Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, there seems to be a really high degree of confusion about the CPRS and the RET. In my view, that was caused by the government coupling the legislation in the first place. Out in rural and regional Australia people were looking at the combined impact and trying to understand what it would mean if they went together and so on, and that led to the high level of confusion. Now that they are decoupled and there is no CPRS, we are just talking about the impact of a renewable energy target price.

I am also interested in the fact that the coalition, in its negotiations with the government, reached an agreement with the government that it would support the government’s legislation in exchange for certain concessions. It is very clear to me, from what has happened here, that the coalition dropped all its other demands to get specific demands on the big emitters, particularly the aluminium sector. They got what they wanted for aluminium and dropped support for emerging technologies. They ought to be under no illusion that anybody out there is not aware that they dumped solar thermal, geothermal and wave.

The industry understands that Senator Abetz has withdrawn all the opposition amendments. I am interested in why the National Party, as part of the coalition, did not insist on them and instead preferred to get outcomes for the aluminium rather than the farming sector. The coalition withdrew every amendment but this one. This is clearly a concession to the National Party, a grandstand, because they did not fight for it. It is not part of the deal. This did not get up for the National Party. The coalition decided to support the bill, dump this amendment and get a concession, some form of words about a reference to the Productivity Commission. That is the reality, and I think that anyone who does not see it that way, who cannot see that when push came to shove they preferred aluminium and coal gas to the dairy industry—