Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Hansard source

In terms of some technical issues, we put on the record yesterday our view about the best way to deal with these issues, and I set out the provisions in the act which enable the basin plan to deal with the assessment of interception activities such as mining. I pointed to the sections of the existing act which enabled that to occur. We do think the amendment represents some improvement in terms of one of the technical issues that I raised. We retain concerns particularly in relation to amendment (2), which I understand has not been moved. We do retain concerns generally about the constitutional validity of the second part of the original amendment.

I want to make a broader point about what is happening here, in two parts. First, when this amendment was first supported by the National Party—and I notice, Senator Brown, that yesterday you had a lot of friends on your right, on the opposition benches, who are noticeably absent from the chamber now—I wondered whether Senator Nash and others had actually consulted with their Liberal Party colleagues, particularly from mining states, and the shadow resources minister. I wonder whether overnight they have worked out they have got a problem and now they are moving an amendment and clearly reneging on an arrangement they had, from what Senator Brown said, with the Greens.

More broadly, what we have seen is that the historic coalition between the Greens and the Liberal and National parties that the shadow minister spoke about yesterday was historic in part for its briefness. Less than 24 hours later, we see that there is already a breach of what was agreed yesterday, certainly a change in position. People can make their own judgement, but I suggest that this brief and historic coalition was good for the Liberal Party to try and get them on television looking a little bit green for a period of time but actually does not deliver very much at all, other than good pictures. It remains our view that those on the other side are not interested, from what they have said in here, in behaving in relation to this bill in a way that recognises their own leader’s position in the past, and I assume now, and the responsibility to act on these future challenges.

I assume that we will separately debate the second amendment. We have been consistent, and Senator Brown has also been consistent. We think this is an important issue, but we do believe the best way to approach it is the way I outlined yesterday. I will not re-traverse those arguments.