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

I want to reflect on a couple of the answers given by the minister in the debate so far. I think Senator Canavan asked some very important questions, not dissimilar to the questions I asked, around what modelling has been undertaken on the impact that a 75 per cent reduction in emissions would have on power prices. I did not get an answer to this question, because apparently it's not worth answering, and we don't need to be accountable on those sorts of suggestions.

Not from you, Senator McAllister, but from the leader of the Australian Greens. I don't think it is right that an answer was not given to Senator Canavan around the $275 promise made by the Australian government nearly 100 times in the lead-up to the election. In the answer you gave, you made no reference to that promise at all; you just talked about downward pressure. I don't think it is unfair for us to ask—on behalf of the Australian people, some of whom are in the gallery today—whether that promise is going to be delivered. Is the $275 figure, which was specified nearly 100 times in the lead-up to 21 May, going to be delivered as a result of all of this? I think a direct answer on that would be good.

If I can go to the matter of lawfare and the issues Senator McKenzie raised that have also been touched on by Senator Pocock—you have provided some response to that, as well. I note in your answer you gave to Senator McKenzie you talked about how the legislation here takes on a different form to that of legislation passed in other countries; I presume the United Kingdom, Germany and France. I am interested that, regardless of the form of legislation, the end result is a target enshrined in legislation, which is what we will have here. At the end of the passage of this bill, 43 per cent will exist in legislation. What analysis or advice was considered in the development of the government's view on this issue that it will not pave the way to greater lawfare? We heard only earlier this week—it might have been Monday—the Greens environment spokesperson say:

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

That was a direct quote from Senator Hanson-Young. They're upfront, they're open and they're honest about it, and that is the position they are going to take. This bill will pass, but there's a guarantee that, should new coal and gas projects be opened up, the wars are still on. What advice or analysis, based on the legislation that has been drafted, was considered—are you able to take us through that?—in order to back the guarantee you put in place before, given the legislation here in Australia we are currently debating in this Senate is in a different form to that of legislation passed through other jurisdictions and put in place? If you can't provide that guarantee, I think it will just end up as a matter before the courts and we will see perhaps a torrent of legal action.

The Wilderness Society, along with other organisations who are defenders of the environment, as they say, suggest there's not going to be an issue, 'Don't worry; this will not pave the way to greater lawfare.' The point has been made that these things already happen. AFPA, the Australian Forest Products Association, a great organisation, weren't waving away concerns that this might pave the way to greater lawfare. The fact that it already happens is not a good reason to give those who seek to cause these issues a bigger platform to stand on. To that end I think we need to take seriously these concerns and provide a guarantee, so we have some sort of intent expressed on behalf of the government, around what it is that this law should and should not enable to happen.

In terms of overseas examples I turn to the United Kingdom and specifically the case of the Transport Action Network, who took action against the UK Secretary of State for Transport and the Highways England company. In referring to this case, in the statements of facts and the grounds for the case the Transport Action Network stated that the UK Secretary of State for Transport failed to take account of the impact of the UK government's Road Investment Strategy 2 on achieving specific climate change objectives, in particular the carbon budgets that were set by the government pursuant to section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008 and the targets set by section 1 of the Climate Change Act for the net UK carbon account to be zero by 2050.

At least the second of those elements sounds pretty similar where we're going to end up, bar the detail of the specific number, after the passage of this legislation. According to the Transport Action Network in their case, new road infrastructure projects result in the loss of vegetation and of soils. There's embodied carbon in concrete, asphalt and raw materials which lead to higher vehicle speeds over time. It also allows for more traffic. So given that sort of case that has been presented in the United Kingdom, on the basis of the facts I've just read out to you, what guarantee can you give us? Again, you made a statement earlier suggesting that, because the legislation here takes a different form, we won't have the same issues they have had in the United Kingdom, putting to one side the cases we've seen in France and Germany, where we have the judiciary directing the legislature and the executive on how to deal with carbon emissions and laws around that place.

So I'd be keen to understand that, on behalf of those people we are enacting these laws on behalf of. Again: power prices, the $275—a direct answer on that—and 'lawfare', what guarantees exist from the government around what is going to happen once these laws are passed.

Finally: sadly, this is what happens when we guillotine debate. The coalition would happily sit here tonight until this debate is exhausted. Instead, we are dealing with one of their signature pieces of legislation in a couple of hours. All these amendments—on which many of the crossbenchers aren't going to be able to speak, because of the fact that time is running out—this is what happens in this brave new world of Labor-Greens politics: we've guillotined the debate.