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

Another worthy interjection from Senator Pratt. I'm grateful for that brilliant intervention. The point is, the Greens weren't ever interested in seeing this modelling. They were interested in buying enough time to do a deal. While this motion was on the books, while we were having our Senate committee, there was a smoke filled room, somewhere in this building, with Greens and Labor senators, their minister and the Greens spokesperson on energy. They were setting down to work out exactly what it was they would be agreeing on, what parts of the economy they would be sacrificing, what jobs they would determine not worthy, which ones they shouldn't be looking after, and what parts of Australia could be sold out in the name of political expediency.

The Greens sold out. We know that there are members, elements, of the Greens that aren't happy. I read out in the second reading debate a tweet, from my colleague Senator McKim, which was quite inflammatory, I thought. I won't read it out here again. For those interested, go and have a look at Hansard or perhaps have a trawl through Senator McKim's Twitter feed.

I also remarked on former senator Bob Brown's resignation as a foundation life member of the Australian Conservation Foundation. Clearly, the committed environmentalists in this country are looking at what the Australian Greens are doing now and, as I've already said, they're selling out. They're compromising on their values. I made the point that former Senator Brown and I agree on not many things, other than Tasmania's a great place, but one thing I can say of him is he is a man of conviction, and one must respect that. That continues to this day, from well beyond the bounds of this chamber. He continues to let the world know what it is he believes, advocating for it, standing for it and making sure that people understand what real Greens are. He, I believe, is one of those.

Sadly, what we see today is not a replication of that. We see a Greens party that has decided, 'Let's do a deal. Let's deal ourselves into the game and get what we can, no matter what the cost.' So murky deals, backroom discussions, a Labor-Greens power-sharing agreement— whatever name you want to give it—that's what we're dealing with here now.

We saw an element of that this morning. The Australian government, the Labor Party, decided, 'We're going to punish the coalition for not signing up to our policy, even though at the election we told them we wouldn't and we told the people of Australia we wouldn't,' by denying us the capacity to debate our private senator's bill on Thursday. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, though I think that may be a little too generous.

That private senator's bill, I might add, was about developing a mechanism so the people of Australia, across the country, can see what power prices are doing and from what source energy is being generated—renewable, fossil fuels, you name it—every quarter. I'm looking forward to debating that, when we get the chance—if the Australian government sees sense and allows us to do that.

I want to come to these amendments that were cooked up in secret as a result of this dirty, dodgy deal. I want to know, from the government, when drafting instructions were first issued for these amendments. When were relevant officials tasked with these amendments? I think that's important to understand. We were given these amendments today—at the commencement of debate, in effect. That's not a long time to thumb through the 16- or 17-page additional explanatory memorandum, to understand the far-reaching impacts these changes will have let alone the bill that we've been looking at.

What consultation, what scrutiny, has occurred? I'd love to know who out there in the business community, in the ENGO part of the universe, has had a look at these. I'd love to know. The Senate is being asked to vote on this bill, so I would love to know what level of consultation has occurred and what input occurred into the backroom deal that has been done here. Fundamentally: a date, a time, and by whom and to whom these drafting instructions were issued. As a supplementary question, perhaps, I might also ask, in addition to first drafting instructions, when final drafting instructions were issued and when the amendments we now have before us at the eleventh hour, as part of this sneaky deal—you can clothe it as whatever you like, but that's what it is. You just chucked it on the table today in the hope no-one will notice and it will just rush through this week and we can all forget about it.

But I tell you what: the big reminder is going to come in just a few months time, in the depths of winter, when Australian households and businesses are opening their power bills and they're not going to be any less than what they were as a result of this or any other legislation that's been introduced by this government. We've got to remember, colleagues, it was this government that said before the election 97 times that they would reduce power bills by $275. It's also important to remember it's this government that can't actually say that number now at all, even in answer to a question that was asked last week by my good friend Senator O'Sullivan, who's not here now. He asked the minister, 'Can you say the number 275?' He refused to say it. That's how allergic to keeping promises this crowd are. As a result, power prices are going to go up.

We have bills like this driving up power prices. Bizarrely, in the same week that we have the bill that we passed yesterday for the National Reconstruction Fund, which is supposed to revitalise our manufacturing sector and create jobs, we're going to strangle the same sector by driving up the cost of doing business. One thing I'll disagree with Senator Hanson on: she said it is a carbon tax in disguise. It's not in disguise; it's in full view. It is a carbon tax. So when were drafting instructions issued first, and when were they were finally issued?