarity around what has been tabled just less than an hour ago, at 5.52 pm, this document here, which outlines what the government's new plan is—the one that wasn't contemplated in the committee inquiry, wasn't referred to in the government senators report and wasn't referred to in the Greens' dissenting report, a 'dissenting' report in a bill that they're now going to support. What an interesting change of events there!
I want to know exactly—and I'll be able to ask these questions—what consultation was had with industry about these amendments tabled less than an hour ago. I'm going to hazard a guess: none. I'd love to know which participants in the industry are caught up in this set of amendments. I don't think they know. I don't think they've actually gone out to figure it out. It's just about getting a deal before the end of the year because the government needs a win. It has been a terrible couple of weeks, and, in fact, it has been a terrible 18 months, if you really think about it—
]]>And there'll be good reason for it; don't worry. We'll hear the contributions soon, from the Australian Greens political party, about why they've sold out; why they spoke so strongly in the Senate committee hearing around this legislation; why it was bad; why the government was doing terrible things and was going to allow greenwashing. I wonder if those concerns around greenwashing exist today, or whether we are going to hear anything on them in the contributions from the Australian Greens political party. And I like saying 'Greens political party', because they are politicians who get elected to this place. They actually do things like hatch little deals with the Australian Labor Party to get legislation through, which, once upon a time—only less than a week ago—they were dead against. They are not beyond reproach. They are not the paragons of virtue they say they are. They are deal-makers. They'll do whatever they want, and they'll tell people out there in the community that they've done something good—something else. But if you go back and have a look at the history of this bill, if you go back and have a look at exactly what those opposite said was wrong with it—they had concerns about the lack of integrity in the process, concerns around greenwashing—no assurances have been given. As far as I can tell at this stage, debate already having commenced, there are no amendments from the government or the Greens, no assurances around integrity—probably not a concern to them—no assurances around offsets, some other nebulas deal we have no detail on at all and a committee process truncated by four months to rush this bill through. The Australian Greens political party—dealmakers extraordinaire—have done it again. As Senator Thorpe said, and I hope she says it several times in her contribution, they sold out. That is exactly what they have done and Australians need to know it. There will be less certainty than there was in the first draft of this bill. It is amendment city and it is going to be a disaster.
]]>