Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to move the Australian Greens amendment circulated but seek leave to amend the amendment by removing the word ‘no’ before the phrase ‘prudent or feasible alternatives’ at the end of the amendment.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1)    Page 3 (after line 2), at the end of the bill, add:

7  Scheme Rules requirements

                 Scheme Rules must include provisions that limit the Deed of Guarantee so that it cannot be applied to borrowings relating to projects that will have a significant negative environmental impact or result in significant greenhouse gas emissions locally or internationally, and for which there are prudent or feasible alternatives.

This amendment simply provides for this parliament, which has environmental responsibility for the national and global climate, the assurance that this guarantee is not going to extend to unnecessary and massively polluting projects put forward by the states, which do not have that responsibility.

You will note that I am not saying that the polluting projects cannot proceed; I am saying that there must be no feasible or prudent alternative. I cited the Bass Coast desalination plant in Victoria, which the state Labor government is intending to proceed with as a public-private partnership. Two overseas companies-based companies will be involved there. I raise the issue: why should we be, effectively, underwriting potential borrowings by the Victorian government to put into this project when it is manifestly unnecessary? There are prudent and feasible alternatives. The Brumby government ought to be into a project to collect the rainwater falling over Melbourne and to ensure that there is much better stormwater reticulation and wastewater recycling. That aside, we are looking here at a single project which could produce a million tonnes—plus or minus a small amount—of greenhouse gases per annum.

Across the way in Tasmania is Gunns’ pulp mill. The state government there says that it is not going to offer further financing. There is an election next year, and after that election the current state Labor government in Tasmania could well be potentially disposed to breaking its promise on not having further financing of Gunns’ pulp mill—as it broke its promise at the last election that the Ralphs Bay mega canal development would not proceed. Straight after the election it went into negotiations with Walker Brothers for that very destructive and unpopular development on the eastern shore in Hobart.

Let us have a little bit of quality control here, and let us make sure that this guarantee is not extending to maverick state government projects which will have massive pollution consequences and where there are better alternatives. It is a very reasonable guarantee; it is very unspecified, but it is a very reasonable guarantee for this parliament to be putting to a federal government which effectively wants to put a blank cheque, in terms of guarantee, across to state and territory governments around the Commonwealth. We have a responsibility to be more prudent than that.