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

Again I really want to emphasise the point that there are 215 facilities. It's not as if we have thousands or millions of entities out there who would be subject to some blanket rule. This is a very targeted and specific program. This mechanism covers a specific set of entities. I congratulate those in the community—those stakeholders you talk about—that have engaged with government on the way through. That's fantastic—the roundtables, the written submissions, the granted extensions from the department. All of that sounds fantastic. But what I cannot get past is the fact that the government have not gone to the 215 facilities and said: 'Here's what we are doing. How does it impact on you?' I'm not sure that it passes any test for a government that is the custodian of our economy and of our country's economic wellbeing to say, 'Well, we put it out for consultation and they never told us that it might be harmful or, if they did, we've sort of blended in with everything else.' That is not okay—to not be able to tell the Senate specifically what might happen as a result of passing this legislation with its bolted-on dodgy deal with the Greens and to not be able to tell us what might happen for the ratepayers of the Eastern Metropolitan Region of Perth. I asked you a specific question: would you rule out that there would be rate increases? You failed to tell the people of that municipality that they won't have rate increases as a result of your safeguard mechanism, much in the same way that you failed to rule out that tickets on a V/Line train will not become more expensive as V/Line is forced to comply with your safeguard mechanism. These sorts of things are in questions, and I'm surprised the government is not prepared to answer, much the same as you weren't prepared to answer that very basic question I asked three or four times about the 215 facilities. I remind the Senate that it's 215 facilities—not 215,000, but 215—which we have had 10 months since the election to consult with.

You've talked about the in-depth extended consultation that occurred—well done, except for the fact that you didn't go and check with them about how your laws would impact on their businesses and their capacity to maintain employment. You have not guaranteed that not a single job will be shed as a result of your safeguard mechanism. You couldn't tell us, in an overall sense even, which of the 215 facilities captured by the safeguard mechanism had existing plans to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by 2030. You've acknowledged there were some that had plans, but you can't tell me which ones. I just don't understand why the government haven't gone out to properly assess the impact and model it. Maybe you have and you just don't want to tell us; I don't know. But I think the people of Australia deserve to know whether they're going to lose their jobs; whether they're going to pay more for electricity; whether, in the case of the council area I mentioned, they're going to pay more for rates; and whether V/Line ticket prices are going to go up. Indeed, they deserve to know whether you've modelled the impact of the cost going up for getting goods on freight trains, which therefore would mean more trucks going on the roads as businesses opt for road transport instead of rail. That, of course, has the perverse outcome of there being more emissions heading into the atmosphere.

This scheme, of course—as we recall, ladies and gentlemen—has been designed to bring down emissions, as we were told. That's either going to send them offshore to countries where they have no scheme like this, making us out to be very bad global citizens, or increase emissions here in Australia because these individual owner-operator truck drivers aren't going to be caught under this mechanism. This is the ridiculousness of this approach.

Indeed, Senator Hughes makes a point about the increased cost of food because of increased costs for fertiliser. We talked about the modelling that the IMF, I believe, did that talked about a one per cent increase in the costs of the inputs for fertiliser resulting in a 0.45 per cent increase in the cost of food at a time when we know people are choosing between paying rent, paying power bills, which are going to go up, and putting food on the table. It's also a time when these cost-of-living pressures are becoming acute—10 interest rate rises, a rental affordability crisis, food's more expensive, power's more expensive, and there is no attempt by the government to understand what impact the laws they're seeking to run through this place at one o'clock this afternoon will have on the pressures Australians are facing. That shows contempt for Australians and that's on top of, as I said before, the attempt to ignore the promise that was made to Australians 97 times to bring power prices down by $275. Not only have we completely erased that one in a Stalinist revisionist-type approach to rewriting history, we'll pretend it never happened and hopefully the people of Australia, by the time 2025 rolls around, will have forgotten that promise. I tell you what: we will not be letting you forget the promise you made, Labor government. We will be making sure that everyone remembers that, and we've got a great private senator's bill which we will debate at some point in the near future.

I'll go to another entity covered under the safeguard mechanism, and that's of course the Ampol refinery in Lytton, Queensland, which is certain to be impacted by the changes to the safeguard mechanism by Labor and their good friends the Australian Greens, who are big fans of business and economic activity.

According to Ampol, the cost of Labor's safeguard policy will be passed on to Australian motorists through higher fuel prices. I'd loved to know how the laws you're seeking to pass in 35 or 36 minutes will affect the fuel price. How much more can Australians expect to pay for fuel as a result of your laws and your arrangements with the Australian Greens, the backroom deal that we got the amendments from as we were commencing debate—no consultation, no chat with industry, no figuring out whether there would be an adverse impact? Again, along with the people that could lose their jobs, along with people that are paying more for train tickets, along with the people that are paying more for rates at a time when they can least afford it, I'd love to know this for every Australian that drives a car, every truck driver, every user of fuel products: how much more are fuel prices going to rise? Also, will the rises—if there's any modelling that's been done—apply evenly across all states and territories or will they be targeted to population centres? I'd be interested in that. Indeed, would there be an impact on inflation with these price rises, if they occur?

You might be able to rule them out. You might be able to tell us that Australians are going to be paying more for fuel. I'd love it if you did. I note you have not ruled out job losses, you have not ruled out rate rises, you have not ruled out increased costs for transportation like train tickets and getting goods from A to B in trucks. Maybe you can rule out an increase in the cost of fuel as a result of your safeguard mechanism changes for which you have done with a dodgy deal with the Australian Greens. If you can't rule it out, why do you think it's okay for Australians to pay more for fuel? Minister, I ask you those questions, and I'll be keen to examine some of the other amendments in the 35 minutes you've left for us to consider this bill.