Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Agreeing to these amendments will enable the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 to become the law of Australia, following royal assent. These are sensible amendments which are in keeping with the government's election mandate and our agenda. As has been said many times in this House—I don't propose to detain the House—this enables us to get on with our important task of reducing emissions in our country and creating the jobs of the future, creating the jobs in a decarbonised economy. This is an important piece of legislation. It is unusual to interrupt the business of the House to do this on a Thursday afternoon, but it's vital that we do so we let industry get on with the task ahead of them.

I want to thank those members of good faith who worked with the government. The amendments reflect the discussions that have been held, very intensively, over recent weeks. I want to thank the senators and members of the Australian Greens, particularly the leader, the honourable member for Melbourne, who has focused with the government on those areas in which we could agree. There's been public commentary about the areas in which we disagree. We were able to focus our conversation on the areas in which we can agree and come together to provide an important piece of legislation for our country. I recognise the member for Melbourne and the Greens.

I want to recognise Senator Pocock, who is particularly concerned about carbon credits and integrity. We were able to have discussions with him.

I want to recognise Senators Lambie and Tyrrell, who are passionate about manufacturing jobs, particularly in Tasmania. We were able to reflect those conversations in the amendments and in the regulation.

I want to thank Senator Thorpe, who is particularly interested in the role of First Nations peoples in carbon trading. I particularly enjoyed my conversation with her about sea country and the involvement of sea country in carbon trading. I appreciate her support.

Far too much is spoken sometimes in this parliament about differences, and we have many, but it's important that parties and individuals of good faith can come together. I also thank the crossbench in the House, who've had many conversations with me and who have reflected views. I thank them for their support.

To achieve net zero, we cannot start in 2040 or 2045; we must start today. The best time would have been 10 or 15 years ago; the second-best time is today. This is an important day. The amendments are important.

I want to thank, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, the Safeguard Taskforce in my department, led by Kath Rowley and Edwina Johnson. I want to thank my chief of staff, Andrew Garrett, and my senior adviser, Peter Nicholas, for their very intensive efforts on this most important task.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, today this chamber will cast a vote on a carbon tax that the Labor Party has been looking for now for years. Today, again, we see a broken promise from the Australian Labor Party. We see a broken promise from the now Prime Minister, who assured the Australian people he would not do dodgy deals with the Greens. We see a dodgy deal with the Greens that leads to a carbon tax, a tax that will be imposed on Australian industry, a tax that will be passed through to Australian consumers. This is a tax that will see prices go up. In the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, where every household across this country is feeling the pain of prices going up, the solution of the Albanese government is to introduce another tax that drives prices up. Not only will we see prices go up as a result of these reforms to the safeguard mechanism but we will also see investment go down.

We hear from a Labor government that seek to spruik their credentials about building manufacturing in Australia but now they introduce a tax on manufacturing. This is a government that talks about decarbonisation but in fact introduces a policy of de-industrialisation. This is not a policy to decarbonise the Australian economy but to decapitate the Australian economy. It comes at a time when Australia can least afford it. But don't just listen to me, let's see what Credit Suisse say about it. They say: 'The new reforms agreed with the Greens are going to be inflationary—'

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The minister for immigration and the Assistant Treasurer.

The Assistant Treasurer is warned.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will repeat that word for those opposite who cannot hear it—inflationary.

The new reforms agreed with the Greens are going to be inflationary and risk jobs by hindering investment and restricting offset use across all of Australia's heavy industry.

How about APIA? Chief executive, Samantha McCulloch, said:

New gas supply investment needs policy and regulatory certainty but instead, the Labor-Greens deal creates additional barriers to investment, further diminishing the investment environment and adding to the growing list of regulatory challenges facing the sector …

Then how about Australian Pipelines and Gas Association, whose CEO said '… there are questions over whether the flow-on effects of any additional restrictions on gas supply will be borne by Australian households and businesses who are already facing major increases to energy bills due to the transition.'

So what we have here today is apparently Labor's centrepiece for decarbonising the Australian economy. They have their own minister claiming this is as big a move as the entire de-industrialisation or, let's say, the industrial revolution. So the minister thinks this is as big as the industrial revolution. You would think that the Labor Party may have done one thing—some economic modelling. What we've found out and confirmed in the Senate over the last 24 hours is that this government has not done any economic modelling on the impact of this policy on jobs, on regional communities, on manufacturing. There is no economic modelling from Treasury, no economic modelling from the department. What does this mean? What we are voting on today is a policy they have not researched. They've done no modelling on it. It will be paid for by Australians. Prices will go up. Investment will go down. Emissions will go offshore and they'll multiply. It's a disgrace, and it's not the pathway to decarbonising the Australian economy. (Time expired.)

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over there, we have a bunch of Eeyores. The world's always going to end. It's always bad. It's always completely devastating. They channel Francis Ford Coppola. Their motto is not so much Apocalypse Now as 'Apocalypse soon'! 'If you do this, it's going to be just a shocker.' But you've got to address some of the comments that have been put forward by—it's hard to follow, I've got to say—the last minister for energy. I reckon he had a say in who was chosen as the shadow minister. He said, 'Find someone who's less coherent than me,' and they've managed to do it.

The safeguard mechanism that is before this parliament was introduced by the Abbott government. It's the Abbott government's model. It's not a model that we came up with. What we've done is make sure that it works. On investment, you have a plan that's supported by the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group, the Energy Users Association and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, all of whom are saying that what they want is investment certainty. They want a mechanism to be certain going forward, and that's what this provides. That's what a majority of this parliament have accepted.

I give credit to those people on the crossbenches who didn't get everything that they wanted but who had the courage to say, 'Yes; the good is better than the perfect,' from their perspective. That's why this is an achievement of this parliament. But those opposite just choose to be irrelevant to the parliament and irrelevant going forward. When in government they stood and announced 22 different energy policies but didn't land one. Even policies that went through their party room multiple times never made it to the floor, because they'd rather knock off two sitting prime ministers than actually implement a policy.

At the last election, a decisive majority of Australians voted to put an end to the delay and inaction and take action on climate policy. Australians had seen the devastating impact of climate change. It's not something that's theoretical. The bushfires and the floods—the science told us there would be more extreme weather events and they would be more intense, and that has tragically played out. There are older Australians determined to do the right thing by the next generation, farmers who know the pain and hardship of drought and young people demanding that their voices be heard. Today is a big step towards repaying that faith. Passing this legislation has put Australia on a realistic path to net zero emissions by 2050 and a 43 per cent reduction by 2030. This legislation is a big part of how we do it. What's more, what it will do is get more renewable energy, which is the cheapest form of energy, into our grid.

Overall, what it does is provide that certainty and stability that the business community have been crying out for. I want to congratulate the Minister for Climate Change and Energy and all who participated constructively, including the crossbench in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. The fact is that we had to get this done. I was elected to do this. The member said that somehow this was contrary to our policy. This is spot on our policy. It's spot on our policy, Powering Australia, which we released well before the election for all to see. The people of Australia voted for action on climate change. Today, the parliament will do the same thing.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the relevant comment here is from a minister opposite. In saying this, I must praise the government, because the CopperString proposal has already resulted in a vanadium mine announcing its operations and Eva, a big copper mine, announcing it's starting up operations. That is the sort of thing that government does.

I've said previously in this place that I sit under a picture of the great founder of the labour movement in this country, 'Red Ted' Theodore. He wrote to Chifley that the object, the most important function, of government is to provide meaningful work for its people. Now, this is something that takes away meaningful work from our people. The Boyne smelter, it was announced, was going to be duplicated; they have now taken that proposal away.

This is from Madeleine King:

We will not meet our commitment to net zero without the resources sector.

…   …   …   

Taxes and royalties paid by the resources sector make an essential contribution to the services that Australians rely on.

…   …   …   

… it also contributes to community services, emergency services, roads and train lines …

…   …   …   

Some fail to acknowledge this, but Australia's coal and gas resources are essential for energy security, stability and reliability …

No gas—

and no coal—

means no processing of critical minerals …

For those in this place who are not familiar with this, there is no process by which you can extract a mineral without smelting and there is no way you can smelt, really, without coal. So you must understand the implications for industry that are being called upon here. My colleagues who sit on the cross benches want action to happen, and, in fairness to the government, the CopperString proposal will lead to the biggest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere. So you are doing good things—right? But this is not a good thing. It's heading in the opposite direction.

I'll conclude by saying that two of the six biggest bridges in Australia are named after the great Leo Hielscher. Whether it was Bjelke-Petersen or Leo Hielscher, one of them created the coal industry, the tourism industry and the aluminium industry. They were created because they built the biggest power station in the world at Gladstone and because we had a reserved resource policy where the coal was supplied for zero cost. We said, 'If you want to mine coal here, you'll give a percentage to the people of Queensland.' So we had the cheapest electricity in the world. That led to the establishment of the great aluminium industry. I seriously think that you're placing it in jeopardy. Not just by this—I agree with the Prime Minister that this may be a small move—but it's a move very much in the wrong direction. It sends out a signal that you're going to continue to move in this direction.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Since the Prime Minister found it very hard to comprehend, as he was saying, let me try to simplify it for him. Here's the big tip—are you ready? Are you ready for it? When taxes go up, costs go up. When costs for businesses go up, they pass them on to consumers. And then guess what happens to prices! Have a guess! Guess which direction they go!

An opposition member: They go up.

Up! The second point the Prime Minister made was to suggest that the policy Labor is introducing was in fact a coalition policy. No, it was not. At what point, Mr Speaker, have you seen a coalition government stand before the Australian people and say they want to introduce a carbon tax? That is not our policy. It never has been our policy. All that government has done is to take an existing coalition framework, unwrap it, reuse the wrapping and hide a punitive carbon tax inside it. That carbon tax is going to impact every single business within that scheme—all 215—and the cost will be passed on, of course. This is the exact problem that we have pointed out.

The third point I'll make in response to the Prime Minister's comments—

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Hume and the Treasurer will cease interjecting so I can hear the member for Fairfax.

Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The third point I'll make in response to the Prime Minister's comments is about the coalition's record. The coalition has a proud record of reducing emissions. Indeed, we reduced emissions by over 20 per cent on their 2005 level. When it came to the Kyoto protocol and targets, we smashed them out of the ballpark. We were tracking to also smash our targets for the Paris Agreement. This is the thing—what the coalition believes in, Labor doesn't. That is, you've got to strike the right balance. There's a balance to be struck here. On one side, you need to decarbonise the Australian economy, but, on the other side, you need to grow the Australian economy. Unless you get that balance in tandem, well, you're going to throw it out of whack, and one side loses. With this policy, it's the economy that loses.

The last point is that the Prime Minister and the minister have spoken this afternoon on this policy using the word 'certainty'. Let me ask them this question. Name one business in Australia that now has any certainty about the tax they're going to pay—not one. Do you know why there's no certainty? Despite all the crowing from Labor, they have not modelled the impact on the businesses. So think about that. They do not know the impact of this policy on any one of those businesses. How dare the Labor Party inflict this on the Australian people and the Australian economy. They've never done the economic modelling on this, but they're proud of it. Taxes up—they're proud of it; prices up—they're proud of it; investment down—they're proud of it; and emissions offshored and multiplied—and they're proud of that, too. It's a disgrace. There's a way to decarbonise the Australian economy. You need balance. This lacks balance and therefore it needs to be opposed.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I urge the House to accept these amendments secured by the Greens because they tackle the causes of the climate crisis—coal and gas—and deliver a big hit on coal and gas and especially on new gas projects. That is critical, because before these amendments were secured pollution from coal and gas was set to increase. Why? Because, under the original design of the scheme, new coal and gas mines could come into the system and keep on polluting, and all coal and gas mines could keep putting out as much pollution as they wanted, and they just had to buy offset permits to deal with it. As a result, pollution from the areas that were covered by the safeguard sector, which at the moment is about 140 megatonnes a year, was set to rise to up to 184 megatonnes; pollution from coal and gas was going to rise. This at the time when the UN Secretary-General and the world's scientists are pleading with countries like Australia, saying, 'We need countries like Australia to do their bit,' and that means stopping opening new coal and gas projects.

As a result of these amendments that we're debating right now, secured by the Greens, there will be a limit on coal and gas expansion in Australia for the first time. There will be a limit on how much pollution can come out of the corporations covered by this safeguard sector, and that is critical, because that means, no matter how much offsets the corporations buy, they cannot offset their way out of this hard cap. And that is what matters to the climate crisis. The decisions that we make right now will reverberate for generations to come. The decisions that we make right now about whether or not to open a new coal or gas mine will determine whether or not climate change becomes runaway and our kids and our grandkids are unable to rein it in. We estimate that, as a result of this hard cap on pollution, the pollution from about half of those 116 new coal and gas projects in the pipeline won't be able to go ahead. And that is huge.

Also, as a result of these changes, it will now be up to the minister—this minister and future ministers—to look at any new projects that are coming up in the pipeline and work out whether those projects are going to lift pollution above the declining cap, and, if they are, the minister can take steps with respect to the scheme generally or with respect to that project. So there will be that kind of trigger in the legislation, and that is critical to ensuring that this hard cap is not breached.

Yes, there are areas of disagreement, as the minister has said. The Greens stand with the science and with the people. To get the climate crisis under control, we cannot open any new coal or gas projects. Unfortunately, the government disagrees with that, but that remains our position and we will continue to fight in the rest of this parliament to stop the other half from being opened up. We know that there are many who want them opened up, to squeeze a bit of extra profit for their billionaire shareholders before the planet goes under and our kids and our grandkids suffer. And we will stop any new coal or gas projects being opened.

But one thing I need to say to the opposition is that they don't seem to get that, as to taking action on coal and gas and ensuring that we've got a safe climate, you can do that, because it's coal and gas that are causing the climate crisis, not manufacturing and not investment in clean energy. The Greens support manufacturing and investment in clean energy. Growing manufacturing in this country and, indeed, supporting mining in critical minerals in this country are things that we all back. You can back manufacturing but tackle coal and gas, and that is what we are seeking to do.

I want to thank the minister and his staff for their long and sustained engagement that was conducted in good faith, and I echo the comments that the minister has made. I also want to take this opportunity to place on the record my thanks for my staff—in particular, Damien Lawson and Jay Tilley, as well as all my other staff—who have worked tirelessly around the clock to help deliver this important victory for the climate.

As a result of this, for the first time ever, in law, pollution from coal and gas and other corporations that are covered by this sector will not be allowed to rise, and must go down. And that is historic.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is rather a critical bit of legislation that is matching the old saying that bull can baffle brains. Surely we have just seen amendments come back from the Senate that will deliver absolute certainty to heavy industry in this country. It is certain that it won't grow—that manufacturing won't grow—because no-one will be able to afford to power manufacturing.

There are also other sinister implications for agriculture, because these amendments are limiting over a five-year period. It's just like moving the deckchairs on the Titanic. Making them net over five years will still have the same outcome. Coalmines and gas facilities will all be producing CO2 and methane. That means all the gas and mining investments that were scheduled to happen will probably not happen.

Now these people in the Greens think that is a great thing. But, unfortunately, the reality of life is: we need gas for fertilisers. We also have a lot of biological methane that will be captured under this mechanism. Bovines produce methane—everyone knows that, but that is a measure that is going to be undertaken—as well as nitrous oxide. So sayonara, fertilisers! There will be caps on dairy herds and beef herds. You name it—just about everything will be captured with these provisions. The certainty is that a lot of new investment that would have delivered much cleaner energy than a coal-fired power station—namely, in natural gas—won't happen.

We will still require gas for all those industrial processes that require huge amounts of heat, like smelting et cetera. The member for Kennedy pointed out the bleeding obvious. We still require, for everyday life in the city and the suburbs, things like concrete, aluminium, copper and all those rare earth minerals. How do you think they are mined? They are mined using fossil fuels, diesel—all that sort of stuff. It means a lot of these endeavours won't happen in Australia. They will happen over in China, India or some other place that isn't shutting down what is essential for all manufacturing: abundance of energy.

Even our cities will suffer. It's not just out in the mines that there will be decreased economies. All the food manufacturing and processing will be affected. With way cities run transport systems, all their costs will go up. The member for Fairfax has pointed out that, if the costs go up, eventually it's the consumer that pays. Trying to put it in the context of catastrophisation of climate change and thinking that Australia, by getting rid of dairy farming or capping herds of beef farms, will do anything when it's a normal biological process—but that is the intent of all this.

Agriculture will suffer. Industry will suffer. Consumers and cities that need cement, tarmac for roads, aluminium, steel—all those industries will suffer. One of the perverse outcomes is that good farming land will be bought at exorbitant prices. The new safeguard mechanism units and Australian carbon credit units will mean good food-producing and fibre-producing land will be the target for all these industrial enterprises. That is the only way they will be able to survive. I encourage anyone who's got carbon credits not to sell them to the market, because you're going to need it on your beef farm, dairy farm or anything with bovines. You will need it because you will likely be captured by these mechanisms too.

Rather than congratulating, I think the only certainty is that prices for energy will go up, land use will be perverted to unproductive food and fibre and a lot of industrial processes that happen in our country and we need for our own energy and industrial sovereignty and to protect manufacturing will go offshore. (Time expired)

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank the minister and his staff for their engagement with me and many from the crossbench in relation to our concerns around the original version of the bill. I do welcome the amendments that are coming back from the Senate. I'd like to thank the Leader of the Greens and, through him, the members of the Greens in the other place and the crossbench senators in the other place for working with you on improving this legislation. It is a sign of a mature parliament that you can have a government that is open to amendments that, in fact, improve legislation. I welcome the amendments, which include better reporting, in particular, on methane emissions, and the implementation of the Chubb review, which we saw this in this place. I also welcome the minister's commitment to a further review on methane to make sure that we address it, knowing that it is such a potent emission and gas when it comes to trapping heat. If we are really going to act upon climate change, we absolutely must be cognisant that methane is a very real and present danger.

I welcome the government also accepting that gross emissions must be capped and must come down. It's a simple fact that we can't continue to have emissions, whilst being offset, continuing to grow indefinitely. We only recently had the latest report from the IPCC, telling us that staying to 1.5 degrees is going to be incredibly difficult and we need increased ambition. So, whilst I support the minister and the government and I congratulate them for this bill and certainly have supported it, I will continue to urge the government to get more ambitious and do more, because there is a race on around the world. We saw that the US has passed the Inflation Reduction Act, which is creating a huge drive of investment and development of technology. The United Kingdom and the European Union have responded to that drive with their own legislation. I know there has been much work done already in bringing the government to attention in relation to that Inflation Reduction Act, its consequences and what must be done in Australia—in particular, when it comes to electrifying households and green hydrogen. This is so important.

Finally, I can't let this moment go past without acknowledging the comments of the member for Fairfax and others. If we talk about 'catastrophising' on consequences, there is no greater catastrophising than what is claimed the impacts of this legislation are going to be on our growth and economy and our prospects as a nation.

The race is on to be leaders in a renewable energy world, a clean world. It is not by embracing past technologies, mature technologies—the fossils of the past—that we are going to provide a future for our children and a clean and livable world.

When those comments were being made there were children in the gallery, and I'm appalled that they had to listen to that rant. When it comes to raising issues of a carbon tax, can I just say to the member for Fairfax: the previous member for Warringah found out the hard way that failing to accept the need to reduce emissions with urgency leads in only one direction, and that is out from this place. And I would say to the opposition: the message from the Australian public has been incredibly loud and clear. The science is settled. Climate change, global warming, is occurring. We must act with urgency.

There are challenges ahead, but there are opportunities. I am confident that this bill will not only address some of the need to reduce emissions but also create opportunities, and that, coupled with sensible policy, we can in fact prepare Australia and build an economy that is fit for purpose for the future, to give these children a genuine chance of the kind of life they deserve. So, if we genuinely want to safeguard their future—and I say to the children of Australia in particular: we are incredibly committed to addressing this challenge that you will face, as are so many here on the crossbench and, I hope, many on the government benches, and it would be great to hear from more in the opposition as well—it is time to break ranks; it is time to speak up on this issue.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank the minister for the engagement around this debate. I particularly would like to thank the minister and the crossbench, both here and in the other place, for engaging constructively on this issue.

I'd stepped out of question time for a little bit of time today to talk to some kids, and they asked me: 'What are you going to do about the environment?' and I said that I was going to come back here and vote for this bill. I am proud that my efforts and the efforts of the crossbench, here and in the other place, made a difference to the legislation—made it better for Australian businesses, for the environment movement and for our future.

My message is to the coalition: if you would like my seat back, then you should vote for it. If you would like her seat back, or hers, or hers, or hers, or hers, or hers, then vote for it—and also elect some women—because the business community backs this, the environmental community backs this, the Australian community backs this and the Wentworth community backs this.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.