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

As we get into our perhaps 16th hour of debate on the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023, I thought it might be a good opportunity for a bit of a recap on where we're at. But I have to commence by paying tribute to this minister and how well she's done over the course of now six or seven days of debate on a bill—hung out to dry by an incompetent government. The government could have avoided all of this, but instead they've sent their minister out to man the port and make sure that everything is in order. Unfortunately, though, it has been one of the most unfortunate displays of incompetence by any government. They have the numbers in this place yet can't move a bill through, because of incompetence colliding with intransigence. We've had a full week of debate on what I think is one of the most innocuous bills we've ever seen before this place.

Reflecting on the debate on this amendment, which the opposition won't be supporting, it was interesting to note some of the comments made by the Australian Greens. They acknowledged in their questions the fact that perhaps other countries don't have standards that match our own when it comes to management of the environment, management of carbon emissions and management of things like CCS and CCUS. It was quite the startling revelation, because every time I say that in the context of any debate relating to the environment I get pooh-poohed. But it was great to hear them express concern that perhaps other jurisdictions aren't quite up to the same mark that we are when it comes to regulatory arrangements around the environment, so I welcome that development, and I look forward to making sure that claim is repeated down the track when we debate other issues of a similar nature.

It was also great to hear pointed out by the Greens political party the point around there being two narratives that are run here around what the government does. I think that is a fair point to make. I think they do say one thing to one group of people and then say something else to another. This does bring that home. A week-long justification of what they're doing here does rather expose what they're up to.

Why are we here again? It's because the Australian Labor Party, in partnership with the Greens political party, teamed up to pass legislation called the safeguard mechanism, which was disastrous for industry. It was built to force heavy emitters into paying a penalty if they couldn't reduce their emissions or access credits. It would have driven business offshore, along with the jobs and the emissions. We established that fact. It was ignored. The bill passed in this stitch-up we talked about on the first day of debate of this bill. They've come back with this legislation, which is necessary to assist some businesses to be able to continue to operate here at world's best standard, not going offshore, as was acknowledged by the Greens, to do business somewhere else, which is worse for the environment. That's why we support this legislation. But, as I said before, we are here because of incompetence colliding with intransigence. A modest request made by a party that could have facilitated the passage of this bill probably within half a day was ignored, because heaven forbid we have an inquiry in a references committee to look at a matter that is of importance to many people across Australia!

We've had close to 16 hours of debate on this legislation. Just for context, I will list bills that haven't quite made the 16-hour mark. The National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, a significant, hallmark piece of legislation and an important part of the Labor Party's policy, had 12 hours and 13 minutes of debate. The Family Law Amendment Bill 2023 had 11 hours and 11 minutes of debate. The Climate Change Bill 2022 had 10 hours and 48 minutes of debate. The Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Repeal of Cashless Debit Card and Other Measures) Bill 2022 had 10 hours and 45 minutes of debate. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023—we hear a lot about that one; it's a massive part of their agenda—had eight hours and 59 minutes of debate. The Aged Care and Other Legislation Amendment (Royal Commission Response) Bill had seven hours and 38 minutes of debate. The debate on the legislation around the National Anti-Corruption Commission was only five hours.

There are only a couple of bills in this parliament that have sustained debate longer than this one. I remind anyone who happens to ever read the Hansard or who is listening to the debate right now that this is a bill that had the support of the overwhelming majority of senators in this place but didn't progress, because of the government's incompetence and intransigence. One of the bills that had a longer debate was the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023. It was a pretty significant piece of legislation, warranting a lengthy debate. That had 24 hours and nine minutes of debate. That makes sense to me. The debate on the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill went on for 17 hours and 40 minutes. Again, that was an important piece of legislation and a big part of the government's agenda, and very different to the bill we're dealing with here. So, again, it's odd that we are up to roughly 16 hours. We talked earlier about the safeguard mechanism bill, which I believe will be disastrous for the economy. It had 17 hours and 30 minutes of debate. And here we are, on something that the majority of people in this place support and will back in.

Anyway, it is what it is. I think it is further demonstration of the incompetence of this government. Their inability to manage to secure the numbers for fast passage of pretty straightforward legislation speaks volumes for where we're at, particularly when it comes to the environment portfolio. I won't go back through the problems the government is having with reforms to the EPBC Act—the fact that they're 18 months behind. I suspect we won't see any reforms relating to those laws pass this parliament this side of an election. The Nature Repair Market Bill is off on the never-never. The committee won't report back to this place until April of this year. Heaven knows how the government will respond. We probably won't deal with the standalone cultural heritage legislation before the next election. All these things are incredibly important, but now, like this, because of incompetence, we won't get anywhere. As I said, the opposition won't support this amendment, and we just hope the bill will pass sometime soon.