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

I'm happy to continue to reflect on the past if we need to, including those promises that will never be honoured. I note that you didn't actually confirm that it was still the government's intention to honour its promise to reduce power bills for every Australian household by $275. I'll take that and bank it, and we'll talk about it at a future opportunity in this place. I note also that you didn't rule out expanding the safeguard mechanism to include scope 3 emissions. You've talked about what this bill does. My question was around intent. I think it's good to understand exactly what it is government seeks to do over time as parliament agrees to a certain set of rules and laws and amendments.

Just on that, you talked about us not engaging with and saying no to something before we even had the chance to look at it. Well, the problem is: you tabled the blasted amendments within about three nanoseconds of debate commencing. This is not a transparent, genuine and good faith debate. This is a stitch-up between two political parties—the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens. We know, generally speaking, when the Greens get their hands on the levers of power, bad things happen. When they get close to the economic powerhouse of our country, they turn the power down. They actually want the economy to tank. Their policies never generate good outcomes for households, for businesses or for the economy as a whole. So forgive us for being sceptical about your dodgy deal and saying no to the amendments that you tabled within three nanoseconds of debate beginning. That's not good government. For anyone who might happen to be listening, or who is one day reading the Hansard, this is not the standard that people require of a government, but it is the one that is now being set.

Just reflecting on the policy we set up in 2016, the safeguard mechanism: this is nothing like what we established. This is materially altering it, which is why we are opposing the nature of what you're putting in here. So I'll ask one more time: will the government rule out expanding the safeguard mechanism to include scope 3 emissions?