David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The committee is considering the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2023 and amendments (1) to (14) on sheet SK147, moved by Senator McAllister. The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

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

I seek further information around some specific entities, noting that there are only 215 facilities caught under this mechanism. I do this in pursuit of clarity around what impact the safeguard mechanism and the dodgy deal that's been struck between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens will have on the cost of living and the cost of doing business. I'm trying to understand what is characterised as being this unbelievably difficult task to get to the bottom of, to go and ask these 215 facilities exactly what impact their legislation and the dodgy deal will have on these facilities and the people who do business with them or rely on their services or pay a fee for that service.

I turn to the state of Western Australia now. In particular, I'm talking about the Red Hill Waste Management Facility, which provides waste disposal services to residents in Perth's eastern region. Under the government's changes to the mechanism, this entity—like V/Line and some of the other businesses or facilities we've talked about—will be forced to reduce its emissions by 4.9 per cent per year. I'm wondering whether there's been any interaction between the government and the East Metropolitan Regional Council about how this facility will work to meet Labor's targets and any other flow-on implications out of the dodgy deals struck between Labor and the Greens.

We've heard about the in-depth and extended consultation between the government and these entities affected. I'm wondering, based on this lengthy extended consultation, what the impact is, how it's quantified, whether there'll be, as a flow-on from that, an increase to the rates that are paid in this municipality as a result of this dodgy deal with the Greens. If you can't tell us, can you at least guarantee that there won't be a rate rise as a result of increased costs for the management of the Red Hill Waste Management Facility?

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have talked at length about the consultation process, and thank you for acknowledging the work that went into offering stakeholders an opportunity to contribute. As I've explained to you already, the purpose of the consultation was to understand the design parameters for the government's scheme. It wasn't to elicit detailed information from businesses about their business intentions in running their businesses; it was to ask them how they believe such a scheme should be constructed.

As I have indicated previously, it was extensive. Stakeholders were invited to respond to a consultation paper that was released back in August 2022. That paper sought feedback, appropriately, from anyone who wished to provide it, including covered entities, on matters including the share of the national abatement task, the scale and rate of change in that sector, how the safeguard mechanism baselines are set, crediting and trading, the role of domestic offsets and international units, the treatment of emissions-intensive trade-exposed businesses, how to take account of available and emerging technologies, and indicative baseline decline rates.

A public online information session was held on 31 August, in that same year, to outline key elements of the consultation paper. A recording of that was made available on the department's website shortly after, and about 220 people registered for that webinar. There were five in-person round tables around the country.

Invites were sent to stakeholders in safeguard covered sectors, including transport, resources, aviation, minerals and cement, government agencies, consultancies, carbon market advisories, environmental non-government organisations, think tanks, academia, financial services, industry groups, unions and First Nations groups.

Round tables were attended by approximately 140 people. Submissions were open on that consultation until 20 September. The department granted extensions to all stakeholders who requested one and over 240 submissions were received, and all of the non-confidential submissions were published.

After that, in October, exposure draft legislation was released for public comment. Submissions were open on that until 28 October 2022. Again, the department granted extensions until November 2022. Fifty-five submissions were received, and again the non-confidential submissions were published. There was then a position paper in January on the proposed design and supporting exposure draft legislation. The position paper outlined the proposed design of the reforms, including the share of the national emissions target that safeguard facilities will deliver; the framework for setting baselines for existing and new facilities, including the rate of decline; arrangements for issuing credits; access to flexible compliance options, including access to credits, offsets, banking and borrowing arrangements; multiyear monitoring periods; a cost containment measure; and tailored treatment for emissions-intensive trade-exposed facilities.

The draft National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Safeguard Mechanism) Amendment (Reforms) Rule 2023 implements the mechanism as was set out in that paper. Key provisions include the baseline-setting arrangements for existing and new facilities; declining baselines over time so that safeguard facilities contribute a proportional share of the national emissions reduction task, flexible compliance options, including below-baseline crediting; interactions with ACCU projects; and tailored treatment for trade-exposed facilities. The draft Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment (No. 2) Rules 2023 prevent new government contracts for purchase of ACCUs from projects that solely credit abatement of covered emissions from safeguard facilities. They also enable the proposed cost containment measure by allowing the regulator to sell ACCUs.

There was then a public information session on 19 January to outline the key elements of the consultation paper. Again, a recording was made of that and placed on the department's website. Around 790 people registered for the webinar, and approximately 640 joined. There were then further in-person roundtables to provide a forum for discussion. Again, invites were sent to stakeholders in the covered sectors, government agencies, consultancies, carbon market advisories, environment and non-government organisations, think tanks and academia, financial services, industry groups, unions and First Nations groups. These roundtables were attended by 140 people. Submissions were open on this round of consultation until 24 February 2023, and the department again granted extensions until 28 February to all stakeholders who requested one. Over 280 submissions were received, and all non-confidential submissions were published on the department's website.

I ran through that again, Senator, because the purpose of this was to gain feedback about the mechanisms. It was not to obtain a record of all the decisions expected to be undertaken by businesses, but, where businesses provided information, it was incorporated into the design of the reforms that are before us now. We've canvassed a number of examples of changes that have been made over the course of this consultation period as a response to the feedback that was provided to us by stakeholders. You're asking for something quite different, which is specific analysis about the specific impact on a specific business. It's not the case that government consultation goes down that path. Our role is to establish a framework, which incidentally has been called for for a long time by leading business organisations because of the certainty that is required for people to take investment decisions. That's our role, and the purpose of the consultation was to seek feedback about the approach we proposed. We're confident that the very detailed and extensive consultation that occurred, as I've just set out to you now, was effective in obtaining the information that we wanted but also giving stakeholders an opportunity to provide it.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to 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.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

McALLISTER (—) (): Thank you, Senator Duniam. It's a curious thing, isn't it, to be asked these questions by an opposition that, in government, proposed to use the safeguard mechanism for exactly the purpose that we propose to use it, which is to reduce emissions. At the National Press Club back in 2015, what did Greg Hunt say? He said, 'The safeguard mechanism will come into effect from 1 July next year, and it will generate approximately 200 million tonnes of emissions reduction by 2030.' It's interesting, isn't it? It's a very similar number to the number proposed under this reform.

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

Technology not taxes.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take the interjection because you refer to technology not taxes. This is, of course, not a tax. We propose to use the safeguard mechanism, and, if I just take it back to the comments made by Mr Hunt at the National Press Club, he said the safeguard mechanism, the mechanism he proposed to use for emissions reduction, will come into effect and it will generate approximately two million tonnes of emissions reduction by 2030. That was your government's plan, and it's not so different to the plan that's before us, is it? The original rules that were made in 2015—

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, on a point of order?

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've got half an hour left because of the guillotine of this government. If you could assist the minister in answering the question, it's not history lesson time. Senator Duniam asked a very sensible question about the price of fuel. It affects every single Australian that has a car and every single truck owner, and I think the minister should give Australians the courtesy of directly answering.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hughes, that's a debating point, not a point of order. While I'd like to be able to direct the answer, but that is not my role.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was speaking about the commitments made by your government, Mr Hunt, at the National Press Club, and it is immediately relevant because the mechanism before us has very similar objectives and uses the same mechanism as was proposed by the government. The original rules in 2015 set up a framework for all new entrants from 2020 to be given best-practice baselines. Again, it's quite similar to what's before us now. The explanatory statement for that rule promised to make the first tranche of best-practice benchmarks by 31 December 2016. Unfortunately, as was so frequently the case with the previous government—there were a lot of promises—that promise, the promise to make the first tranche of best-practice benchmarks by 31 December 2016, was not met when they left office last May, in 2022.

So, the suggestion that your government never intended the safeguard mechanism to reduce emissions is false, or at least doesn't reflect what the ministers responsible for the legislation promised. It might be the view more broadly of those on your side of the chamber, and I think that was one of the challenges for the last government, wasn't it—that you weren't able to obtain agreement amongst yourselves about what to do, let alone bring a coherent policy to industry or the parliament. It brings us back to that question of engagement and consultation, because this government does want to work with stakeholders and with the parliament to establish policies that give businesses the certainty they require.

Senator Duniam, over the course of the debate you've made a series of assertions about cost, and I've indicated to you the processes the government went through to develop this mechanism in a way that minimised cost impacts and gave businesses maximum flexibility to mitigate any impacts of the mechanism. I make the point again that the mechanism we propose backs in businesses' existing commitments. Most are already planning for or pricing in the transition to net zero—already doing it. So, your assertion about additional costs doesn't reflect the fact that these businesses were already engaged in a process. Around 170 facilities, or 80 per cent of safeguard facilities, are covered by corporate net zero commitments and, given that they have made those commitments, we can anticipate that responsible businesses have been working towards them. It was 86 per cent of scheme emissions.

I can point you to some of the public research. The Grattan Institute indicated that direct impacts on household electricity, gas and petrol prices are likely to be negligible. And I point you, again, to your repeated assertion that you're interested in technology, not taxes. Well, we are interested in using the mechanism you established for the purposes you said it was established for.

The proposed reforms are carefully designed to moderate and mitigate cost impacts. The hybrid approach to setting baselines moderates initial scheme impacts while encouraging production to occur where it's lease emissions-intensive, lowering the overall economy-wide cost. The flexible compliance options, which I've spoken about previously, including borrowing, multiyear monitoring and the use of domestic offsets, helps safeguard facilities to meet their obligations at a lower cost. As we discussed last night, assistance will be available to ensure that businesses are not competitively disadvantaged, including the Powering the Regions Fund, which will assist businesses by supporting decarbonisation activities. There is also tailored assistance for emissions-intensive trade exposed facilities.

Senator, we are at a point in the debate where senators are asking questions that have previously been asked and answered. There is a motion before the chair, and obviously at any time the Senate is free to deal with it.

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

These words of false hope are espoused here—that most businesses have commitments of their own, so therefore there'll be no impact. Well, if that is the case, Minister—if this bill is not what we are saying it is; if our concerns are unfounded; if the quotes I've read into Hansard on behalf of businesses and communities who are worried about this and the impact it is going to have are not correct—then I don't understand why you can't give us a guarantee, why you can't tell us that power prices won't go up, why the price of train tickets in Victoria won't go up, why the rates in the Eastern Metropolitan Council Area of Perth won't go up and why not a single job will be lost.

I did find it a little odd, to use this term out of some report—I think it was from the Grattan Institute—that the increase in the cost of fuel will be negligible. I don't know what 'negligible' means. It's an indication that there will be an increase in the cost of fuel. But this is at a time when people are scratching around to find the money to pay the bills they have, because money doesn't grow on trees, as we understand; it's a finite resource. You can't just go down to the bank and say, 'I'd like to get an extension on my overdraft for the 10th time this year.' You actually have to make the books balance. Households have the same responsibility that business do and that government does.

To have an increase as a result of government legislation that we are currently debating is not a good outcome. I don't think it's acceptable for the minister to stand in here and say: 'You know what, we've consulted, and that's enough. We don't know what the impact will specifically be. We've got a range of measures that might help them with the problems they will face as we force them down the path of transition faster than they were planning.' Again, I think the answer to the question I asked multiple times, around how many of the 215 facilities are going to have a plan to reduce by 30 per cent of their emissions by the year 2030, which mirrors the government's commitment here under the safeguard mechanism, was no answer. I tell you what, as a senator for Tasmania, if I only had to go out and consult with 215 individuals about what it was they wanted me to do, I'd be doing it every day of the week. What a walk in the park to go and understand what 215 facilities need from government to ensure we don't have disastrous economic impacts flowing through into our communities—through our businesses, through local government entities, through transport providers—having an impact on every aspect of life.

Today—and the day before, and the day before that, and every day of this debate—we have seen a refusal by this government to make commitments to give assurances to the people of Australia that there won't be the problems we are asking about. Rule out job losses as a result of the safeguard mechanism. Give Australians that assurance that we will not lose jobs—that not a single job will go because the government is bringing in laws attached to dodgy deals with the Australian Greens, who have some ideological problems with many of our heavy emitting manufacturing industries. Give us that guarantee, and then everyone will be happy. The problem is we can't. Yes, they're business decisions. No, they're not the responsibility of a specific cabinet minister. But the government as a whole has a responsibility to the people of Australia, as custodians of our economy and economic wellbeing, to ensure that the laws and policies put in place in this building don't have a detrimental impact.

All I am asking, Minister, is: do you understand the impact on these businesses of your laws? Has there been any specific work done with these 215 facilities around what the laws, as set out in your bill, as set out in the dodgy deal reached with the Greens, state? Have you gone to the 215 facilities? It's not a massive task, noting the huge amount of consultation which has happened in a broad and nebulous sense with stakeholder groups and communities and those who bothered to write back in; and noting most of these entities are busy doing business, refining fuel, running train lines, processing our waste or whatever it might be, creating fertiliser for us to be able to grow the food we need to eat and keep costs down. The government haven't gone and done that. They don't know how many of these 215 facilities will have reduced, or will have plans to reduce, their emissions by 30 per cent by the year 2030. I would have thought that would be the first question you would ask specifically these entities captured by the safeguard mechanism. It's a targeted group. These laws will affect them.

Then, of course, there are all the flow-ons: the people that work for these facilities, the people that engage with these facilities or depend on the services from these facilities. I think about the fuel refinery we talked about in Queensland—two in the whole country. Here we are bringing in some laws that will have a detrimental impact on their ability to keep costs down. Of course, they are not going to absorb them themselves, and a government handout shouldn't be the answer. It'll be passed on to the consumer—the consumer that is already paying through the nose for everything they use to live their lives.

But the point is that there have been no assurances given around this. There has been no ability to assuage the concerns held—and held for good reason—by people in this chamber. It is not just some ideological bent. This is going to have negative impacts. With every question we have asked about whether the government have gone specifically to these 215 entities and sought to understand what impact these changes will have, we're met with, 'That's not the job of government. We've consulted. We're proceeding. There'll be some flexible arrangements.' That doesn't cut it. Australians want better. We're asking for better in this chamber. That we received the amendments not at the 11th hour but one second before debate started shows the contempt and, indeed, the desire to avoid scrutiny on the changes that are being made here. Had I more time, I would ask the Greens about their amendments, but I will go back to the fuel refinery because it's not just the people who work in it and it's not just the millions of Australians out there who drive cars every day to get to work, to take the kids to care or school or to pick up the groceries or whatever essential item of daily life they conduct by way of a motor vehicle but also the contracting businesses in regional towns and communities that employ many Australians. They're not directly caught up in a safeguard mechanism, but they're the people we're not even able to contemplate the impact on. What are the flow-ons? There's been no modelling about the impact of the flow-on consequences of this legislation. We don't know.

In 20 minutes we will be voting on disastrous laws that will have disastrous impacts, that will drive up the cost of electricity, that will chill the life out of the gas exploration sector and other sources of energy generation, that will drive up the cost of fuel, that will drive up the cost of train tickets in Victoria, that will drive up rates for ratepayers in the council I mentioned earlier, that will drive up the cost of fruit and veg, that will drive up so many elements of everyday life, and the minister cannot tell us why the government haven't gone and specifically sought responses around what might happen if we go down this pathway. Two hundred and fifteen facilities—I don't think it is a stretch of resources for the Australian government over the course of 10 months to engage directly with each of them, to understand what might happen in all of the areas I've talked about. In all of those—

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Less than one a day.

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

Exactly. Senator Scarr is right. It's less than one a day to go and work with and speak to about this. We are exhausted by the debate and the lack of answers forthcoming, answers we need to satisfy ourselves as we hurtle towards a vote being forced upon us by a deal between the Labor Party and the Australian Greens to get their dirty little agreement enshrined in law, an agreement that the people of Australia will be paying for through the nose through increased power prices, more-expensive fuel and more-expensive food, and no assurances have been given. What are we left to do but to assume that the worst will happen?

I feel very sad that we actually have no attempt by government to quantify that, to understand that, to demonstrate to Australians that 'don't worry, these things won't happen'. That's not happening. We just get the repeated answers in response to direct, specific questions, which I am so flabbergasted that the government isn't prepared to answer, around impact on these specific facilities. But here we are, with very little time before us, and the government will end this week having driven up power prices, having driven up the cost of fuel, having driven up the cost of food, with all of these jobs going offshore and worse environmental outcomes. I say, 'Well done,' but it's a dark day for Australia. Frankly, they should hang their heads in shame.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have it all on display, don't we? This is an opposition that has entirely vacated the field when it comes to the battle of ideas. This is an opposition that, when in government, was so divided internally that they were completely unable to land any kind of climate policy or any kind of energy policy. It was a government that received, under them, condemnation from business groups, particularly in the energy sector, for the uncertainty that you created—through your, Chair—through your inability to establish clear policy settings and create the policy settings that would allow businesses to invest.

Now we find ourselves with a shadow minister who seeks to ask questions about the policy process—a policy process that they could have sought to influence. We were very clear, when taking government, that we were interested in working with people across the parliament who wanted to put in place durable and sustainable policies for energy and climate. We might have expected, actually, that this opposition would be interested in that. It might have been that this opposition, having received the verdict of voters—who clearly voted for climate action, who were clearly dissatisfied with the approach taken to climate change by the previous government—it might have been an opportunity for those opposite to think about the way that they approach these policy questions. That opportunity was before them, and certainly our government would have facilitated engagement. We publicly said that we were willing to talk with people across the parliament. These were sincere offers, but they weren't taken up.

Regrettably, it's actually characteristic of the approach taken by the opposition more generally, across a whole range of policy areas. We've got to a position where Mr Dutton is setting himself up to be perhaps the most negative opposition leader since Tony Abbott—and that is coming off quite an impressive benchmark. But it's a no every time, isn't it? And the thing about no is that it's not a policy. No is not a policy. Actually, it's not even a talking point, as evidenced by the fact that, over the course of the debate, coalition senators have come in and—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to take questions, but there hasn't really been any engagement with the detail of the bill before them. Nor has there been any serious engagement with the policy task before the Australian people, which is to reduce emissions.

Previously, under your government, there was an assertion that the safeguard mechanism would be the thing that you would use to reduce emissions. You didn't do it. Mr Hunt went down to National Press Club and made a whole series of propositions about what was going to happen to reduce emissions from the economy using the safeguard mechanism, but that didn't happen. Despite this having been a feature of your policymaking, you reach opposition and you still say no.

The bill before us matters a great deal. It will take us a step closer to reaching net zero by 2050. It is about emissions reductions, Senator Duniam and Senator Hughes, but it's also about the economy, and these two things can't actually be separated in the way you assert that they can. Our opportunity is to ensure that our economy is geared up to take advantage of the opportunities that will come as the world transforms itself and moves towards net zero. There are opportunities there for our industries: export opportunities, opportunities domestically, jobs in our regions—good jobs, secure jobs. And the reforms we are putting in place are designed to make sure the Australian people can benefit from those. It's why they have been supported by industry, including the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group. These are the organisations that called for certainty, these are the organisations that expressed such disappointment about the approach taken by the previous government.

Our reforms will help limit the exposure for Australian industry to carbon border tariffs, or carbon border adjustment mechanisms, that many countries around the world are implementing. And so the coalition, sitting over there, having learned nothing from the last 10 years, proposes on this occasion, like so many others, to say no. To just say no to the proposition before them. They've always got fear up their sleeves—it's an oldie but a goodie for the coalition. Frightening people is not the approach we take. We want to work with communities; we want to work with industries.

I've heard the comments about the consultation. I've heard you dismiss the significance of our efforts to work with stakeholders, but it's not insignificant, Senator. It's actually very important that we talk with the businesses in our community, and we have done so. Actually, I can't tell you how frequently since coming to government that people have said to me: 'This is so refreshing. It is so refreshing to have a government that we can talk to and that will actually listen.' Interestingly, that's not confined to any particular stakeholder group. It's right across the board, including the stakeholder groups that the coalition so frequently asserts they have a special relationship with. Plenty of businesses have been delighted to have the opportunity to actually talk with a government that is focused on the national interest rather than focused on squabbling amongst themselves, as your government was.

So, Senator Duniam, I have sought to answer the question that you've asked and the questions that other senators have asked. You have asked them repeatedly and in different ways and I've provided you with answers. I do think that I've tried to engage in good faith. I gather we are shortly to start considering the amendments before the chair, but I invite other senators to make any final contributions.

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

We are shortly to vote, as was rightly pointed out by the minister. This is the guillotine that Labor and the Greens set up to confine debate to a certain period of time on what is probably going to be one of the most important pieces of legislation this parliament deals with—because the economic impact of this will be felt for a very, very long time.

It was most telling, though, in the minister's last answer, her last contribution, when she said this legislation is all about emissions. That absolutely is the case, clearly it's the case, because that's all we're focused on here; not the impact of the policy to deal with emissions, the flow-on impact, the cost to the economy, the threat to jobs, the cost-of-living pressures that we're going to be seeing as a result of these laws. This is the problem when you look at something in such a one-eyed fashion and don't reach out to industry, to the 215 facilities. As Senator Scarr said earlier on, in the time this crew have been in government they could have gone out and spoken with one of them a day. Instead, what they've done is they've hatched up this deal. They've had what's been described as consultation. They've tabled a bill and then gone and done a deal with the Australian Greens.

This is a far cry from the claims by the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, who said on 6 December 2021 that as a result of Labor's climate policies not one miner's job would be lost. Now, it's a bit like that promise they made before the election that $275 would be coming off your power bill. So they'll say something before the election, like, 'No miner's job will be lost as a result of these laws,' but then when we ask about it here, when we're dealing with the legislation they brought in as a result of that promise, plus some dodgy deals cooked up in a smoke-filled backroom with the Greens, that same promise is not there. It is missing in action. They can't promise today that not one miner's job will be lost, because the indication, the signal they're giving to the market, is not going to secure employment, is not going to secure investment decisions, is not going to make sure that those regional communities that depend on these entities—and, of course, those of us who use electricity every day—will now face increased costs. They can't make this promise around the miner's job being secure.

What's changed? Oh, I know, they never intended to honour those promises. And I don't think it's right to characterise questions, specific in nature, around the impact on specific facilities as a result of Labor's laws to, as they say, drive down emissions because that's all they were focused on. They were not focused on the economic impact, the jobs, the cost of living or the cost of fuel. These are the things that we asked to see modelling on and these are the things we sought to understand the government's thinking on. It seems to me that, based on those specific facilities I referred to—fuel refineries, train operators, refuse disposal sites—they're going to be faced with increased costs as a result of Labor's laws.

But Labor, in partnership with the Greens, have not gone out and asked these entities what increased costs they will be facing. 'How will this impact on your business? How will you comply with our regime to drive down emissions at 4.9 per cent per annum each year until the year 2030?' If they had done that, of course, I'd have answers to these specific questions. I'd have answers to those questions around: can you guarantee that one job will not be lost? Can you outline for us what modelling has been done on the increase to fuel Australian drivers will be facing? How will it eat into their household budget, which is already under strain? Of course, as we've seen characterised as repeated questions that are somehow irrelevant—hang on. No. Everything we do here has an impact on the way Australians live. To try and dismiss our concerns on behalf of all Australians as irrelevant or climate denial is mad.

I tell you what: it's that attitude which is going to come back to haunt the Labor Party and remind people of the deal they've done, the $275 promise not honoured and the promise that not one job will be lost for miners as a result of Labor's climate policies. I look forward to interrogating that over time. I can only assume, given the broken promises and given the inability of the government to outline to us exactly what impact their policies in partnership with the Australian Greens will have on jobs and on the cost of living, that they just didn't go and talk to people that disagree with them. They reckon there was an invitation out there to engage, but why are there so few answers when it comes to the negative impacts of this bill? Did they just go out and talk to people that said yes? Did they just go out and talk to people they knew would agree with them? I think the answer is 'absolutely'. If you went out and looked anywhere else, you'd have considered these flow on impacts.

As I say, I can't get over the situation we find ourselves in, where a government have left a minister—who is a very diligent individual; who works very hard at her portfolio and her responsibilities as a senator for New South Wales—to not be able to answer questions about what impact these laws will have on everyday Australians: how much more they will be paying for fuel, how much more they will be paying for food and groceries and how much more a train ticket in Victoria will cost when V/Line is forced to comply with the safeguard mechanism. I find it astounding that the minister has been left unable to answer these questions because the government deemed them irrelevant, somehow, to a long and in-depth consultation process.

I was pleased to hear that all these stakeholders who have come to see the government feel so refreshed by the new approach that has been taken—an interesting approach, I suppose. A new government in town for three years. You'd probably want to be on their right side, so you'd probably tell them what they want to hear anyway, despite the bad policies that we see tabled every other day of the week. The reality is that, when I go out and talk to people, they're very nervous about what this crew are going to do in partnership with the Australian Greens, just like Tasmanians were before the 2010 state election, when Labor did a deal with the Greens—and I tell you what, it did not end well at all. To boot, of course, we have a Labor Party on their own, without the aid of the Greens, that decided: 'You know what? You know that little promise we made about power prices, of $275 off your bill? You can take it to the bank, ladies and gentlemen.' Without the aid of the Greens, they decided they would not honour that promise made 97 times to the Australian people. It wasn't worth honouring. In the same way, sadly, we are seeing a promise made to miners across regional Australia and states like Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia: 'Your jobs are safe under our climate laws—until we get elected! Then, of course, everything is off the table because we have to consult and work our way through.'

I think that's right, Senator Scarr, and Senator Hughes made the point: it's this deal with the Greens, which no-one saw coming—except those who know what happens. Labor return to form, Labor-Green power-sharing agreements and Labor-Green laws which don't do anything to grow the economy. In fact, they send it in the other direction.

As I said at the beginning of my contributions, this is not just about emissions reductions. It is about the impact this will have on the economy. There are better ways to do what the government says they will do. There are better ways to treat Australians, and that is with respect and integrity of policy rather than breaking your promises.

Government senators interjecting—

Some in this chamber find it amusing, but, I can tell you this now: no-one will be laughing when power bills are opened and they're higher than they were before, no-one will be laughing when fuel costs are higher. This will be the hallmark of this government—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Duniam. We have reached the appointed hour.

Senator Hughes! Senators, it being 1pm, I will now put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet SK147 moved by Senator McAllister be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 1892 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

(1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 23) to page 4 (line 10), omit the item, substitute:

4 Section 7

Insert:

associated provisions means the following provisions:

(a) the provisions of a legislative instrument made under this Act;

(b) the provisions of a legislative instrument made under the regulations;

(c) sections 134.1, 134.2, 135.1, 135.2, 135.4, 136.1, 137.1 and 137.2 of the Criminal Code, in so far as those sections relate to:

(i) this Act; or

(ii) a legislative instrument made under this Act; or

(iii) a legislative instrument made under the regulations.

4A Section 7 (at the end of the definition of baseline emissions number )

Add "and subsection 22XMA(4)".

4B Section 7

Insert:

Commonwealth Registry account has the same meaning as in the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Act 2011.

4C Section 7 (at the end of the definition of covered emissions )

Add "and subsection 22XMA(2)".

4D Section 7 (at the end of the definition of designated large facility)

Add "and subsection 22XMA(3)".

4E Section 7

Insert:

issue, in relation to a safeguard mechanism credit unit, means issue under section 22XNA.

(2) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 21), after item 30, insert:

30A At the end of Division 3 of Part 3H

Add:

22XMA Onshore shale gas facilities

(1) This section applies in relation to a facility that involves the exploration or production of onshore shale gas if:

(a) the facility was not a designated large facility for any financial year ending before 1 July 2023; or

(b) on or after the commencement of this section, the undertaking of that exploration or production is extended to new areas.

(2) Despite section 22XI, for the purposes of this Act, the covered emissions of greenhouse gases, in relation to the facility, are:

(a) scope 1 emissions of one or more greenhouse gases; and

(b) scope 2 emissions of one or more greenhouse gases.

(3) Despite section 22XJ, for the purposes of this Act, the facility is a designated large facility for any financial year beginning on or after 1 July 2023.

(4) Despite section 22XL, for the purposes of this Act, the baseline emissions number for the facility is:

(a) for a financial year beginning on or after 1 July 2023—nil; or

(b) for a period other than a financial year that begins on or after 1 July 2023—nil.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheets 1903 revised, 1907 and 1915 be agreed to.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1903 REVISED

(1) Schedule 1, item 31, page 8 (after line 29), after paragraph 22XN(1)(a), insert:

(aa) if the surrender includes one or more Australian carbon credit units—the surrender meets the requirement in subsection (1AA); and

(2) Schedule 1, item 31, page 8 (after line 33), after subsection 22XN(1), insert:

(1AA) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(aa), the requirement is that the number of Australian carbon credit units included in the surrender does not exceed:

(a) in the first year of operation of Division 4A of Part 3H—more than 90% of the abatement amount; and

(b) in each subsequent year of operation of that Division—more than the greater of:

(i) 90% of the abatement amount minus 10% of the abatement amount per year of operation; and

(ii) 20% of the abatement amount.

(1AB) For the purposes of subsection (1AA), the abatement amount is the difference between:

(a) the net emissions number for the facility for the period (assuming no reductions have been applied under section 22XK); and

(b) the baseline emissions number for the facility for the period.

(3) Schedule 4, page 50 (after line 16), after item 7, insert:

7A After section 150A

Insert:

150B Price of Australian carbon credit units not to be capped

Despite anything in this Act, or in any other law of the Commonwealth, there is no cap on the price at which Australian carbon credit units may be purchased by a person who is the operator of a facility to which Part 3H of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 applies.

SHEET 1907

(1) Schedule 4, page 51 (after line 15), after item 12, insert:

12A After Part 23

Insert:

Part 23A — Judicial review

238A Extended standing for judicial review

(1) This section extends (and does not limit) the meaning of the term person aggrieved in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for the purposes of the application of that Act in relation to:

(a) a decision made under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act; or

(b) a failure to make a decision under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act; or

(c) conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision under this Act or a legislative instrument under this Act.

(2) An individual is taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision, failure or conduct if the individual is an Australian citizen or ordinarily resident in Australia or an external Territory.

(3) An organisation or association (whether incorporated or not) is taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision, failure or conduct if the organisation or association is incorporated, or was otherwise established, in Australia or an external Territory.

(4) A term (except person aggrieved) used in this section and in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act.

SHEET 1915

(1) Schedule 1, item 28, page 7 (line 26), omit "Safeguard rules made for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) may", substitute "For the purposes of paragraph (2)(c), the safeguard rules must".

(2) Schedule 1, item 28, page 8 (after line 12), after subsection 22XK(2A), insert:

(2AA) In making safeguard rules for the purposes of subsection (2A), the Minister must ensure that they are consistent with the principle that, to the extent that the number of Australian carbon credit units surrendered exceeds 50% of the abatement amount for a facility for a period, the value of those units in reducing the net emissions number for the facility for the period should be discounted by 20%.

(2AB) For the purposes of subsection (2AA), the abatement amount for a facility for a period is the difference between:

(a) the net emissions number for the facility for the period (assuming no reductions have been applied under this section); and

(b) the baseline emissions number for the facility for the period.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with the amendments moved by the Australian Greens.

Australian Greens 's circulate d amendments—

SHEET 1920

(1) Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 13), after Part 2A, insert:

Part 2B — Amendment of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986

Industry Research and Development Act 1986

66G Subsection 33(2)

Repeal the subsection, substitute:

(2) A program may only be prescribed under subsection (1):

(a) to the extent that it is with respect to one or more legislative powers of the Parliament; and

(b) if it is not a program to subsidise the extraction of coal or natural gas.

(2) Schedule 1, item 67, page 31 (after line 22), at the end of the item, add:

(15) The amendment of section 33 of the Industry Research and Development Act 1986 made by Part 2B of this Schedule applies in relation to a program prescribed under subsection (1) of that section after the commencement of this item.

The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 1920 be agreed to.