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

McALLISTER (—) (): I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, all I can say is here we go again. Labor and the Greens have again sacrificed Australian prosperity on the altar of climate change. Labor and the Greens have again colluded to make everything that matters more expensive for Australians already struggling with the rising cost of living. Labor and the Greens have again schemed to create more crippling energy shortages in Australia. Labor and the Greens have again acted together to put the brakes on Australia's economic growth and then put it in reverse. Labor has shown it cannot stand against the climate extremism of the Greens. Anthony Albanese, our PM, and Chris Bowen have capitulated to Adam Bandt's hypocrisy.

Even if you accept the stupid idea that cutting Australia's human carbon dioxide emissions is necessary, and I certainly don't accept it, restricting gas supply is just about the worst thing you can do. Increasing gas supply is absolutely crucial to shoring up unreliable renewable energy. Even the Europeans understand this. The European Union have reclassified natural gas as a clean, green source of energy because they've learned, at great cost to their economies, they can't rely solely on intermittent wind and solar power. That's why they're firing up gas power plants and even restoring coal power plants.

What the Greens and Labor won't tell you is that forcing Australian companies to cut carbon dioxide emissions as part of a global effort is utterly futile. Even if Australia's CO2 were cut to zero overnight, CO2 increases in China alone would negate this cut within a year. This is where Greens hypocrisy is at its very worst. They work to cripple Australia with CO2 cuts but don't condemn China for contributing 30 per cent of the world's human CO2 emissions. They're happy to accept China's solar panels and steel for wind turbines, made with Australian iron and Australian coal, but won't condemn China for its plans to add two billion tonnes to its annual emissions of 12 billion tonnes. The Greens will condemn Australia for buying a few nuclear powered submarines but not China for expanding its arsenal of nuclear weapons. They will criticise Australia over human rights but not China's Communist regime for its much worse human rights violations. Hypocrisy!

The Greens' insistence that CO2 is a pollution is a lie. They are lying to us. There would be virtually no life on Earth without carbon dioxide—no plant life, no animal life, no Greens senator and no useless idiots to vote for them. CO2 is a natural part of life, and it's undeniably a scientific fact that human caused CO2 is only about three per cent, if that, of all the CO2 in our atmosphere and oceans. We cannot, and will never be able to, control or change the 97 per cent of CO2 from natural sources.

Even one of the Greens' favourite prophets of doom, Tim Flannery—remember that man who said, 'Our dams never be full again,' 'It'll never rain,' and 'We'll be in drought', this same man who they hold up there on his platform—said:

If the world as a whole cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years …

So why all the panic? Why all the scaremongering? Why go on as if you're destroying the planet? That's what it is—scaremongering. You've got nothing to back it up with, not even that holier-than-thou Tim Flannery, who you quote and you hold up there. Those were his words:

cut all emissions tomorrow the average temperature of the planet is not going to drop in several hundred years, perhaps as much as a thousand years …

So you're prepared to destroy our industries, our jobs, our manufacturing and the cost of living. You're prepared to do that. This is Labor. This is the Greens. This is what people voted for. Well, not until the people of this country start hurting, really hurting, will you understand the impact of all these stupid, bloody policies going through this parliament and maybe change your minds and wake people up in this country.

Forcing companies to cut CO2, or otherwise offset them, will only increase their costs, forcing them to cut Australian jobs and eventually take their business somewhere else—but not before they're forced to pass on these enormous costs to Australian consumers. Australian consumers, you are going to pay for it.

This legislation is nothing more than a carbon tax in disguise, along with a direct attack on the gas industry, crippling supplies when energy shortages demand we increase then. This makes absolutely no sense. In fact, this attack on the gas industry places the Labor governments' own CO2 reduction targets in jeopardy, because there are no renewables without reliable natural gas supplies. There is no economic hydrogen production without natural gas. There is no fertiliser for our farmers without natural gas. The Greens want to end natural gas production. They want to get rid of it. Their economic and scientific illiteracy is almost as stunning as their hypocrisy, and Labor has rolled over and given in to them.

It will be interesting to find out just what else is in this deal Labor has done with their Greens devil. It will be interesting to see what else this legislation will do as it plays out in the economy. It doesn't define what a safeguard mechanism credit actually is or what it's supposedly worth. It invests incredible power in the hands of the minister to personally decide if Australian companies have done enough to meet CO2-reduction demands and to punish those who haven't.

There is so much wrong with this legislation, not least that, once again, Labor is ramming it through the Senate with the help of the Greens' rookie senator David Pocock. One Nation puts Australia and Australians first, so we cannot possibly support a bill that worsens our cost-of-living crisis, costs Australian jobs and cripples what is left of Australian industry and manufacturing.

I will also add, we need to address the gas that we have off the North West Shelf that is in Commonwealth waters. Deals have been done to allow Western Australia to take 15 per cent of that domestic gas supply which belongs to the Australian people. This is in Commonwealth waters. Now Santos is going to put another gas field off the shores of Darwin, in Commonwealth waters, that we are going to get nothing for.

The Labor Party talks about how we're going to fund the $368 billion for the nuclear subs. I'll go on about it again. We have a resource that we can make so much money from for the country, yet no-one is prepared to do it. The Prime Minister said we should get rid of the petroleum resource rent tax. No-one has done anything about it. The coalition did nothing about it. You're giving them an uplift factor of 15 per cent. They're making billions out of it. The fact is that they have over $400 billion in tax credits that belong to the Australian people, but you keep giving them a 15 per cent uplift factor on their investment every year. That has accumulated to the credit of $400 billion. We see about $77 billion or $80 billion worth of gas going out of the country, and we get nothing for it.

What fools the people in this place are to not have done anything about it. You're reluctant to do it—why? Have deals been done with these multinational companies? People in Australian companies and businesses are struggling to get the gas supply that they want to run their houses. Now you come up with the policy that you're going to get rid of the gas in Australian homes and replace it with electricity. How the hell are you going to do that, when you can't even get enough electricity now? The plants are shutting down because of reliable supply, which we don't get through solar and wind. Yet you're prepared to get rid of gas and tell everyone they have to go to electricity. At whose cost? Who's going to pay for this?

We have one of the most resource-rich countries in the world, and you are not going to deal with this. Why? I don't understand why you're not addressing this. This gas belongs to the Australian people, and we should be getting the money from it. Make them pay for it. Get rid of the PRRT. You could do it tomorrow, but you keep giving them more and more leases. Let's see what you do about Santos. Let's see if you're going to make them pay for the gas. Tell the Australian people. Do you know what? You're not going to. That's my understanding of it. How pathetic you really are. You don't care about the Australian people, people living in the homes. There's not enough housing. Bring in another million-plus people—about 650,000 next year. Disgusting.

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

McALLISTER (—) (): It might be worth making some opening remarks. My last contribution, I think, was at around four o'clock this morning, and I elected at that time to keep my remarks brief so as not to detain the Senate. The business before the Senate today is important. Today we are a step closer to reaching net zero by 2050. It's my hope that by the time this debate is concluded we will have established important and enduring arrangements to assist Australia in this transformation. We seek to establish not just the steps that will take us towards meeting the target but also the steps that will ensure that our economy is geared up to take advantage of the economic opportunities that will come with that.

The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023, which is before the parliament this morning, will deliver 205 million tonnes of emissions reductions by 2030. That's equivalent to taking two-thirds of Australia's cars off the road. I make this point: these reforms are long overdue. They are sensible reforms, and they are designed to ensure that Australia's largest emitters remain competitive in a global economy that is decarbonising. They follow eight months and three rounds of extensive consultation with industry that covered facilities, consultation with the broader public and consultation in the parliament. This morning, I thank those parliamentarians who have constructively engaged with that process. Regrettably, that is not all of the parliamentarians in this place.

The reforms before us deliver the investment certainty that is required for the included businesses. The final changes, the amendments before the parliament today, will strengthen the scheme for strategic industries and for climate. They include providing improved flexibility and support for strategic industries and strengthening accountability, transparency and integrity.

I understand that a range of senators have general questions to put, so I don't intend to immediately move the government amendments that have been circulated. But I do indicate to the chamber that I will seek to do so relatively quickly so that the Senate may engage with the substance of what's before them.

People understand the history—that the safeguard mechanism was put in place by the previous government, and it was supposedly to keep a lid on the emissions of Australia's biggest emitters. But unfortunately, under the previous government, emissions were increasing. The reforms before us received wide support. That includes support from the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and the Australian Industry Group. The reason they support them is that these reforms finally deliver the policy certainty that's necessary to allow businesses to make investments—investments in their future competitiveness, investments that will allow them to meet their corporate net zero commitments that most of the carbon facilities already have; 80 per cent of the safeguard facilities and 85 per cent of the safeguard emissions are covered by corporate commitments to net zero.

We thank the people who have been involved in the consultation process. We thank the people who drafted submissions—hundreds of submissions. We thank the people who attended the round tables around the country and engaged closely with industry and climate groups. And we thank the people in the parliament who engaged in this in good faith. It is past time that we did this. We have had 10 years without a settled climate policy and as a consequence we have had 10 years without a settled energy policy, and that has real consequences for Australians. The reforms before us protect our climate and they protect our economy. These reforms should have bipartisan support. I look forward to the debate across the chamber.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I get into my questions and general remarks I want to place on the record my thanks to the staff and attendants of the Senate who so patiently supported the operations of this chamber last night. It was a long debate, concluding at about 4.30, as Senator McAllister, the minister, said. So I very much want to put on record my thanks, including to Hansard and all the other support that we receive in this place. It's an unusual workplace, and it can give rise to unusual settings like that. But it's important to recognise, indeed, the support that we are provided at strange hours of the day.

In my consideration of this legislation that's before us I, and on behalf of the coalition, want to commence by re-examining the pathways to where we are today and in doing so acknowledge that it was only a few minutes ago that we received the amendments that we are going to be considering, the amendments that are the fruit of the deal that's been done between Labor and the Greens. I think it's important to acknowledge that for proper debate and scrutiny to occur on these things we need time to deliberate. Now, I am pleased that, as I understand it, the government are going to allow debate on this bill to go on until it's exhausted—that is, until the guillotine falls on the debate of this bill at one o'clock tomorrow, including of course all the intervening items of business that this Senate will consider. But there is a lot to unpack here as a result of this murky deal that's been done. I want to revisit one element of it that concerns me most, and that is what now appears to have been feigned concern from the Australian Greens around the modelling that the Australian government would not provide in relation to this legislation.

A public interest immunity claim was lodged by the government in relation to the modelling that the Senate Environment and Communications Committee sought, and they said, 'No, you can't have it.' This modelling, relating to Australian carbon credit units, was cabinet-in-confidence, in the first instance, and then of course the excuse under public interest immunity claims changed to 'market sensitivities' down the track. Whatever the reason might be, they were determined not to provide it to us. Why? We don't know. My hunch is that it shows that a lot of what we're talking about here is not actually underpinned by solid modelling and it's all bunkum. But we'll never know.

The most concerning part was not the fact that the Australian government refused to provide transparency, refused to provide the information that I would have thought senators in this place would benefit from seeing to make an informed decision. The people in here are intelligent people, committed to their communities, committed to the people who work and live in their states. They would benefit from this information. Instead, the government have hidden it. They will keep it secret. That's fine. That's what they've done.

The most concerning part was this false concern the Australian Greens had in indicating to us that they wanted this modelling too. They put down their own motion, at the same time we put ours down. We said, 'No, you can't deal with this bill until we see the modelling.' I think that's fair. If there's nothing to hide, why hide it? Indeed, they wouldn't reveal it. The Greens put down a similar motion, suggesting, 'Well, we'd love to see it too but we won't stop debate on the bill until we change our minds.' The thing is—

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You don't listen to it anyway. You've had years of modelling given to you.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Another worthy interjection from Senator Pratt. I'm grateful for that brilliant intervention. The point is, the Greens weren't ever interested in seeing this modelling. They were interested in buying enough time to do a deal. While this motion was on the books, while we were having our Senate committee, there was a smoke filled room, somewhere in this building, with Greens and Labor senators, their minister and the Greens spokesperson on energy. They were setting down to work out exactly what it was they would be agreeing on, what parts of the economy they would be sacrificing, what jobs they would determine not worthy, which ones they shouldn't be looking after, and what parts of Australia could be sold out in the name of political expediency.

The Greens sold out. We know that there are members, elements, of the Greens that aren't happy. I read out in the second reading debate a tweet, from my colleague Senator McKim, which was quite inflammatory, I thought. I won't read it out here again. For those interested, go and have a look at Hansard or perhaps have a trawl through Senator McKim's Twitter feed.

I also remarked on former senator Bob Brown's resignation as a foundation life member of the Australian Conservation Foundation. Clearly, the committed environmentalists in this country are looking at what the Australian Greens are doing now and, as I've already said, they're selling out. They're compromising on their values. I made the point that former Senator Brown and I agree on not many things, other than Tasmania's a great place, but one thing I can say of him is he is a man of conviction, and one must respect that. That continues to this day, from well beyond the bounds of this chamber. He continues to let the world know what it is he believes, advocating for it, standing for it and making sure that people understand what real Greens are. He, I believe, is one of those.

Sadly, what we see today is not a replication of that. We see a Greens party that has decided, 'Let's do a deal. Let's deal ourselves into the game and get what we can, no matter what the cost.' So murky deals, backroom discussions, a Labor-Greens power-sharing agreement— whatever name you want to give it—that's what we're dealing with here now.

We saw an element of that this morning. The Australian government, the Labor Party, decided, 'We're going to punish the coalition for not signing up to our policy, even though at the election we told them we wouldn't and we told the people of Australia we wouldn't,' by denying us the capacity to debate our private senator's bill on Thursday. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, though I think that may be a little too generous.

That private senator's bill, I might add, was about developing a mechanism so the people of Australia, across the country, can see what power prices are doing and from what source energy is being generated—renewable, fossil fuels, you name it—every quarter. I'm looking forward to debating that, when we get the chance—if the Australian government sees sense and allows us to do that.

I want to come to these amendments that were cooked up in secret as a result of this dirty, dodgy deal. I want to know, from the government, when drafting instructions were first issued for these amendments. When were relevant officials tasked with these amendments? I think that's important to understand. We were given these amendments today—at the commencement of debate, in effect. That's not a long time to thumb through the 16- or 17-page additional explanatory memorandum, to understand the far-reaching impacts these changes will have let alone the bill that we've been looking at.

What consultation, what scrutiny, has occurred? I'd love to know who out there in the business community, in the ENGO part of the universe, has had a look at these. I'd love to know. The Senate is being asked to vote on this bill, so I would love to know what level of consultation has occurred and what input occurred into the backroom deal that has been done here. Fundamentally: a date, a time, and by whom and to whom these drafting instructions were issued. As a supplementary question, perhaps, I might also ask, in addition to first drafting instructions, when final drafting instructions were issued and when the amendments we now have before us at the eleventh hour, as part of this sneaky deal—you can clothe it as whatever you like, but that's what it is. You just chucked it on the table today in the hope no-one will notice and it will just rush through this week and we can all forget about it.

But I tell you what: the big reminder is going to come in just a few months time, in the depths of winter, when Australian households and businesses are opening their power bills and they're not going to be any less than what they were as a result of this or any other legislation that's been introduced by this government. We've got to remember, colleagues, it was this government that said before the election 97 times that they would reduce power bills by $275. It's also important to remember it's this government that can't actually say that number now at all, even in answer to a question that was asked last week by my good friend Senator O'Sullivan, who's not here now. He asked the minister, 'Can you say the number 275?' He refused to say it. That's how allergic to keeping promises this crowd are. As a result, power prices are going to go up.

We have bills like this driving up power prices. Bizarrely, in the same week that we have the bill that we passed yesterday for the National Reconstruction Fund, which is supposed to revitalise our manufacturing sector and create jobs, we're going to strangle the same sector by driving up the cost of doing business. One thing I'll disagree with Senator Hanson on: she said it is a carbon tax in disguise. It's not in disguise; it's in full view. It is a carbon tax. So when were drafting instructions issued first, and when were they were finally issued?

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

It's no secret that the government has sought to consult on the implementation of our reforms to the safeguard mechanism. I can step Senator Duniam through the timetable if he needs assistance. In 2021, on 3 December, we announced very publicly we would reform the safeguard mechanism as part of the Powering Australia Plan. On 1 July, when we'd formed a government, we appointed an independent panel to review the integrity of ACCUs. On 8 August 2022, we initiated consultation on the safeguard mechanism reform, and there's a paper that's still available on the website if you would like to review it. On 10 October 2022, we opened consultation on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023. On 30 November 2022, we introduced that bill into the parliament. On 9 January, we released the independent review of ACCUs that was undertaken by Professor Chubb. On 10 January, we released a further paper which outlined the proposed reforms which form the substance of the bill before you. On 27 March, following discussions with a range of stakeholders, we released updated reforms.

Those consultations were extensive, as I have indicated in the contribution I made before. They covered businesses, other community stakeholders and parliamentarians, as you would expect them to do. I find it surprising that the opposition objects to a government that is willing to work across the parliament to seek support for reforms. The very great shame, I think, for the opposition is that they dealt themselves out of this process from the very beginning. They said no before they even saw the legislation, which has become the hallmark of the opposition under Mr Dutton. So we're not really going to take lectures about processes of engagement, because this is an opposition that has essentially refused to engage with a very significant economic reform. They have chosen not to engage. They said no. We've taken the responsible route to engage all those stakeholders across the chamber who have an interest and all those stakeholders outside of the parliament. The arrangements that were made very publicly by Minister Bowen on 27 March reflect that very broad consultation.

Dorinda Cox (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to this debate on the safeguards mechanism. Coal and gas have taken a huge hit. It's no mistake. You only have to read the papers over the last few days. We have stopped nearly half of the 116 new fossil fuel projects that are currently in the pipeline. By doing what we have, we have ensured that in fact pollution will go down as part of these amendments. We have derailed the Beetaloo and the Barossa projects, and we've negotiated amendments, not dirty deals as the opposition have alluded to—I think that's pretty rich coming from their side—so that we've prevented more public money from being sucked into coal and gas projects in this country, unlike their gas-led recovery that they did during COVID. So I want to be really clear that this is actually a very huge win for the planet, but there's still lots of work to do. Currently there are lots of industry based grant funds that are being given to fossil fuel projects through the climate crisis. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Our amendments will ensure that grants under the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 are not given to any more coal and gas projects in this country. There is now one less pocket of public money that's going to these greedy corporations to dip into. That should be a good win for the public interest. That's what this place represents. We know that 47 per cent of the current emissions covered by this scheme come from fossil fuel companies. That is no mistake. It's not something we over here at the Greens have made up; it's actually the science. It's important to note that this is the current emissions. This does not actually account for new entrants—the ones that are also in the pipeline, ready to be approved. From the outset, it's already posed that there's a significant problem that the government has identified. The Greens agree that this is a problem in relation to our emissions. In the middle of a climate crisis, the Labor government will still look at these projects, and we over here at the Greens will still fight ferociously for rest of those projects in the pipeline to be shut down. The safeguard mechanism, before the Greens secured these wins, would have allowed that to happen. We have put the handbrake on this, and we're not ashamed to say that.

Our amendments include a hard cap on emissions, meaning real pollution will come down and the coal and gas corporations can't buy their way out of the cap with the dodgy offsets. To compliment this change, there will also be a pollution trigger, which will now require new coal and gas projects to be assessed against the hard cap, and they can be stopped based on their impact on the climate. How hard is that? It's not rocket science. If you don't meet the hard cap, you cannot continue. You should not proceed to your final investment decision in these projects. This will be the first time since the safeguard mechanism was established under Tony Abbott that we can have confidence that pollution will actually come down in this country.

Abating emissions on site should be a priority for industries across this country that are captured under this mechanism. We understand that reductions can't happen overnight. That is a reality, so some offsets will be needed. However, they should in fact be the last resort. In cases where either emissions cannot be abated on site or there still needs to be a small buffer while there is technology being developed and implemented, this is the only time we should see offsets used.

There have been significant concerns raised about the integrity of these dodgy offsets, particularly with the human induced regeneration by the ACCU issue. The Greens have also heard these concerns. We have secured a pause on these credits until they are actually going through an independent audit. We think that's important.

This could take up to a quarter of future offsets off the table, which will force companies to cut pollution onsite. That is what it's meant to do. We are in a climate crisis. This is urgent. We're not in a casual walk towards climate action. We should be in a sprint, and that is what was said last week in the IPCC report. Climate action is needed, and it's needed now. Further, companies will have to report on and justify the use of their offsets to ensure this, which will help prevent greenwashing—the greenwashing that we have seen presented to us in this chamber. In the 18 months that I've represented the resources portfolio on behalf of the Australian Greens, I have seen more greenwashing than I have in my lifetime. We have to ensure that we are addressing that. Fracking in the Beetaloo and the development of the Barossa gas field have been derailed. They are now having to justify to their investors why this is still a viable option. Tamboran, who are the proponents for the Beetaloo project, will be forced to offset all of their emissions from day one, adding an estimated $1 billion a year. And Santos, who are the proponents for the Barossa gas field, will be forced to offset all of its CO2 emissions.

This is a big day for the Greens movement as we continue to work alongside the government, but it's an even bigger day for traditional owners, First Nations people who never gave their free, prior and informed consent. We have challenged that. They have challenged that in the Beetaloo and in the Barossa gas fields. I've stood in solidarity with some of those traditional owners and campaigners, and what great grassroots campaigns they have run. They have run these against the gas giants in this country, and they've taken the challenge right up to them. I want to congratulate the eight Tiwi clan groups led, by the Munupi clan in the Tiwi Islands. This is a moment they can share in. Last night I had a wonderful conversation because they are now seeing a glimmer of light, another opportunity of hope for them to make sure that land and sea country across this country is not being destroyed by the state capture of the two major parties in this place who continue to fund fossil fuel projects in this country.

We know that the Beetaloo and the Barossa gas field are not the only threats to our climate. Traditional owners from Narrabri, Otway and, in my home state, the Scarborough project up on the Burrup Peninsula and the Kimberley are continuing the fight. The Barossa and the Beetaloo are some of the biggest projects that are the closest to production. They have the biggest targets, which is why we focused our negotiations on them. Both of these are climate bombs, and they are equally linked to—funnily enough—the dirty Middle Arm hub that's proposed in Larrakia country in Darwin. The impacts of these projects will flow on to Middle Arm, and we all remember the debate we had about Middle Arm, where the government and the opposition sat together against us trying to ask for information about why Middle Arm was even approved. We remember question time when I asked Minister Watt about the use of petrochemicals in the wording, and the greenwashing that was put up by the Northern Territory and the federal governments. But rest assured the Greens are still here fighting. We're fighting against Scarborough, we're fighting against Narrabri, we're fighting against the Browse Basin, we're fighting against fracking in the Kimberley and we're against so many other projects. We will continue to fight.

Indeed, we may have already wiped out some of these with the hard cap, and that is a great move and a great start. I'm so proud of the work that's gone into these negotiations. The opposition can try and paint that up any way you want, but we are proud that we have been able to negotiate these with the government. We know that the people are with us. We are in solidarity with First Nations people across this country. We are in solidarity with climate scientists, our Pacific Island neighbours and the majority of people who should and do believe that we are in a climate crisis. We should be shutting down coal and gas projects across this country and, particularly, not opening up any new ones. This shows that we can work with the government on much needed improvements, and Labor's safeguard is better now because of the work that we have been able to collaborate on. I'm sorry that the opposition is sitting there blank faced, not wanting to hear that. We will keep pushing. We will keep campaigning on the ground with people. We will create a movement that is serious about climate action, and we will continue to deliver. Thank you.

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

by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (14) on sheet SK147 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 8 and 9), omit "by ensuring that", substitute "by ensuring that each of the following outcomes (the safeguard outcomes) are achieved".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 12), omit "and".

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 13 and 14), omit paragraph 3(2)(b), substitute:

(b) total net safeguard emissions for all of the financial years between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2030 do not exceed a total of 1,233 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence;

(c) net safeguard emissions decline to:

(i) no more than 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence for the financial year beginning on 1 July 2029; and

(ii) zero for any financial year to begin after 30 June 2049;

(d) the 5-year rolling average safeguard emissions for each financial year that begins after 30 June 2024 are lower than the past 5-year rolling average safeguard emissions for that financial year;

(e) the responsible emitter for each designated large facility has a material incentive to invest in reducing covered emissions from the operation of the facility;

(f) the competitiveness of trade-exposed industries is appropriately supported as Australia and its regions seize the opportunities of the move to a global net zero economy.

(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (before line 25), before the definition of associated provisions, insert:

5-year rolling average safeguard emissions, for a financial year, means the amount, in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence, that is one fifth of the total amount of safeguard emissions for the 5 previous financial years.

(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 10), after the definition of issue, insert:

net safeguard emissions, for a financial year, means the total amount, in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence, of net covered emissions from the operation, during the financial year, of all designated large facilities for the financial year.

past 5-year rolling average safeguard emissions, for a financial year (the current financial year), means the amount, in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence, that is one fifth of the total amount of safeguard emissions for the period of 5 financial years that ended:

(a) if the current financial year ends before 1 July 2027—3 years before the start of the current financial year; or

(b) otherwise—2 years before the start of the current financial year.

(6) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (before line 23), before the definition of safeguard mechanism credit unit, insert:

safeguard emissions, for a financial year, means the total amount, in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence, of covered emissions from the operation, during the financial year, of all designated large facilities for the financial year.

(7) Schedule 1, item 9, page 4 (after line 24), after the definition of safeguard mechanism credit unit, insert:

safeguard outcome has the meaning given by subsection 3(2).

(8) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 28), after item 10, insert:

10A Section 7

Insert:

Secretary means the Secretary of the Department.

(9) Schedule 1, item 37, page 21 (lines 11 and 12), omit all the words from and including "unless" to the end of subsection 22XS(1A), substitute:

unless the Minister is satisfied that those rules:

(a) are consistent with each of the safeguard outcomes in paragraphs 3(2)(b), (c) and (d); and

(b) take into account the safeguard outcomes in paragraphs 3(2)(e) and (f).

(10) Schedule 1, item 37, page 21 (after line 12), after subsection 22XS(1A), insert:

(1B) If the Minister makes safeguard rules, the Minister must publish on the Department's website the Minister's reasons for being satisfied that the safeguard rules:

(a) are consistent with each of the safeguard outcomes in paragraphs 3(2)(b), (c) and (d); and

(b) take into account the safeguard outcomes in paragraphs 3(2)(e) and (f).

(1C) If safeguard rules are in force and the Minister receives advice under subsection 14(1) of the Climate Change Act 2022 that:

(a) safeguard emissions, or net safeguard emissions, for a financial year are not declining consistently with a safeguard outcome in paragraph 3(2)(b), (c) or (d) of this Act; and

(b) the safeguard rules need to be amended in order to achieve each of those safeguard outcomes;

the Minister must:

(c) undertake public consultation in relation to whether the safeguard rules need to be amended in order to achieve the safeguard outcomes and the content of any such amendment; and

(d) if satisfied that the safeguard rules need to be amended in order to achieve the safeguard outcomes—amend the safeguard rules.

(1D) If safeguard rules are in force and the Secretary is satisfied, having regard to:

(a) an estimate given to the Secretary under section 15A of the Climate Change Act 2022; or

(b) information published under subsection 24(3B) of this Act; or

(c) information given to the Secretary, by an agency or authority of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, relating to the likely covered emissions of a designated large facility for a financial year;

that the safeguard rules need to be amended in order to achieve each of the safeguard outcomes in paragraphs 3(2)(b), (c) and (d) of this Act, then:

(d) the Secretary must advise the Minister that the Secretary is so satisfied; and

(e) the Minister must:

(i) undertake public consultation in relation to whether the safeguard rules need to be amended in order to achieve the safeguard outcomes and the content of any such amendment; and

(ii) if satisfied that the safeguard rules need to be amended in order to achieve the safeguard outcomes—amend the safeguard rules.

(1E) Subsections (1C) and (1D) do not limit section 17 of the Legislation Act 2003 (rule-makers should consult before making legislative instruments).

(11) Schedule 1, page 21 (after line 28), after item 38, insert:

38A After subsection 24(3)

Insert:

Publication relating to the safeguard mechanism

(3A) If the total amount of covered emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of a designated large facility during a financial year is set out in a report under this Act for the financial year, the Regulator must publish on its website by 15 April next following the financial year:

(a) that total amount; and

(b) the amount of those covered emissions that were carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide; and

(c) the baseline emissions number for the facility for the financial year; and

(d) if safeguard mechanism credit units have been issued in relation to the facility and the financial year—the number of those units; and

(e) if a monitoring period for the facility ended during, or at the end of, the financial year—the following:

(i) the net emissions number for the facility for that period;

(ii) the number and type of prescribed carbon units (if any) surrendered for the purpose of reducing the net emissions number for the facility for that period;

(iii) if any of those units were Australian carbon credit units issued in respect of an eligible offsets project for a reporting period (within the meaning of the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011) for the project—the methodology determination (within the meaning of that Act) that applied to the project for that period.

(3B) For each financial year between 1 July 2023 and 30 June 2030, the Regulator must publish on its website by 15 April next following the financial year:

(a) the safeguard emissions for the financial year; and

(b) the net safeguard emissions for the financial year; and

(c) the 5-year rolling average safeguard emissions for the financial year; and

(d) the total safeguard emissions for all of the financial years between 1 July 2020 and the end of the financial year.

(4) Subsections (3A) and (3B) do not limit the requirements that may be prescribed by the safeguard rules in relation to the publication of information.

38B Subsection 25(5)

Omit "subsection 24(1AF)", substitute "subsection 24(1AF), (3A) or (3B)".

(12) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 13), after Part 2, insert:

Part 2A — Amendment of the Climate Change Act 2022

Climate Change Act 2022

66A Section 5

Insert:

Climate Change Secretary means the Secretary of the Department responsible for the administration of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.

designated large facility has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.

Environment Ministe r means the Minister who administers the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

expanded designated large facility: a facility is an expandeddesignated large facility for a financial year if:

(a) the activity, or series of activities, that constitutes the facility is carried on to a greater extent in the financial year than in earlier financial years; or

(b) during the financial year, an activity, or series of activities, is included in the activity, or series of activities, that constitutes the facility for the first time.

facility has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.

net safeguard emissions, for a financial year, has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.

new designated large facility, for a financial year, means a designated large facility for the financial year that was not a designated large facility for any previous financial year.

safeguard emissions, for a financial year, has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.

safeguard outcome has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.

safeguard rules has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.

scope 1 emission of greenhouse gas has the same meaning as in the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007.

66B Paragraph 12(1)(d)

After "those policies", insert "and in particular whether safeguard emissions and net safeguard emissions are declining consistently with the safeguard outcomes".

66C Part 4 (heading)

After "Authority", insert "etc.".

66D At the end of section 13

Add:

66E After subsection 14(1)

Insert:

(1A) Advice given to the Minister under subsection (1) must include advice about:

(a) whether safeguard emissions and net safeguard emissions for the financial year to which the annual climate change statement relates are declining consistently with each of the safeguard outcomes in paragraphs 3(2)(b), (c) and (d) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, taking into account:

(i) the impact of any expanded designated large facilities, or new designated large facilities, for the financial year; and

(ii) the impact of any expected expanded designated large facilities, or expected new designated large facilities, for future financial years; and

(iii) any emissions estimates that are given to the Climate Change Authority under section 15A of this Act; and

(b) if safeguard emissions, or net safeguard emissions, for the financial year are not so declining—whether any amendments to the safeguard rules are needed in order to achieve each of those safeguard outcomes.

66F At the end of Part 4

Add:

15A Environment Minister to give Minister, Climate Change Secretary an d Climate Change Authority certain emissions estimates

If, in a financial year:

(a) the Environment Minister approves, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the taking of an action for the purposes of a controlling provision (within the meaning of that Act); and

(b) the Environment Minister is satisfied that the action is likely to result in:

(i) an increase, in the financial year or future financial years, of scope 1 emissions of greenhouse gases from the operation of a designated large facility for the financial year; or

(ii) a new designated large facility for the financial year or a future financial year; and

(c) the Environment Minister has been given an estimate of the scope 1 emissions of greenhouse gases from the taking of the action in one or more financial years for which an entity covered by subparagraph (b)(i) or (ii) is, or is likely to be, a designated large facility;

the Environment Minister must give the estimate to the Minister, the Climate Change Secretary and the Climate Change Authority as soon as practicable after approving the taking of the action.

(13) Schedule 1, item 67, page 30 (after line 16), after subitem (3), insert:

(3A) Subsection 24(3A) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007, as inserted by Part 1 of this Schedule, applies in relation to the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023 and later financial years.

(14) Schedule 1, item 67, page 31 (after line 22), at the end of the item, add:

(14) The amendments of the Climate Change Act 2022 made by Part 2A of this Schedule apply in relation to the financial year beginning on 1 July 2023 and later financial years.

Today the government is moving amendments to amend the objects of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act to specify that net carbon emissions from safeguard facilities decline consistent with Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and that covered emissions decline over time; that each facility has a material incentive to reduce emissions; and that the competitiveness of trade exposed industries is appropriately supported as Australia and its regions seize the opportunities to move to a global net zero economy.

These amendments also require public advice from the Climate Change Authority on how emissions are tracking against the carbon budget. Importantly, they add a requirement to make changes to subordinate legislation if the budget is not on track or to take other steps to address that problem. To inform this advice, the environment minister would be required to provide information about emissions from proposed actions that are likely to result in a new facility being covered by the safeguard mechanism or a safeguard facility increasing its emissions after approving the action under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. This advice would be provided to the Climate Change Authority and to the minister responsible for the Climate Change Act. In the coming weeks, the minister will be releasing associated rules which are required to enable these changes.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the acknowledgement from the minister that there's a lot more in general that we need to cover with regard to this, despite having moved into the government amendments. It is in relation to those amendments that came to the table not that long ago and that we are still working our way through. Yes, there's been a lot of public commentary. There were a couple of second reading speeches given last night that gave voice to what effect it was that the agreement that's been reached would have. There are a few areas of conflict over the extent to which these amendments would reach, but we'll come to that a little later.

I want to go back to the question that I didn't really get an answer to. I asked the minister for a specific date and time about when drafting instructions were issued for the amendments that we now have, that we were provided with not long ago—within the last hour or so—and, of course, the supplementary explanatory memorandum. I'll ask that question again. I'd also be interested to know, in addition to that, when the drafted amendments were first seen by the government and those that they are doing this deal with—the Australian Greens and anyone else on the crossbench. I took great interest in the time line of the path to where we are today and the announcement that was made on 27 March. As you said, Minister, post discussions with a range of stakeholders including, as I understand it, members of the crossbench. What I was interested in is that a series of amendments have been moved that have material effect. They alter what was announced as part of your election package. They change what was taken to the election and they also change what was consulted on around August—8 August was the date you provided—and the consultation on the safeguard mechanism credit scheme on 10 October. They change what was introduced in November. I'm interested, post all of that—and you referenced discussions that culminated in the announcement on 27 March—in what public consultation there was around the detail of what we're talking about here. That's why I'm asking these questions about when instructions were issued for drafting. When were they seen? Who by? This is important in order to understand how much sunlight has been shone on the deal that's been done with the Greens. While we try and get our head around this, I will continue to ask these questions between now and when the Labor Party, in partnership with the Greens, will guillotine debate tomorrow on one of the most serious laws and the impact it will have on the economy. That will all be guillotined. We won't get a chance beyond one o'clock tomorrow to discuss this further, and it will be left to the people of Australia to make a decision about whether this was good or not.

I do have to take issue with some of the points that Senator Cox made. I appreciate anyone who comes into this place with strong conviction, but I'll tell you who we stand in the corner of, and that is in the corner of the consumer and the household that's paying more for electricity, for fuel, for food and on their mortgage. The consumer, the household and the business were all promised before the last election that these things would go down, but they're not. We will come to exactly how this legislation is going to put downward pressure, as Senator Farrell has said innumerable times this week, on the cost of living. I'd be interested in how this fits into this narrative the government has got running. How does the safeguard mechanism—and you don't have to answer this now, because we'll have a lot of time to answer this—drive down the cost of living for Australian households?

Going back to the questions at hand: when were drafting instructions issued? By whom? When were drafts returned? Who saw them? As a lead-in to us now having a debate in the Senate on amendments that were only circulated for us to consider and to vote on today, perhaps into tomorrow morning—

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Post some extensive second reading speeches.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, post some extensive second reading speeches—you'd think there was a capacity for these things to be considered in a good-faith discussion around this. And yes, we are opposed to what this bill establishes and sets out to do, because it is a new tax.

This bill is not going to deliver the environmental outcomes that the government claims it will. It's going to make things worse, because we are part of a thing called the world. When you tax businesses out of existence here in Australia, do you know what they're going to do?

I think Senator Rice might benefit from a bit of education here, because the thing is that if it's more expensive to do business here, like manufacture cement or aluminium or engage in native forestry in this place, you're going to do it somewhere else, in those jurisdictions, those countries, that do not care about the impact on the environment. It's called offshoring.

It counts when it comes to emissions as well, as Senator Cadell says. By tidying up our own backyard and forcing some of these businesses offshore—because I don't believe there are assurances to keep these businesses here and minimise their impact on the environment and work with those businesses to do so—not only are we offshoring the emissions but we're also offshoring their jobs and the economic value to the community.

So, again, huge changes were proposed in these last-minute amendments, part of a dodgy deal between this one group of people. They go by different names—Labor, Green—but they're one team. They always are and always will be. That's the kind of thing they do. They team up to shut down the economy and pick on regional Australia. But yes, more detail around those time lines would be very helpful, because we all know this is leading to one thing, and that is economic Armageddon.

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

It's a curious way to characterise what I consider a very straightforward process of public consultation. I won't go through the time line again, but the government has taken the approach of consulting very, very widely with a very wide range of stakeholders over an extended period of time in arriving at this point.

Senator Duniam, you are quite right that the position paper released on 8 August 2022 asked a series of questions and sought feedback on them. The position paper released on 10 January this year similarly sought feedback on a range of more detailed propositions. Consultation on the detail that is before the parliament and the detail that is proposed to be placed into the associated subordinate legislation has been very wideranging indeed. Not only is that not unusual from a government committed to a proper policy process; it's actually necessary. A very large range of people have been engaged in discussions. I am not personally privy to every one of them, but I am conscious that both the department and the minister have been engaged with a range of stakeholders in bringing this together. As to the specific questions around drafting, I'll see what information I can provide to you, but drafting is the end product of a policy process, and the policy process has been very public indeed.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As an Independent member of this Senate, I have to agree with the coalition with regard to this. I'm absolutely disgusted that, less than an hour ago, I was given your amendments to this bill. You have disregarded my position in this place, and it's either incompetence or sheer arrogance that you bring this amendment into the chamber at such a late stage and you intend to guillotine the debate. You have no regard for my position or my colleagues' positions. You have no regard for anyone in this place other than yourself, the Greens and David Pocock. I don't know what deals you've done with Jacqui Lambie or others, if they're supporting this bill, but you have no regard for others.

This is not the first time this has happened; it happened with the IR bill as well. I got the final documents to my office on the Wednesday night at 9.30, and it was guillotined and pushed through on the Thursday in this place. I spoke to the Prime Minister about this, saying that I was not happy with not getting information. I'm not getting briefed by the ministers. I have not had one—I'm sorry; I have. Murray Watt came to my office one time to discuss the dairy bill with me, but that's the only one. Labor does not contact my office to give me briefings or to explain their bills to me—nothing. Apart from that, they cut back my staff so that I can't get across all the legislation that's rammed through this place. It's okay for David Pocock. He had the IR bill on the Sunday. He made up his mind he was going to support it on the Sunday. We had no idea till the following Wednesday. This is absolutely atrocious and disgusting of this government.

I've been in parliament since 1996. I worked with the coalition government at that time. I've worked here under the Turnbull government and the Morrison government, and this is the worst government I have ever come across to work with in this place, ramming its legislation through. The disdain that those opposite have for other members in this chamber is unbelievable. It's sheer arrogance. I'm here because the people of Queensland voted for me. I have every right to be here and I have every right to be paid the respect to get this legislation in enough time to revise it. The minister talks about consultation with businesses, but I don't agree—I don't believe there has been enough consultation. Labor has just come up with policies. I've spoken to businesses that are not happy with this.

Minister, I want to ask you a couple of questions about the amendments on sheet SK147. Amendment (3) reads:

(b) total net safeguard emissions for all of the financial years between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2030 do not exceed a total of 1,233 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence;

Can you tell me what emissions have been used to date?

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

Senator Hanson, I was listening to your question, but what was the start date that you were seeking to reference?

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got here in amendment (3) on your sheet SK147 that proposed paragraph (b) of schedule 1 says that for the 'years between 1 July 2020 and 30 June 2030' the safeguard emissions 'do not exceed a total of 1,233 million tonnes'. I want to know what your emissions to date have been.

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

It's a very specific question. I will seek advice on it, and I will come back to you, if I can, at some point in the debate.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. These businesses have the next seven years to find out how many emissions they are able to put out there in running their businesses and companies before they get taxed by you.

You're going to increase immigration into the country quite considerably—an article said, 'The highest immigration intake in the history of this nation.' Can you tell me how much a single person emits in carbon emissions in a single year?

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

It's highly subjective. Perhaps what I can say is that, when the Australian government considers its emissions projections, one of the things it contemplates is the level of economic activity, and, of course, population size is a feature of projections for economic activity. I might indicate also that I have some advice in relation to your question about the emissions in the period you referenced. It is an approximation, but between 1 July 2020 and 1 July 2023 it is around 420 million tonnes.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will go back to the immigration question so the people of Australia know what you are doing here. You are increasing immigration to the country, and by 2030, it is estimated, around two million or more—that is just people coming to live here to Australia, migrants, let alone the students, tourists and everyone else. For those two million or more people, I tell you: do you have—no, I will ask you. We'll see if you've done your sums. How much emissions will these two million new migrants up to 2030 release in Australia of their CO2?

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

Senator Hanson, I think I have already answered your question by indicating that it's highly dependent, both on the individual but also on the technologies that are in place in the Australian economy at that time. I have also indicated that in preparing our projections for emissions the level of economic activity is contemplated, and that includes population projections. So I think I have probably answered your question, although perhaps not in terms that you would like.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, Minister, you haven't answered my question. If you are going to penalise these companies from trying to actually—industries and manufacturing, and you have just passed a bill to get industries and manufacturing going in Australia, and that is what you purport. But under this bill you are basically going to penalise them. What I'm saying here is that you are increasing your immigration by nearly two million people into Australia. Forget about the impact that is going to have on housing, hospitals, infrastructure, water and everything else. We are talking about CO2, which this whole bill is purely about. I will tell you something that you don't know. By the immigrants coming into nearly two million people in the country by 2030, you're going to have 45½ million tonnes of CO2 extra into it. Tell me, Minister: is the government going to buy carbon credits for their emissions?

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

I'm not sure about the source of your information, but I think that the question you're asking fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the policy proposals before the chamber.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, you're avoiding the question. It's very relevant. We're talking about carbon emissions in this country, and you're actually pulling it back in many, many areas, especially carbon. So when you're bringing migrants into the country who emit those amounts of emissions you are avoiding the question. You don't know what you're talking about. You haven't done your research therefore the consultation hasn't gone forward. You cannot answer the Australian people with regard to this.

Another thing I want to ask you, Minister, is about what Adam Bandt said in a tweet. He said:

Fossil fuel shares fell yesterday after the Greens' secured a limit on coal and gas expanding.

  … …

To those wanting to open new coal and gas mines, your days of wrecking the climate for profit are numbered.

Minister, are you aware that there are many millions of Australians who, under superannuation, have shares in coal and gas? Are you proud of the fact that you've destroyed a lot of their future superannuation that they need for the future?

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

Thanks for the question, Senator Hanson. With respect to the statement that you referenced, I would start by thanking the Greens for the constructive way that they have approached discussions. That particular characterisation of the effect of the amendments is not one that we would agree with. I appreciate that this is a talking point, but this was not a part of the government's negotiations.

The safeguard reforms actually take into account likely new entrants, and they still deliver 205 million tonnes of abatement. The scheme is actually about ensuring that our biggest emitters can thrive in a net zero world by investing in technology that brings their emissions down. Many of the premises in your question are not entirely accurate, but I thank you for the question.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the vein of not having any questions answered, and I acknowledge there was a public consultation process on everything except the amendments that we have before us, I'm going to give up on seeking the information I was after there.

In relation to some of these things that have been agreed to between the Greens and the Labor Party about imposing this new taxation system on emitters, what I do want to know is how much of what is going to be set up will be done by subordinate legislation? You referenced some in an earlier answer about what's been agreed to. What are we dealing with here that has been agreed to, and what will be dealt with by way of delegated legislation?

In the same vein as the complaint Senator Hanson made about the complete disdain for anyone who wasn't part of the negotiation, any party or grouping of senators who did not sign up to a safeguard at the last election has been characterised as saying no. I tell you what, we do say no to higher taxes. We do say no to offshoring emissions. We do say no to driving up the cost of electricity. We do say no to penalising hardworking Australians with bad policy that will not deliver the outcomes the government says it will.

I'd be interested to understand how much hidden legislation there will be. Sure, we'll get to have a look at it because it is disallowable by its nature, but if it's part of the agreement, and we're here voting on this legislation today—again, I'd point out the fact that amendments are a very important part of any proper democratic debate on legislation. Notwithstanding the long period of time between when the policy was announced prior to the election, the election and the tabling of the first round of draft laws, a lot has changed. So to point to that front end of the process being very important and minimising this end, which is actually where we make laws—where we are voting on behalf of the people we represent about what is good, what is bad—will it have the effect the government says it will? This is what we're interrogating now. It's also important to understand what of this will be tucked away and hidden in delegated legislation, and what effect those changes might be.

Additionally, I'm very interested in this difference of opinion between the government and the Greens over the nature and effect of the agreement that has been reached here. I will interrogate that a bit later on. I just flag that now. I think this is important for the people of Australia, who have obviously heard all the talking points through the various interviews that have been conducted, doorstops by Mr Bandt and others around the success they have had in strangling the fossil fuel sector, but there is a very different take on things from you, Minister, so I would be interested to interrogate that.

But the basic question I have here is, what of the changes to what was put on the table originally is going to be found in delegated legislation? Has anything been drafted yet in terms of the delegated legislation? If it has commenced but is not yet completed, what stage are we at? Who is being consulted on that? Is it the same group of people that had the broad conversations you referenced with the culmination of the 27 March announcement? And I would be interested to understand whether the Australian Greens are helping you draft these pieces of delegated legislation, and will there be a public discussion about these things before they are tabled here in the Senate?

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

Thank you for the question, Senator Duniam. As I indicated, the government undertook an extensive process of consultation, including in the earliest parts of this year, following the release of our detailed discussion paper about the approach that we wanted to take. A couple of days ago, on the 27th, Minister Bowen made an announcement about some of the changes that we proposed in response to representations from a range of different stakeholders.

There are a number of changes, some of which are being dealt with in the amendment that's before you. It's a single amendment, and I think the impact of that amendment is clear to you. But there are some others that will be dealt with through different means, one of which is that we have made it clear publicly that there will be additional funding available for the manufacturing sector and for trade exposed industries through the Powering the Regions Fund. There will also be a change in the approach and some specific treatment for hard-to-abate value added manufacturing, including a different threshold for manufacturers to qualify for a discount on their decline rate. That reflects the particular characteristics of this sector as a value-adding industry. Those changes would be reflected in the rules rather than the core legislation, and that's consistent with the overall architecture of the legislation before the chamber.

The government has also committed to commissioning a review to examine the feasibility of an Australian carbon border adjustment mechanism. That has obviously been the source of some discussion and an area of some interest for the industries we are engaged with.

Most of the remaining changes are dealt with through the legislation. I would only say that we have, of course, emphasised that the Chubb review remains an area of focus. The government will continue with implementation of the Chubb review to ensure integrity in the carbon market. I am conscious, Senator Duniam, of trying to provide a balance between what is quite a level of detail that will be contained in the rules and material that we can engage with in the debate this morning. Those are the main points and the ways that we intend to progress them.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for being able to break those things out, Minister. That is interesting, and we will come back to those specific elements that will find their way into delegated legislation later on in the committee stage. What I do want to know is what modelling the government has done on the financial impact on businesses and households of the changes that have been agreed to with the Greens. I note that you did indicate that most of the changes as set out in the proposed amendments to the legislation are clear. Yes, I'm sure they are, once we get through reading the document, which was only provided to us an hour ago. It will become clear. But what is important as we move forward—and we will have to vote on these things no later than one o'clock tomorrow—I want to know: what modelling has been done about the impact on power prices and the cost of fuel and other sources of energy that households and business would have, and inputs to manufacturing processes? I want to know about any modelling that has been done on the way through as part of these discussions, which culminated in the 27 March decision. Any good government would go and model requests from a party like the Greens to understand whether it was good for the economy or bad. In the absence of modelling of these changes, I am very concerned that we've just signed up for an expedient political deal. So, hopefully you'll be able to tell me that modelling has been done and that it's rather thorough, and perhaps you might provide it to us.

Additionally, I have one further question on the issue of modelling. Was the modelling that was hidden by the Australian Senate by way of PII claim at any point shown to the Australian Greens as part of the discussions that occurred in the agreement around the announcement on 27 March? Was that modelling that we sought shown to any member of the Australian Greens, any member of their staff or anyone associated with them when it was hidden from the committee of the Senate and indeed the coalition?

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

The issue around modelling has been canvassed in Senate estimates. It's been canvassed in the Senate committee. And I think you know the government's response, which is that general—

Perhaps Senator Hughes would like the call.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to reiterate the point that Senator Duniam has made: have the Greens been shown the modelling that was refused to the coalition and to Senator Hanson? And why, if the modelling reflects so positively on this legislation, will you not share it with those decision-makers in this Senate?

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

Look, these issues were canvassed in Senate estimates. They were also canvassed, as I understand it, in the Senate inquiry that took place into the legislation we're now debating. There are two answers. One is that I think Treasury have provided advice that they didn't do modelling on the impact on the overall economy. Modelling was undertaken on the potential for onsite abatement at safeguard facilities and implications for the carbon market. And, as the minister has said and as has been discussed in this place, this is not only cabinet-in-confidence but also price-sensitive information, as the Commonwealth is the largest purchaser of ACCUs. Regarding the question about whether or not the members of the Greens or staff have been shown this modelling, I am advised that the answer is no.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the government at their word that they did not share with the Greens the modelling that they so desperately sought originally in this debate and somehow that desire for transparency and understanding what underpinned the government's proposal here suddenly just evaporated. Anyway, I'll let that speak for itself.

I just want to unpack the answer around modelling of the impacts of the changes arising out of the agreement with the Greens and others. I would like to understand from your answer—so, Treasury did some analysis of onsite abatement, I think you said? I'm sure you'll have a chance to respond when we come back in the afternoon, because we're about to suspend, I understand. But was any analysis taken by any department or any minister's office—any third party outside of government—around what impact these changes that have been agreed to with the Australian Greens would have on, for example, power prices, fuel costs and inputs into the manufacturing process, such as in industries like the fertiliser manufacturing sector?

I think it's important to understand that the government who went through a very lengthy consultation process, publicly, and presented a bill—one that we disagreed with—highlighted the importance of getting it right. I just wonder whether you can indicate to the Senate whether you've gone through the same level of in-depth analysis to assure yourselves of what you're signing up to here to get a bill through isn't going to have a negative impact, given that you've put so much work into making sure that this thing actually works in the way that the Australian government said it should before the election. Again, I disagree with the assessment the government is putting forward here: that it'll improve environmental and economic outcomes. I think it will, in fact, be disastrous on both counts. But, when we come back to the debate a little later on today, I would just like to get an assurance from you that you haven't sold us up the creek with no modelling on the Greens' proposals that you've agreed to.

Progress reported.