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

Following that which the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has characterised, it's my opportunity to put on record the coalition's position on this. As has already been pointed out, having had the opportunity in the last sitting fortnight to examine such matters instead of others, we now have this being considered an urgent piece of legislation. That is passing strange, given what this legislation actually does. I think it's important to reiterate points made in the other place by the Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Ted O'Brien, which is that this legislation is bad legislation and reflects bad policy. How this legislation is characterised by those opposite and those who supported it is misleading to those in the community calling for action on climate. Indeed, the actual impact this legislation will have on the matter around climate change, on carbon emissions and the amount of which there is in the atmosphere, is also misleading.

As we consider the legislation that the Labor government has brought in, it's also important to consider that with the promise of legislating an emissions reduction target of 43 per cent—which we oppose legislating—there was another promise made, and that was around cutting the cost of electricity for Australian households and Australian businesses. It was a promise that, as soon as we arrived here to start conducting business on the first day of this 47th Parliament, was abandoned. It was $275 a year by the year 2025, something pledged 97 times in the lead-up to the election and not mentioned once since. There were two promises. One was a target of emissions reduction being legislated—and the government is delivering on that promise by legislating it. It is something we said we would not do and, therefore, oppose enshrining in legislation for reasons I will outline shortly. Another promise was made concurrently, and has been abandoned—completely wiped off the books, as if no-one will notice.

Today of all days, when the Reserve Bank of Australia will no doubt hand down a decision that will spell out further pain for Australian households when it comes to their monthly budgets—mortgage rates going up, power prices going up, fuel and all of those prices going up—we are instead focusing on legislating a target to reduce emissions which, frankly speaking, won't do what those opposite say it will. So it does really demonstrate the priorities of this government and how close they are to the dining table conversations and the living room conversations that are taking place out there in Australia. I'm pretty sure that households, universally, are talking about the impact that power prices and fuel prices are having on their weekly budget, and they want a government to act on those things. But, instead, here we are, in this first proper sitting week where we can deal with business, talking about this issue. As I say, that broken promise around not dealing with power prices but instead dealing only with a reduction in emissions being enshrined in legislation is going to be extremely evident to all as time marches on. Every time people look at this legislation and the debate that's taking place, they will be reminded of it. It is very telling that Labor have abandoned that promise, and, in doing so, have abandoned most of Australia—the people who are going to struggle with those bills. We know that, as of June this year, power prices were $208 higher than they were in the same month last year. And, of course, it's going to get much worse.

It's also important to point out a couple of the points that were made by my colleague in the other place Ted O'Brien, the member for Fairfax and shadow minister for energy, who said that this bill isn't needed at all. And it's a point that was actually made by the relevant minister, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister Bowen, who said, 'We do not need it,' referring to this legislation, and, 'We've also been clear that this legislation is not required'—points made by the government themselves in relation to the necessity or otherwise of introducing this bill. It's symbolic; it's tokenistic. In an interview yesterday the point was made by the Greens environment spokesperson that this is purely symbolic; it doesn't actually do anything, at least insofar as the primary bill is concerned.

So, that being the case—not needing to enshrine it—why are we doing this? There are a lot of things that this bill doesn't do. Sadly, one of the things it doesn't do is end green lawfare. Only yesterday in the Australian Financial Review, we saw that the Australian Greens said that the 43 per cent target being enshrined in legislation won't end climate wars. Again, I refer to the comments of the Greens environment spokesperson, Senator Hanson-Young, who said:

The climate wars will not end this week with the passage of Labor's climate bill—

which is something we were promised would happen; we were going to end the climate wars—

so long as they keep approving new coal and gas.

So there's another thing this bill doesn't do. It doesn't reduce emissions, it doesn't end the climate wars, and it doesn't bring down power prices—in fact, quite the opposite, I expect.

Having looked at those things this bill doesn't do, despite promises made before the election and promises made during this debate, let's look at some of the things it does do. A great place to start in looking at some of these issues is the dissenting report handed down by coalition senators on the Senate inquiry into this bill. I think it's pretty important to note that this bill and the consequential amendments bill will be pretty damaging when it comes to the economy and particularly regional Australia. It's going to have a massively adverse impact on jobs, on infrastructure, on major projects, on national security, on the wellbeing of rural and regional communities, and even on the day-to-day existence of many Australians—on household budgets, like we were talking about before.

It's important to point out also that the government, in drafting this legislation, have patently ignored the experience of other jurisdictions that have gone on to legislate emissions reduction targets. You only have to look at Europe to see what has happened there—and there are a range of examples, again, outlined in the coalition senators' dissenting report to the committee inquiry. In the United Kingdom, we've seen a range of critical infrastructure projects either delayed or completely blocked because of green lawfare. It's something we knew would happen. We predicted this, and we are warning Australians that, when this bill passes, it is going to be a green light for this sort of activity. In the UK, crucial projects like their HS2, their high-speed rail network, have been delayed because of legislated emissions reductions targets. Major road projects have been delayed. The third runway at Heathrow Airport has been delayed for years because of enshrined legislated targets for emissions reduction.

In France, of course, their sovereign government is being told by one of their courts that they will be subject to penalties if they don't take necessary measures on climate change by the end of 2022. So we have the judiciary telling the legislature and the executive what to do. And it's no different in Germany. In April last year, German courts ordered the government to increase its emissions reductions targets. So you've got courts—who are not elected, as far as I am aware, by the people—telling those elected by the people what to do. This is the by-product of legislating these targets, and this is why the coalition has sounded the alarm bell and opposes these moves.

Another telling factor in this debate is the fact that no modelling was actually undertaken by government departments in preparation for the introduction of this legislation, one of the signature promises by the Labor government, alongside that $275 power price reduction that was promised but abandoned—no modelling. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and also the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water each testified, and, astonishingly, neither of those departments were asked to do any modelling on the impacts on rural and regional Australia or the economy. What a revelation! That's unbelievable. Indeed, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was not even formally consulted on the consequential amendments bill prior to its introduction—that was evidence tendered at the committee hearing.

Infrastructure Australia has also admitted to the committee that it could not yet even explain the consequences of the two bills and how they should make decisions when trying to balance environmental and economic impacts. That is something I think Australians expect us to do—to maintain balance between the economy and the environment, because, of course, we need a functioning economy, as well as a healthy environment, to live. And, of course, there is the entity Export Finance Australia, who is certain to struggle now when it comes to its vital work in supporting projects in countries right across the Pacific, something we as a nation have a responsibility to do. And the same could be said of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility too.

So, with that little amount of work done, there has been no consultation, no regard for unintended consequences and no concern for the people of rural and regional Australia—who will likely bear the brunt of these enshrined targets and the increased cost of living and the impact on jobs and the economy—and, perhaps, people who will be forced into energy poverty as power prices continue to skyrocket. Again, I remind senators and those listening of the broken promise to reduce power prices by $275 annually by 2025, a promise broken so early in the term.

Of course, there are other considerations related to the government's response to managing the environment, such as the 30 per cent of land locked up by 2030. How are they going to do it? What are they going to do to assist in reaching these enshrined targets? What impact will that have on farmers and other land users? How are they going to manage these commitments they have made and the impacts that they will then have on Australians seeking to make an honest dollar to pay their bills—the bills that are going up? These things have not been considered at all. In relation to this land lock-up proposal, the National Farmers Federation president, Fiona Simson, said:

Locking up land is not the answer. It has the potential to have the reverse effect on biodiversity, with a lack of land management allowing feral animals and plants to flourish, as well as heightening the risks from fire, drought and flood.

We know fires are a major contributor to carbon emissions, so we need to consider these things, which I just don't think the government have done.

As was stated in the other place by the member for Fremantle, the government have made it very clear: this is the beginning and not the end. And that, I think, is an important note for us to hover on. I have outlined my concerns and the opposition's concerns around this legislation. The government say: 'It's just targets. It's just targets in legislation. Don't worry; it will be okay.' We've heard about other jurisdictions where targets are enshrined in legislation, and we know what impact that has. They're not made-up examples. They happened. There are courts ordering governments to do things which were not part of a mandate, which have not been tested by the people of those countries. They are things being forced on governments. They have an impact on the cost of living—something we should all be concerned about. There has not been much debate in here about this. The government hasn't brought forward legislation to deal with those issues. Singularly, we are dealing with this: enshrining in legislation targets to reduce emissions.

So, as the member for Fremantle said, this is the beginning, not the end. What's next? Where do we go from here? When do we start striking a balance with concern for people's ability to pay their power bills, which are going up in my home state of Tasmania—a 12 per cent increase in one hit? And we're a renewable energy generator in Tasmania. Hydro, wind, solar: that's what we rely on down there, but we've got a 12 per cent increase. Where does it end? Where do the targets end?

You only have to look at other policy and legislative proposals being considered around, say, the safeguards mechanism. I'd love to hear the government provide a guarantee that not one job will be lost in some of those emissions-intensive trade-exposed industries, some of those emitters across the country, particularly in rural and regional communities. In northern Tasmania we have five or six of them that cumulatively employ 2,000 people. I'd love a commitment that not one job will be lost, but I don't think we will get that. I think there will be a focus on bringing down emissions with no regard for the economy, with no regard for those jobs and, indeed, as I've outlined here, with no regard for what impact this will have on Australian households—on their ability to pay their bills, to keep the lights on, to keep warm in winter in places like Tasmania, to keep food on the table. This bill, sadly, is worse than it seems—both these bills—and I warn senators to consider carefully before they cast their vote. We will oppose this bill.