Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope so. Minister, there was a lot of rhetoric around that last answer, particularly invoking the entire nation of farmers and primary producers as somehow only supporting the Labor Party. We in the National Party and rural and regional Liberal members have been very, very public about supporting industries' goals for zero emissions. The cattle industry made a decision, without a government mandate, to move towards a net zero position for the beef industry by 2030—knock themselves out. What we're discussing here in this chamber today is the government legislating it. For you to stand up and make out that we don't accept that the Australian people voted for you to have the right to change our nationally determined contributions to 43 per cent by 2030, on a pathway to net zero by 2050—they did. You have that right. You changed the document. What we're discussing here is not climate change action or no climate change action. What we're actually talking about is legislating a target and what implications that has for our communities and our people—above symbolism.

One of the questions that the farming community does raise is—they are very concerned, particularly the cattle industry and the livestock industry more generally—by legislating this target, are we going to see the Albanese government sign up to the global methane pledge? That is a significant issue. You make out like they're all singing kumbaya with the Labor Party. They're not. They are great stewards of their land. They tread lightly. They were conservationists before you all thought it was a thing, because they are intergenerationally linked with their environment and they care for it. They take is seriously. But they did not sign up to the UN methane pledge. I am very, very interested in whether this government is going to make our nation head down that path. I want you to rule that out. On behalf of Australia's livestock industry, I want you to guarantee that you won't.

I'm also the shadow minister for infrastructure, transport and regional development. One of my roles is to look after Infrastructure Australia, one of the14 agencies that legislating a target will actually be captured into. They will now have to assess infrastructure projects in this country according to this target. I had severe concerns when I was legitimately asking these questions—so I could understand it—of the agencies before the Senate inquiry: 'What's going to be the impact of legislating this target?' Was it going to be negative? Was it going to be positive? What is it going to mean for the list that you give to the infrastructure minister? Does it mean that rail, road and bridge projects in rural and regional Australia are going to fall down the list, because public transport projects in Sydney and Melbourne are going to suddenly go up the list, because of legislating this target?' I have severe concerns about that. You know what? They couldn't answer the question. They had no idea how they were going to do it. They couldn't actually tell the Senate what the impact of this legislation would be on their decisions and, therefore, on the infrastructure projects that are going to be delivered across our nation—$120 billion worth of spend. They didn't have a clue. Minister, I hope you've got a clue. I hope you can enlighten me on that.

The third issue and question I have is around the concerns about increased vexatious green lawfare as a result of legislating, not as a result of your right to go and change our nationally determined contribution. Forty-three per cent by 2030—knock yourselves out with a suite of policies to get there. We will hold you to account on the way. What we've seen in Germany and what we've seen in the UK is that there has then been a slew of organisations—environmental defenders office, friends of the Earth—taking federal governments to court about much needed projects, like the third runway at Heathrow. They're holding that project up. It's defeated. It can go. It can stop. It can start. It can stop.

I note the finance minister is in the chamber and she is very concerned about how we actually maintain our productivity as a nation going forward if we aren't going to be investing in these types of infrastructure projects, which is how we're actually going to drive our productivity across our economy. Yet today we are looking at legislating a target which is going to increase lawfare.

In the Senate inquiry we asked every single one of those NGOs: 'In legislating this target will you guarantee you won't be taking the Albanese government to court? Do you guarantee you won't be taking any future federal government to court as a result of legislating the target?' You know what, Senator Duniam, Senator Canavan? No, they wouldn't rule it out. They can't wait to take you to court on every single infrastructure project that will come under this bill. Recognising that you have a mandate for a 43 per cent target is not the same as baking it in to the way we run this joint and planning projects for the future so that they are not held up in court, so they are not blowing out the time lines for critical nation-building infrastructure—Inland Rail, airport runways in Melbourne, which will be critical to driving our critical infrastructure going forward—and we should all be bipartisan about that. They refused to rule it out.

Minister, three questions: The methane pledge, the methodology which the 14 agencies you are going to be make their assessment subjected to this legislated requirement, how are they going to do it? What impacts will that have for rural and regional Australians and for infrastructure in our communities? What are you going to do when the Friends of the Earth come for you, just like they have in other jurisdictions that have chosen this path, that have chosen to seek grandstanding symbolism over actual action on climate change? You don't need a legislated target; you can just get on with the job. Stop talking about it; get on with the job. As this will probably be my final contribution to this debate—

Thank you, Senator Gallagher. I would really encourage the government, as they head into their ERC process for budget, to be serious about supporting the regions, keeping the programs and projects that we handed down in the March budget—the additional $20 billion—that were specifically to support these communities on their journey to net zero, to not only seize the opportunities but importantly to overcome the challenges that are coming their way, and you are naive if you think that's not happening.