Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

Thanks, Chair. It's pretty clear, though, isn't it, that any pretence the opposition has to being a party of government is quickly heading for the door. We don't reflect on senators heading for the door, but I think we can make some observations about the credibility, can't we? The bill that we're debating now is on its fourth day of debate. The government of course has been willing to provide time for the legitimate concerns of senators to be examined and aired and for amendments to be moved, but the truth is that in their second reading contributions the opposition indicated a desire for this bill to be progressed.

I'm not surprised that parts of the crossbench—the Greens political party and other senators—don't support this, but I am surprised that the opposition don't understand the significance of the bill before us. It is a bill that seeks to establish a predictable, certain approach to regulatory arrangements for certain projects, certain kinds of interventions in the Australian economy. What I don't understand is the why those opposite, who say that they're for a certain regulatory environment and they'd like to see orderly policy making, don't understand that on day 4 of a debate it is time for amendments to be considered and dealt with. It was on that basis that we moved that the question be put. We heard Senator Whish-Wilson's contributions about why he'd moved the Greens amendments. I provided a response about the technical reasons that the amendment before us is not necessary, because it simply replicates features of the bill that are already in place and creates, as a consequence, uncertainties and potentially unintended consequences by replicating aspects of the London protocol in the legislation itself. It is on that basis that we oppose the amendments moved by Senator Whish-Wilson. You know that. You understand that. You should also understand the significance of concluding debate on this one amendment so that we can proceed to the other amendments which, I understand, Senator Pocock would like to move.

Again, I invite the chamber to make progress on this bill. It's a bill that simply seeks to establish a regulatory architecture. It is part of the ordinary business of government, and a party that aspires to being in government ought to support it.