Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

I will proceed. I am just conscious that Senator Roberts has sought the call a couple of times. It may be that he seeks to remind me that he asked me a question about net zero, and I thought one of the things I could do in this contribution would be to respond to that question.

But first I will step through the amendments that Senator Pocock foreshadowed in his earlier contribution and indicate that the government will not be supporting these amendments. Amendment (1) on sheet 1619 is the amendment that goes to scope 3 emissions. We do not support this amendment, because our plan is focused on the framework set out by the Paris Agreement, and that agreement sets out obligations to reduce Australia's emissions.

The second amendment on sheet 1619 asks the Climate Change Authority to explain how it has taken into account best available scientific knowledge in preparing advice. We essentially do not support this change, because we consider it redundant. I should clarify, though, that—unlike the previous government—we are in no way afraid of science or scientists or independent advice. We've already amended the bill in the other places to reference the best available science. It's in the objects clause. The objects clause also makes explicit reference to article 2 of the Paris Agreement. That includes the global temperature goals, which are science based. For that reason, we do not support further amendments to duplicate the existing provisions of this bill. However, as I indicated earlier, we support some of the other amendments moved by Senator Pocock that are before the chair.

I think they're both of the matters that are dealt with on sheet 1619. Senator Duniam asks that I step through the legal advice. I think Senator Duniam will appreciate that it is not common practice for governments to make explicit or public the legal advice that they rely upon. But I can perhaps provide some information. The purpose of the legislation is to create a framework for private sector investment and to provide policy certainty. We have canvassed this already, and that is what business tell us that they need. The bill's development was informed by legal advice, including regarding potential litigation risks. Neither bill limits, constrains or directs how the government's policies are set or how the government would consider approving new resource or infrastructure projects, and the bills impose no legal obligation on any minister to make decisions on such projects in a certain way. It's on that basis that the department's advice was that there is no reason to expect that this bill will result in increased successful litigation.

Jurisdictions like Canada, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Mexico, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK and Victoria, where similar legislation—but not the same legislation—already exists have not seen an increase in successful litigation against the government. But they have seen increased investment and reduced emissions. That is part of the reason the government supports the bill as international best practice.

Finally, Senator Roberts asked about what net zero emissions means. Perhaps the best thing to do, Senator Roberts, is refer you to article 4 of the Paris Agreement, which talks about that. It says 'to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases'. What that really means is a balance between sources and sinks.