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

It's a delight to be participating in this debate. Of course, the opposition won't be supporting this suspension, not because we don't deem the issue important; it is probably just not the form to have the debate. I mean, Senator Waters herself did concede that most of us haven't had the chance to read it. Some important points are made.

You've read it? Well, good on you. That's excellent. I'm pleased for you. We'll take the time to have a look at it properly and respond properly as well. But look, there are a couple of things in there that are important. I think the motion highlights them well and I'm pleased that it is here for discussion but there are elements to this that aren't considered in the motion. I was just listening to Senator Waters' contribution there and the point was made that the ordinary people of Australia, the voters who send us to this place, are the ones who are going to be paying the price and that is true, not only with the impacts of climate change but more importantly with the impacts of higher power prices, which is what you are advocating for when we talk about this carte blanche banning of coal and gas. The one thing that no-one from that corner of the chamber seems to inject into this debate is concern for those who actually are doing it tough: the businesses, the people that work in them, the households—those people who actually are struggling with increased costs of living, including through higher power prices. It is something that we actually need to deal with, and I would love it if that were in the motion. That might be something the people of Australia would like us to be dealing with. Yes, there are bits of legislation before this chamber. As the minister outlined in her contribution, there's the safeguard mechanism. It was an interesting contribution from the minister, though.

It was made clear to everyone in this chamber that the opposition will be opposing the amendments to the safeguard mechanism. As Senator Whish-Wilson pointed out by interjection earlier, it was something that the coalition bought in. It was a structure that was put in place to incentivise investments in emissions reduction through better tech, better R&D and working with big emitters to actually bring down their emissions, rather than taxing them, which is the model we have before us. We proudly say no to a model put forward by a government that is going to drive up the cost of living. It's not right for the minister to say: 'You don't come here to contribute to legislation. You're dealing yourself out of the game.' The reality is that we're happy to work with anyone who comes forward with a good idea. Bad ones should be scrapped. Come forward with something better and we'll work with you on that. You can't just come in here and say, 'It's our way or the highway.'

You might start by providing us the modelling—the modelling that everyone in this chamber except for the Australian Labor Party wants the world to see. Every senator in this place, every party, wants the government to table the information we're expected to trust them on, which is the basis for the legislation they claim is going to fix climate change in this country. They've refused on numerous occasions to provide the Senate with that information. I hope they come to their senses because, if they don't, it's going to be them preventing the world from dealing with climate change in this country. As they put it, if this bill doesn't pass we've lost the one opportunity to deal with this issue. Show us the modelling. If it's good modelling and it actually speaks to what the government says the bill will do—the impact it will have on emissions reduction, availability of carbon credits, the cost of living and power prices—show us the modelling. What is there to hide? There hasn't even been the offer of a private briefing. That wouldn't be good enough, in my books, but not even that has been offered to give senators, who will be asked to vote on this legislation, the opportunity to see this and make a decision.

I come back to the points in Senator Waters's motion. There is reference to the UN Secretary-General's comments. I did see some interviews taking place this morning. A scientist from the ANU who works in the area of climate change characterised the Secretary-General's take on the report as fairly flourished, with a lot of emotion in it, and he had a slightly more tempered view on that. He also referenced the multiple tools that are available to governments to deal with these things, including investments in technology to reduce emissions, which is something I talked about before. It's something the coalition has a proud track record of. We've been characterised most unfairly and incorrectly by the government and others in this chamber. We're proud of our record and the investments we have made in renewables and our plan to reduce emissions. We're not going to do it by making Australians pay through the nose, keep the heaters off in winter, not be able to turn the lights on and not able to open their businesses. It's the wrong way to do it, and we won't be supporting this suspension.