Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) 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

After that shameful adjourning of debate last night, when we were all prepared to go so late into the evening—

'Family friendly' says Senator White; well, we could talk about that. But let's talk about the bill before us and the question before the chair, which I think is extremely important. There was a high degree of interest last night in the modelling. We could get nowhere on that. We kept getting stonewalled by this Labor-Green government and their inability to be transparent about things—the facts, the figures, the assumptions, and the modelling that underpins the actions this government is taking to, they tell us, assist with driving down emissions. I don't think they'll be driving them down; I think they'll be driving them offshore. But we're going to just park that for a moment.

I want to go to one of the second reading amendments that the government agreed to a couple of days ago, I think, in this semi-protracted yet guillotined debate on this legislation. It was Senator Thorpe's second reading amendment, of which I have a copy here, and it was the one around First Nations verification, amongst other things. I just want to understand. It was the one relating to the requirement for scope 3 emissions to be offset in the Beetaloo. Firstly, Minister, what consultation has the Australian government had with the Northern Territory government about this change?

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

Senator Duniam, thanks for the question. I'm interested in your description of it as a 'change'. It is my understanding that the previous government, of which you were a part, supported the findings of the Pepper inquiry. The government intends to use the safeguard mechanism to implement Pepper review recommendation 9.8 in relation to the direct emissions of any gas project in the Beetaloo Basin—that is, the scope 1 emissions—and the rules will therefore include provisions that have the effect of requiring gas facilities in the Beetaloo Basin to have net zero scope 1 emissions from entry. The government will refer the remainder of recommendation 9.8, concerning scope 2 and 3, to the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council and continue to work with the Northern Territory government on the arrangements around the Pepper review, which we understand the Northern Territory government supports.

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

My specific question was on what consultation this government has had with the Northern Territory government on the amendment that was supported earlier in the debate.

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

The government regularly consults with state and territory counterparts. Your government supported the Northern Territory in their acceptance of the recommendations in the Pepper review. We do also.

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

I appreciate being reminded what the former government, which is no longer in government, did. My question was as to consultation on this specific issue. What consultation has been had with the Northern Territory government about this change that was agreed to in the second reading debate?

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

I don't accept your characterisation of this is a 'change'. It's a continuation of a policy that's been consistent across governments, to support the Northern Territory government in their implementation of the Pepper review.

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

So the amendment had no effect, then?

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

The amendment has the ordinary effect of a second reading amendment in this chamber.

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

Okay. So you supported an amendment that had no effect? That's fine. But was there any consultation with industry on that amendment that was agreed to—if not with the Northern Territory government, which it sounds like there was not?

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

I have indicated to you that our position as a government is to support the Northern Territory in their commitment to implement recommendation 9.8 in the Pepper review.

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

So what consultation occurred with the industry around the supporting of that amendment?

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

We were here in the chamber for an extended period of time yesterday and we talked about the very extensive consultation that has occurred about the entire package with industry over an extended period of time.

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

Did that extended consultation over an extended period of time that we talked about for an extended period of time cover consultation on that amendment?

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

I don't think I can add any further to the answers I've provided. The government has consulted broadly with the industry around the package. The government has consulted with the Northern Territory around the Pepper review, and that has occurred over successive governments, in fact. The government intends to work with the Northern Territory around Pepper review recommendation 9.8.

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

So I think the answer is no—there was not consultation on this specific amendment, which was only voted on in the last day or so. We refer to this consultation which occurred over an extended period of time in the lead-up to the tabling of the first draft of the bill, pre dodgy deal, pre second reading amendments, pre whatever it took to get this bill through the Senate. So no consultation with the Northern Territory government and no consultation with the industry—we've established that thus far, and I won't just accept 'can't add anything to this'. Madeleine King seems to be the only minister in the Australian government that actually stands up for fossil fuels and for those contributors to the majority of energy generation sources. What consultation happened with Minister King?

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

Senator Duniam, the position that has been brought to this chamber around the safeguard mechanism occurred in consultation with all ministers, and that of course includes Minister King.

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

And did Minister King consult with industry on this, or was it the responsibility of the environment and water minister?

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

I'm not in a position to answer questions about Minister King's meetings or arrangements.

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

As part of the decision-making process to determine that the government would agree to this amendment, did the minister ask Minister King to consult?

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

Senator Duniam, I've already indicated that in bringing the safeguard reforms to this chamber the government worked collaboratively. It's a decision of government, and those decisions are reflected in the legislation that is before the chamber at the moment.

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

We'll move off the lack of consultation on this and anything else that happened as part of this dodgy deal. But, on the broad issue of the amendment, I would like to go to some remarks from the Grattan Institute, which, on the issue of applying scope 3 to the Beetaloo, stated it was 'the weirdest thing' they've ever come across. They said:

If the governments decide together to deal with scope 3 emissions, it will have significant financial implications.

Noting that reflection on where things might and up, what modelling has been done relating to the financial implications since the time that amendment was tabled and subsequently agreed to?

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

Senator Duniam, the government's position is to refer this matter to the ministerial council. Now, I imagine, dependent on the approach that the council take to it, that they may request some analysis at some future point.

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

Okay. So the government's position is to send something off to the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council. Did the government—who were elected by the people of Australia to implement policies, not specifically all of the amendments arising out of a dodgy deal with the Greens and others—as a group of supposedly responsible people do any modelling on the financial implications of such an amendment before agreeing to it?

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

Senator Duniam, the financial implications of referring a matter to a ministerial council I think are quite straightforward. We would expect the ministerial council to examine this in the way that it sees fit, and perhaps we'll be in a position to report to the Senate about the arrangements that are put in place by the ministerial council at a future point.

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

AM (—) (): So there's no request or desire to even look at the outcome that might see scope 3 emissions here. We'll just accept that that is the case. I'm not going to get any further there. Was there any work done to understand the economic impacts in the Northern Territory as a result of perhaps going down this path?

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

Senator Duniam, this is an interesting line of questioning. We could ask the same thing of you, although I do recognise that on this occasion you are not required to answer questions. But perhaps I may ask it rhetorically: what work did your government do before agreeing to the recommendations in the Pepper review?

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

I'm afraid you've missed the boat by nearly a year on asking me questions, and I might have answered them in a similar way to you. But the tables have turned and you are required to answer questions as fulsomely as you possibly can, so I'll persist in asking these questions of you. Was there any economic modelling done, given we didn't talk to the Northern Territory government about this before accepting the amendment; we didn't talk to the industry, either through the relevant minister or the minister responsible for this portfolio; and we haven't looked at the financial implications of where the work of the ministerial council might take us?

Has there been even a desktop assessment of the economic impacts of this in the Northern Territory?

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

Senator Duniam, I'm not quite sure how many times I have to step you through this, but let's recall the sequencing. The Northern Territory commissioned the Pepper scientific inquiry into hydraulic fracturing in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory government accepted the recommendations of that inquiry, and, at the time, your government provided support for such acceptance. The government's stated position, as reflected publicly in statements and also here in this chamber, is that we continue that support. We intend to refer the specific questions in relation to recommendation 9.8 to the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council.

The matters relating to scope 2 and 3 emissions are not matters that could be independently dealt with by the Commonwealth. The energy ministerial council is the appropriate place for this to be considered. You know, as well as I do, that the mere fact of referring a matter for consideration by a body does not have financial implications for government or for industry. We would expect that the ministerial council will provide a response to such a referral. That response could be any number of things. It may be commissioning analysis of some kind. As I've indicated already, if such a matter occurred, I'd be in a position to provide a report to the chamber at a later date.

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

Will the government simply accept the advice of the ministerial council, whatever that might be?

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

LISTER (—) (): The government will work with the ministerial council, as we do on every other question. I make the point, Senator Duniam, that it has been a feature of this government that we are actually capable of working with state and territory colleagues. You might recall that, shortly after our being sworn in, very significant challenges arose in the electricity sector as a consequence of the neglect of your government towards the policy issues in the energy sector over a very long period of time. The lack of a settled climate policy and the lack of a settled energy policy led to very significant problems in terms of the energy sector. There were 22 policies. None of them landed in a decade. Industry was crying out for certainty. There were real material consequences in the physical infrastructure that supports Australian households, businesses and communities.

Our approach to that was to work collaboratively with the states and territories and the market bodies, through the ordinary processes, to resolve that. It is a feature of the way our government works. It wasn't a feature of the way the government you were part of worked, and that was a really big problem for the country and for the Australian people. We will work within the ministerial council in the way that we ordinarily would.

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

I always love looking backward rather than forward, which seems to also be a feature of this government. For the last 10 months, all we've talked about is what's happened over the last nine years. But you got elected with a range of policies which you promised you would implement and which you said would do certain things. If we're to look forward, which is what we're supposed to be doing—I presume this legislation is mostly prospective rather than retrospective, so I don't know why we keep talking about the past. Actually looking to the future seems to be something this government has a problem with. On promises though, there was a promise in the energy space around bringing down power prices by $275. Maybe, Minister, you can confirm that the government intends to honour that promise of bringing power prices down by $275. I did try to ask you at estimates. You wouldn't even say the number. None of your colleagues on the frontbench, in the next row, in the row behind that and in the other place—nowhere—would say it.

A feature of this government—if we're going to talk about features—is not honouring promises and not living up to the promises you make. While you might talk about 10 years of policy failure, 22 policies and all of those ALP talking points, one thing Australians are going to be judging this government on is whether it honours its promises to bring down power prices by $275—not just downward pressure, not just a failed gas price cap that will actually have unintended consequences, yet to be realised but whether it will honour that key promise. If you want to talk about features, we can go toe to toe all morning on those sorts of things, and we'll continue to hold you to account. I look forward to—one day when Labor doesn't want to stitch up a dodgy deal with the Greens to prevent us from dealing with our private senator's bill—perhaps debating my bill to report on power prices every quarter. But, if you want to stick to the bill, I'll happily do it too, Senator McAllister. Under the Westminster system of democracy, a government sets out policies and promises at the election and then honours them, generally speaking. Is it the government's intent to eventually expand the safeguard mechanism to include scope 3 emissions for all projects or will there be a guarantee provided that this will be ruled out for every project?

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

If we are to speak about the bill before us, then let's speak about the bill before us. It deals with scope 1 emissions, as indeed the safeguard mechanism did under your government. I think the most surprising thing is that a framework that was established by your government, a framework that you supported up until the election last year, is now a framework that you say you can't support. Based on the contributions from your senators over the course of the debate, I fully expect that you will not vote for this bill at the conclusion of the debate. It's mystifying. This is your policy, a policy established by your ministers, the parameters of which are well understood. You said no to any changes to it before you even understood what they might be. You refused to engage. It's a very surprising approach indeed, particularly for a group of people who weren't able to settle an energy policy over the period that they were in government. I recognise your aversion to contemplating that past, Senator Duniam, but I might make the point that, just occasionally, looking at the past can prove fruitful. It might be that it's something that you and your colleagues want to consider as you think about charting your path forward.

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

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

Senator Duniam, I have pointed you to the bill before you. The bill before you, like your mechanism, deals with scope 1 emissions only. The government has laid out its intentions in relation to reforms in the climate change area and the energy space very clearly, in our Powering Australia plan. We are implementing that plan. That plan set out arrangements to reform the safeguard mechanism, a mechanism which deals with scope 1 emissions. That is the focus of the government. That is where the government's intentions lie. I can't be any clearer with you than that.

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

We're not ruling out the expansion of this mechanism to include scope 3. That's clear. We also talked about the Powering Australia policy, which of course, as far as I recall, had a promise to reduce power prices by a certain unmentionable number. If you're going to honour that policy as a whole, I look forward to that reduction in power bills.

Moving off that, not being able to secure any certainty for the people and industries of Australia, we'll talk about the hard cap, if we're able to. These new requirements around the proposed hard cap, I understand, provide that if it looks like the cap will be in any way breached, the minister needs to make an amendment or amendments, as needed, to the safeguard rules to achieve the cap. The legislation and the EM, as far as I can tell, fail to outline the types of amendments that could be made. But they could include, as I understand it, measures such as emissions decline rates that are far steeper than those the government consulted with industry on. Obviously these limits could target all facilities, specific sectors or even specific facilities. Any changes of that nature and with those characteristics could change the commercial proposition for existing and incoming potential investments, and what was once a profitable industry could be something very different when certainty is removed in the way that it would be.

It's been put to the community, in the public debate we've had on what has been proposed here as part of this cosy yet dodgy little deal, that there will be some tough choices needed to be made by government around which projects proceed and which ones do not. So I want to ask: how does the government expect businesses to have certainty in making any investment decisions when it's unclear what additional restrictions will be placed upon them and when these restrictions will come into force? I think it is important to understand exactly what's being proposed here and what the impacts might be.

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

I spoke yesterday at some length about the arrangements proposed, and they are these: the amendments before this chamber simply propose an information-sharing arrangement and regularise what already occurs between departments. However, to be clear and to repeat what I said earlier in the debate, should the minister for environment make a decision which would result in the increase of scope 1 emissions from a covered facility, the minister for environment would have an obligation to communicate such a decision and the information in that person's possession about the emissions associated with the decision. They would need to communicate that with the secretary, the department of climate change, the Climate Change Authority and also the minister for climate change.

Should the minister receive advice from either the Climate Change Authority or the secretary of the department indicating that the decision taken by the minister for environment presented a risk to the objectives of the NGER Act, the minister would then contemplate whether or not the safeguard rules needed to be amended or any other step that might be required. They would be required to undertake a consultation on that question, and in the ordinary course of events we would expect that such a consultation would involve industry. That is how we've approached this series of rule changes; that is how we would approach any future rule changes, and an amendment would then take place in the ordinary way. It would be, as was the case under your mechanism, a disallowable instrument and, again, this chamber would have an opportunity to consider such an instrument.

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

I mentioned specifically some of the possible responses or options available to the minister and to the government around what could be done by way of additional restrictions. Has there been any contemplation of what a tougher decline rate might look like? Has the government considered specific rates? Is it something like a six per cent or a 10 per cent rate that's being considered here? I would be interested to know how far government is looking to go or what sorts of limitations there are on government's response in dealing with this issue.

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

STER (—) (): Senator Duniam, you asked about analysis. We don't anticipate that there will be a need for an adjustment of this kind, but the amendment makes clear what would take place in the event that the objectives of the act were not being met.

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

So there's been no analysis undertaken around this because the government contemplates or doesn't believe it would be necessary to go down this path, it's just a tool that might be there if needed?

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

As I've indicated, the government has consulted widely about the legislation before the parliament and also the proposed rules that might be made under the legislation. That's been an extremely lengthy and detailed process that's involved many stakeholders, both those covered by the safeguard mechanism and other stakeholders in the community. Our assessment is that it is unlikely that the circumstances that you're contemplating would arise. However, we are keen to ensure that there's clarity about what would happen under these circumstances, and the amendment before the chamber seeks to do that.

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

As I understand from answers to some question Senator Canavan asked last night, the government was unable to say what the size of the buffer was under the hard cap. If we're not going to get clarity on that, how can we reach the conclusion that you've just outlined that we're not going to require—chances are—alternative measures like this? It just doesn't seem to add up in my mind with, 'We can't tell what the buffer is, but we're certain, or fairly certain, we're not going to have to go down this path.'

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

Senator Duniam, I appreciate your interest in understanding this, but I think that you're failing to contemplate the actual amendment before you or the material that's been provided to you in the EM. In the unlikely event that a change of this kind was required and the minister did commence a consultation, the EM sets out what would happen, and I'll take you to paragraph 17, which says:

If the requirement applies, the Secretary would be required to advise the Minister that they are so satisfied, and the Minister would be required to undertake public consultation as to whether the Safeguard Rules should be amended to ensure that they achieve that object and the content of any such amendments; and if they are satisfied that the Safeguard Rules need to be amended to achieve the second object of the NGER Act, amend the Safeguard Rules.

It's really clear. It would be a consultation process aligned with any other consultation process undertaken by government.

The government, I think, has demonstrated our commitment to working in a really orderly and straightforward way with business. We've undertaken extended consultation, there have been papers, there have been round tables. We would expect to work with business in the ordinary way. I am surprised that you want to go down this path. Your government was characterised by an utterly chaotic approach to decision-making. The material before you today reflects a very, very thorough policy process engaging a very wide range of stakeholders. Any future policy process would, I imagine, look quite similar.

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

For the purposes of actually accurately reflecting the pathway to where we're at, I wouldn't exactly call this orderly, transparent and straightforward. Part of it was fairly straightforward. It was what you'd expect from a government—round tables, discussion papers and consultation—but then it went into the big black box of the Labor-Green government, where we started doing dodgy deals and no-one was consulted and no-one was brought on the journey.

This Senate was treated with absolute contempt when the amendments were handed out as the committee stage began. I'm sorry, but that is not orderly. That is not thoughtful. That is not considered. That is not mature government. That is a rushed, dodgy deal. If you're telling me, Minister, that we're going to see more of this down the track—you go out, consult with industry, have round tables, do your discussion papers, have this orderly discussion and then say, 'We'll park all of that and get back inside our black box with our friends over here the Australian Greens'—then I don't think what you're saying will satisfy anyone or provide anyone with comfort. If it's going to be like what we've just seen, which is why we've had the extended debate this week on this bill, which will be voted on at one o'clock today, that is not a good outcome. Please don't be surprised at my wanting to understand this because, to the kids up there in the gallery who are watching this debate, this is not what good government is. This is dodgy deals to get something done so the Prime Minister at the end of this week can say, 'I won. I got a bill up.' The people who are going to be paying are the people of Australia—those businesses that are going to be penalised for this, the workers in those businesses who are potentially going to lose their jobs and those people out there who are going to pay more for power.

Again, I come back to the questions I was asking. If there has been no economic modelling done on growth under the hard cap and what might happen within that buffer, and putting aside your assurances of consultation, whatever that might look like—if it replicates what we've seen here, then we're in big trouble—how can you be certain or sure or whatever word you seek to use that you don't have to consider these amendments?

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

Senator Duniam, it's a fascinating analysis, isn't it, because there's this real sliding doors moment. You like to talk about responsible government. I'd be interested to understand your perception of what a responsible opposition does because you dealt yourself out of this from the very beginning. Our government indicated a willingness to work with all willing partners across the parliament, and we engaged with those senators and members who were willing to engage with us. We consulted with them just as we consulted with community organisations and business organisations in response to an unequivocal call for policy certainty in the climate and energy space—a call which your government ignored and which we were determined to address because we understood the consequences for the Australian people if energy policy were allowed to continue to drift as it did under Mr Taylor.

Somewhere in that long preamble was an assertion that there had been no modelling done or no consideration of the way that a target would work, and that is simply wrong. There has been an extended period of consultation about that and some very explicit information is in the public domain, but perhaps I can communicate this. The proposed 4.9 per cent decline rate includes explicit consideration of emissions from new anticipated developments, consistent with Australia's emissions projections 2022. Those projections, as you understand, include information about future growth in emissions from a range of sectors arising from economic activity in those sectors. The 4.9 per cent rate also allows for an average annual anticipated production growth of 0.7 per cent.

The reserve referenced in the January consultation paper provided additional assurance in relation to uncertainty about production and emissions from new and existing facilities—that is to say, there was a buffer built in, first, for growth; second, for new facilities; and, third, for uncertainty. The quantum of the reserve was 17 megatonnes. Following consultation with stakeholders, as I explained last night, the qualification test for trade exposed baseline adjustments for the manufacturing sector has changed. That changes the sort of thing you'd expect when we speak to stakeholders. We are speaking to them and responding to the issues they're raising with us.

For this reason, the overall quantum of the reserve will be recalculated for the final safeguard rule amendments, as I indicated last night. It's anticipated that that final safeguard rule will be made by the end of April 2023 and will be accompanied by an explanatory statement setting out the detail of the arrangements.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I want to know the safeguards built into this bill against your safeguard bill. Senator Canavan, last night, exposed the economic underbelly of this bill—an underbelly that is sagging and that will hurt families, workers and employees, who will be dragging their arses along economically because of severe impacts on the cost of living and because we will be exporting jobs to China as a result of this, because they don't have this bill. I want to dive beneath the economics into the morality and the fairness, to see about your awareness of those considerations and, also, the protections. What safeguards are there for the people?

Let's go to the basics—the origins of your safeguard mechanism. Let's have a look at its pedigree. The father of global warming claims was senior UN bureaucrat and oil billionaire Maurice Strong. He then morphed global warming—which was never proven and has been disproven—into unlimited climate change, climate apocalypse or, as the Greens like to say, climate breakdown. I will give you some examples of his corruption in the UN public domain and also of his private corruption. He was involved in the UN Oil for Food scandal—corruption. He formed the United Nations environmental program, which was responsible for banning DDT, against the science, and responsible for 40 million to 50 million needless deaths before DDT was brought back by the UN. He was wanted by the United States police authorities for corruption with regard to water dealings in the western United States. He later formed the UN's climate science body that is really a political body—the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It has never produced any empirical scientific data or logical scientific points to back up your claim that we need to cut our carbon dioxide.

I'd like you to listen to this, Minister: he was the director and one of the founders of the Chicago Climate Exchange, which aimed to make billions of dollars trading carbon dioxide credits globally. He was joined in that by his accomplice, Al Gore, who headed up 50 per cent of his company, Generation Investment Management, on the Chicago Climate Exchange. Al Gore is not only known for corrupting and misrepresenting the science in his glossy propaganda movie An Inconvenient Truth; he's also famous for coming out here, at Kevin Rudd's invitation, in April 2007 as part of the 2007 campaign, which saw Rudd elected based on climate fears. The whole thing is a scam designed to make billionaires richer, and it rewards other billionaires like Climate 200 carpetbagger Simon Holmes a Court, who is funding teals—including Senator David Pocock—who vote for policies making Holmes a Court richer. People know this yet remain silent on it. Crooks, like Maurice Strong, initiated the climate scam, the climate fraud. Crooks continue pushing lies that the climate is changing when it's simply varying naturally, as it has always done. These carbon dioxide credits are based on a scam, for which the people of Australia are paying through the nose. Why? To make crooks richer.

I draw your attention to a comment by Europol in around 2012, from memory. They indicated that 95 per cent of carbon dioxide trading in Europe is subject to corruption. To this needless complexity, you now add six pages of afterthoughts and corrections in the form of amendments. So many details are to be inserted by ministers and bureaucrats. Are you aware of these facts, Minister?

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

I really wouldn't accept as facts what you've outlined. You characterise them as facts. I'd probably describe them more as opinions.

This government accepts the science of climate change, and, indeed, so do Australians. Australians do that because they, unfortunately, are living with the early manifestations of a changing climate. We have been through a period, over the last three or four years, of unprecedented fires and floods. These circumstances put many Australians in harm's way, saw immense destruction of property, and continue to have ongoing impacts on our economy. I understand, because you've communicated it very regularly here and in committees, that you don't accept this science. But the world's scientists are telling us that we have a problem. They're telling us that this is the critical decade to act, and the Australian people expect us to do that.

I trust the science. I trust the scientific process and the scientific method that allow contestability in published research. I recognise that, for reasons you've never entirely explained, you consider that the method of peer review produces inaccurate information. I don't share that view. I think that the world has been well served by the propagation of the scientific method. I think we've been well served by the many scientists, including eminent Australian scientists, who've devoted their lives to understanding the challenges that confront us, many of them devoting their lives to communicating properly with Australians about the impacts that will come about with a warming planet.

The IPCC is telling us that human activities, principally through emissions of greenhouse gases, have unequivocally caused global warming, with global surface temperatures reaching 1.1 degree Celsius above 1850 to 1900 in 2011 to 2020. Global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase with unequal, historical and ongoing contributions arising from unsustainable energy use, land use and land use change, lifestyle, patterns of consumption and production across regions, between and within countries and among individuals. They tell us that with high confidence.

These changes have real costs. I accept that you don't believe this. As I've said to you before, I'm not sure that anything I can say in this forum will change your mind, Senator Roberts. We've spent quite a bit of time together; I don't see you changing your views.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. We can come back to the science in a few minutes. For now though, when people buy carbon dioxide credits what's being purchased? To have a market, to have something that somebody is going to give money for, what need is being met? What is being purchased? The corruption I've just talked about is because there is no such need being met. Could you tell me the need that you think is being met and what buyers should buy?

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

It's a good question, Senator Roberts, because it goes to a fundamental difference in our views. I believe and the government believes that the world must reduce its emissions if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. So the need is to reduce our emissions.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yet never has anyone anywhere in the world, including you, produced a specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of climate, whether it be temperature, snowfall, droughts, floods, frequency, severity, storms—nothing at all. Sea levels, sea temperatures, ocean salinity, ocean alkalinity—never. So how the hell can you track progress towards achieving your goals?

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

Senator Roberts, that is simply an incorrect statement. There are many, many, many peer reviewed studies which establish the relationship between increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and changes in the climate, and there are many, many, many peer reviewed studies which establish the observed changes as a consequence of increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. I again quote from the most recent IPCC report, which tells us this, with high confidence:

Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred. Human-caused climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe. This has led to widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people …

The report goes on to say:

It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land.

Senator, the way that the IPCC does its work is by contemplating the peer reviewed research. You don't accept that research; I understand that. But I do and the government does, and I'd venture that the Australian people trust our scientists and the nature of the scientific process. You are quite welcome to continue to put your objections to science. This government accepts the science.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, thank you for confirming that no-one has produced the specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of climate. The UN has never done that. You've just spoken in generalities. I'll accept that, thank you very much. I've talked about the corruption—the lack of specific quantified effect that anyone has produced. Minister, you implicitly smear and denigrate me because I challenge you on the science, yet, when I asked you for the science, you gave me 25 papers, not one of which produces the logical scientific points showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. You gave me papers that included the impacts of climate change, not the cause. Minister, you have no clue what the hell you're talking about.

Let's continue with this theme. Your safeguard bill doesn't even define what a safeguard mechanism credit is. It's not in the bill. If the parliament passes this bill, we'll just have to trust the minister or some bureaucrat to tell us later. The biggest producers of goods in this country will be told to cut their production of carbon dioxide, with the amount not defined in the bill. It may be 4.9 per cent a year; that's what the rumours say. If they don't, they'll be forced to buy undefined carbon dioxide credits. Companies will be forced to buy carbon dioxide credits—forced—and will add the bill to their prices, which the people of Australia will pay through increased costs of living.

Let's continue with the undefined components of your bill. We do know that the safeguard mechanism credits will be defined as eligible international emissions units, meaning they will be able to be traded overseas. If Maurice Strong was still alive, he'd be rubbing his hands together with glee. Al Gore is still alive, and he will be rubbing his hands together with glee.

Let's look at Australian National University environmental law expert Professor Andrew Macintosh. He said that Australia's carbon dioxide market is 'a fraud on the environment', suffers from a distinct lack of integrity and is 'potentially wasting billions of dollars in taxpayers' money'. He goes on to talk about the review. On 9 January he said:

The review panel acknowledged the scientific evidence criticising the carbon credit scheme, but says "it was also provided with evidence to the contrary". Yet it did not disclose what that evidence was or what it relates to. The public is simply expected to trust that the evidence exists.

What are they hiding from the people of Australia?

The Chubb review was a complete sham designed to give a scam-filled industry—and I've talked about the fraud already—a green tick of health to pave the way for this bill. With Ian Chubb's whitewashed review conveniently in place, Labor has given itself permission to rush this bill through, while the scientists who originally raised the integrity issues scream that none of the problems have been addressed. Ian Chubb has repeatedly taken money from Liberal-National and Labor-Greens federal governments to peddle unfounded, false and scary claims. He's a paid gun for hire to push the government line. That's who you got to do your review.

The bill places huge power in the minister, with out-of-touch bureaucrats in the Canberra bubble left to later fill in the details. It's another ministerial power to decide the details. This is a bill to give the minister a blank cheque on who this policy will apply to—he or she will decide that—how much they will be forced to cut, how quickly they will be forced to do it and much more. Almost all of this policy will be made via legislative instrument and executive dictate from the minister. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The Senate granting this wide-open power over some of the most significant changes to our economy is unconscionable, just as Senator Canavan highlighted brilliantly last night. The design of this bill—based on a product that is rife with corruption internationally, unfounded—is to minimise parliamentary scrutiny. It's a spit in the face of the parliament, it's a spit in the face of democracy and it's a spit in the face of the Australian people, who you are meant to serve in this chamber.

Let's go to Labor's talk about consultation. To consult means to actually listen, Minister. Labor obviously had no intention of listening. Numerous stakeholders noted the staggered release of the draft bill, the legislative instruments and the Chubb review. These steps combined limited the ability to consider the implications of the proposed reforms. How the hell can Labor claim to have consulted when many of the detailed operational elements and details of this entire policy are contained in legislative instruments which do not yet exist?

Minister, I'd like to discuss briefly the pedigree of this bill because of the needless complexity that I've discussed, because of this hiding way of details and because it gives the minister huge powers. I'd like to know what safeguards the people of Australia have in your safeguard bill.

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

Thanks, Senator Roberts. Perhaps I can deal first with some of the opinions you've offered around the Chubb review. I think it's unfortunate that you chose to impugn the integrity of Professor Chubb in the way that you did in your contribution. I can talk a little bit about the Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units. You raised that and you raised a set of questions around the reasoning for that review.

The Australian carbon credit units scheme plays an important role in our pathway towards net zero emissions by 2050. In particular it does that by incentivising reductions and sequestration that wouldn't otherwise occur. The Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units was commissioned to ensure that ACCUs—the shorthand term for the units—and the carbon crediting framework maintain a strong and credible reputation. It's important it needs to be supported by participants and it needs to be supported by purchases, and the broader community needs to understand that the scheme is strong and creditable.

Professor Chubb undertook that review, along with a panel, and concluded that the ACCU scheme arrangements are sound and that there are appropriate checks and balances at the scheme, method and project level to protect the integrity of the scheme and the credits that are created under it. The panel did make some recommendations, and we're grateful to them for that. Their recommendations are sensible changes, and they seek to ensure that the scheme is aligned with evolving best practice and will increase public confidence in the scheme, supporting more participation and increased abatement. The key recommendations include separating the functions of integrity assurance, regulation and administration; maximising the transparency of scheme information to increase trust; fostering innovation in methods and project implementation; and supporting greater participation, including by First Nations communities.

When we received that report, we released it on 9 January 2023 and accepted in principle all of those 16 recommendations. It was a thorough process, Senator Roberts. There was a public discussion paper in response to that. There were over 200 written public submissions. They were all online, except for the people who requested that their submission be confidential.

The panel also met with technical and carbon industry experts, government agencies, regional councils, First Nations people, native title representative groups, academics, carbon service providers and scheme participants, industry bodies, environment and non-government organisations, and current and former scheme administrators. They undertook project site visits in a range of settings to investigate methods and project implementation.

They also commissioned and published advice from the Australian Academy of Science regarding the science that underpins four of the methods and the strengths and limitations of those methods. The panel was briefed by the Clean Energy Regulator on its administration of the scheme, including the compliance tools and the powers and processes that the Clean Energy Regulator uses to find and address any project non-compliance and ensure individual projects are delivering abatement.

We're grateful to Professor Chubb for the work that he did and the work of the panel more generally. I think it's unfortunate that you seek to characterise it in the way that you did in your remarks. Professor Chubb is an eminent person who has contributed a great deal to the Australian community. I don't think it's necessary to speak about him in the way that you did, Senator Roberts.

We are now moving to implementation. We're seeking to implement any of the recommendations that don't require further consultation with stakeholders. For example, the minister, Mr Bowen, has requested advice from the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee to revoke the avoided deforestation method, which was one of the recommendations. We are requiring further consultation, and we'll work with stakeholders on the implementation of the other recommendations that have implications for a wide range of scheme and market participants, government agencies and other stakeholders.

You also raised a set of issues, I think, about the legislation before us. The legislation before us creates a framework for crediting. The proposed changes include reducing safeguard mechanism baselines and enabling safeguard facilities that stay below their baselines to generate tradable credits that are known as safeguard mechanism credits or SMCs. The purpose of the bill is to enable the crediting element of the reforms.

You're right that other parts of our reform process will be dealt with through subordinate legislation, and a draft set of rules was released for consultation back in January. I'd like to step you through why we've chosen to go down that path, Senator Roberts. The amended framework will rely on a large amount of technical detail to achieve its aim of reducing scope 1 industrial emissions in line with Australia's emissions reduction targets. That detail would reflect a range of factors, including market dynamics, industry practices and available technologies.

As you'd appreciate, all of those things can change. Technology changes very rapidly at times. In order to operate as intended, it's appropriate that some details of the safeguard mechanism framework would be set out in delegated legislation so that changes in any of those factors—market dynamics, industry practices and available technology—could be quickly reflected and wouldn't cause unintended burdens or consequences. For example, the government-defined production variables and emissions intensity values include a large amount of technical detail, which might require updating at short notice to be appropriate for use.

Appropriate constraints on delegated legislation are included in the bill through the requirement that the minister only makes safeguard rules if the minister is satisfied that they are consistent with the proposed new second object of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act. That helps ensure that any safeguard rules are consistent with the intent of the primary legislation. The government has carefully considered the split between primary and subordinate legislation. For example, penalty arrangements for an excess emissions situation are currently contained in regulations; that was the case under the previous government. This bill changes that, updating penalty arrangements for excess emissions situations. They will now be contained in the bill itself.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ROBERTS () (): Let's have a look at the history that's driving this bill and its pedigree. You've just talked about the prevention of warming, yet there's no specific need being met. Do you think people are just going to buy the idea of limiting the warming of the planet, with no specific evidence and no specific need? No wonder there is so much corruption in these carbon dioxide credit schemes overseas. Let's have a look at the history.

John Howard's government was the first party to have an emissions trading scheme as policy. Tony Abbott later correctly stated that an emissions trading scheme is a carbon dioxide tax. John Howard's government said it would not sign the UN's Kyoto protocol but would implement it. In doing so, it had to avoid shutting down industry and so stole farmers' rights to use their own property. Farmers are still paying that price right now, without the billions of dollars in compensation for the loss of the right to use their land, which they're entitled to under section 51(xxxi) of our Constitution. The Howard government got around that by getting the states to do its dirty work. Peter Beattie is on the record in the Queensland parliament Hansard as saying that he put his native vegetation protection legislation in place to help John Howard comply with the UN's Kyoto protocol.

John Howard's government also brought in the Renewable Energy Target—at two per cent. Just recently, John Howard admitted that it's now out of control. John Howard's government implemented the UN's Rio declaration and the UN's Kyoto protocol, and the Liberals and Nationals have since implemented the Paris Agreement and the UN's '2050 net zero'—all driven by foreign bureaucrats and corruption. I'll come back to the minister citing the UN IPCC in a minute. Then we saw Kevin Rudd putting these initiatives of the Howard-Anderson government on steroids. Kevin Rudd pushed an emissions trading scheme, but it fell over thanks to the Greens; the Greens rejected it. Kevin Rudd dramatically raised the Renewable Energy Target. Julia Gillard then implemented a carbon dioxide tax and broke promises to do so. Tony Abbott, to his credit, rescinded that ghastly tax, which the Labor government is now bringing back. After Tony Abbott rescinded it, Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt put in place, through this parliament, in 2015, the basis of the safeguard mechanism, and now Labor is building on that. That is the pedigree of this shabby bill, the details of which those opposite have had to hide from the people. Let me ask you a question: why are China and India not doing what this Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock coalition government is doing? Why is Russia not doing it? Why is Brazil not doing it? Why are we punishing Australian employers and families?

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

I thank Senator Roberts. You and I have different approaches to this, don't we, because your fundamental proposition is that you don't think this is necessary at all, and the government certainly does. The government accepts the science, the government accepts that the globe must reduce emissions and, as part of that, we accept that it's a collective exercise. It's not something that can be done exclusively by one country; it's something that may only be achieved through all of the countries of the world collaborating together. You are right that different countries have different degrees of ambition. But as a responsible participant in the global community and as a government that accepts the science, we consider that our obligation is to work with the other nations of the world to build the necessary ambition to contain greenhouse gas emissions and hence to stop dangerous climate change.

I can run you through some of the targets that have been adopted by countries that we would ordinarily consider our peers, countries that we often compare ourselves to. As you know, our target is a 43 per cent reduction against a 2005 baseline by 2030. Canada has a target which is 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 by 2030, reasonably similar. Germany has a domestic target which is 65 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030. Japan has a domestic target of 46 per cent below 2013 by 2030. New Zealand's target is 50 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. The United Kingdom's target is 60 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030. The United States of America's target is 50 to 52 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Senator Canavan, you're right that not all countries—my apologies, Senator Canavan, I was listening to your interjections and I mistakenly named you. Senator Roberts, you're right that a range of countries have targets that are lower than ours. Some of them have targets that are more ambitious than ours. We have set a target that we believe Australia can achieve, and we do that because we know that it's absolutely essential that the world acts on this.

We've received stark warnings in recent weeks from the world's scientist, and they tell us that this is the critical decade for the kids. We have a chance to do something serious to contribute to the global effort to tackle climate change, and we intend do so. The Australian people voted for that, and we know, too, that there are opportunities here—opportunities for many of the communities that you seek to represent, opportunities for communities that I seek to represent, rural and regional communities around the country, especially in my home state of New South Wales. There are job opportunities here, opportunities for businesses, and there are threats too if we don't act because our trading partners increasingly expect us to act and investors expect businesses to act. Senator Roberts, we think this is an important reform, and I recognise that the foundation of our decision is one that you don't agree with. You don't accept the climate science and, therefore, logically, you don't think we need to do anything. We simply don't agree with that, and I would put it to you that neither does the Australian public.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister did not answer my question as to why China and India are not doing what this Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock coalition government is doing, nor Russia. The amount of carbon dioxide output China and India produce in a week is what we produce in a year. They're continuing to skate along. In fact, China and India buy our coal that you are trying to stop the use of here. These people in the Greens are also trying to stop the use of our coal. As Senator Duniam said, this is not about cutting carbon dioxide from human activity; it's about shifting it to our major competitors and giving them the advantage of our cheap, clean, high-efficiency coal. Japan is building coal-fired power stations. The United States allows gas—that's the only thing that's saved the United States.

You talk about jobs. For every job in the solar and wind sector there are 2.3 jobs lost in the real economy, so why can other countries have the benefit of our high-quality coal and gas and yet we cannot? We're the largest exporters of gas in the world; second-largest exporter of coal in the world—beaten by our neighbour right next door to us, Indonesia. We're killing our productive capacity and our children's future. We're already at net zero. We sequester, as a country, three times the carbon dioxide that we produce as humans in this country—three times, and that's not including what the ocean around us absorbs.

The cost of the Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock bill are extraordinarily high, and we notice you've been driven to this by the Greens, who will ultimate responsibility. You didn't ask my question: why are we publishing Australian families, Australian workers and Australian employers? Why are we gutting our country, because of the primacy of energy has been proven since the start of the Industrial Revolution?

Let's move to the science now because there's been no justification in science for cutting carbon dioxide from human activity—no empirical scientific data, no logical scientific points that prove that, and certainly nowhere that is showing the specific quantified effect of dioxide from human activity. That is the basis of policy. That's the only basis of policy, and you run from it.

We agree in some ways because I accept the science has to the basis of policy. You're saying that, but you're not delivering it. You've had many opportunities to give us the science and you won't do it. You've distorted the science, but you finish almost every statement about me with, 'You'll never agree, Senator Roberts'. I will agree the moment you provide me with the specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on any aspect of climate. I will agree immediately after I've assessed that science. This government, you say, accepts the science of climate change, but you cannot produce it. You've had six or seven years now, since I first came into this Senate, and you've never produced it once. That's because it's not available. How the hell can you have a policy about carbon dioxide from human effect if you can't specify the quantity, if you can't then assess alternative ways of meeting the targets, if you can't track the progress? How the hell can you have a policy? You're asking the people of Australia to jump off a cliff. How will you know how to continue, how to stop?

You talk about peer-reviewed papers. That's not my only gripe. Peer reviewed is false right now; we know that. The Lancet journal in Britain had a peer-reviewed paper that said up to 50 per cent of peer-reviewed papers are crap. You trust the science, yet you cannot produce it.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, I ask you to use language that's parliamentary while you make your points.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, there's conclusive overwhelming evidence from two global experiments that have overwhelming proven that cutting carbon dioxide from human activity can have no effect on the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In 2009, after the global financial crisis, the world endured a recession—everywhere around the world, except for Australia, because we were rapidly punching out exports to China of coal and iron ore. But the rest of the world suffered a dramatic downturn. That led to a dramatic downturn in the use of hydrocarbon fuels. That led to a dramatic reduction in 2009 of carbon dioxide from human activity. Yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing. In 2020 we had another severe recession, almost a depression, around the world due to government COVID restrictions. Again we saw the use of hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—plummet, as it does in most recessions. That meant production of carbon dioxide from human activity plummeted, yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing without inflection. That shows, twice now, that massive cuts in human dioxide carbon output did not result in any change in the atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide. In fact the levels of carbon dioxide continued to increase.

It's pointless to cut carbon dioxide from human activity. Nature shows us. You don't have to listen to you or me; nature has already shown us that. Nature alone determines the level of carbon dioxide; humans have no effect. Why are you corrupting the science? You've had unmeasurable assertions. I've given you the basis for crime in these policies, the corruption in these policies overseas, yet you don't blink. What I would like, Minister, is for you now to cite any report from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has the specific location, page number and chapter number of the empirical scientific data as evidence within a logical scientific point—in other words, the data within the framework that proves cause and effect. Just give me the page number, the title and the date, please.

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

Just a few weeks ago the IPCC released its summary for policymakers. That document comes at the end of a cycle of analysis which examines all of the peer-reviewed literature and seeks to establish the foundation for understanding the impacts that human induced emissions of greenhouse gases are having on the climate, the effectiveness of mitigation strategies and also the effectiveness of adaptation strategies. That's a vast enterprise involving many thousands of scientists around the world, and it involves essentially an assessment of the peer-reviewed literature and assigning various conclusions in that literature a degree of confidence based on the extent to which the literature either converges or diverges on particular questions. It is an exemplar of the kind of analysis that you call for but don't accept. You know where that document is. I can look it up on the internet and I can provide it to you, or you can google it. But fundamentally you have already indicated that you don't accept the process of science as it is currently practiced, and that's a pretty fundamental stumbling block, isn't it?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is.

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

You ask me to provide you science but, when I do, you indicate that you don't accept science produced by the peer review process. There's not really anywhere we can go.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Roberts, on a point of order?

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've asked the minister for the specific location.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Sorry, your point of order?

The minister is not answering my question; she's dodging it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's not a point of order.

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

There's an app you can get called Let Me Google That For You. I do encourage you to examine the literature produced by the IPCC over many decades, because it provides a summary of the many thousands of papers that are available to you, should you choose to read them.

Senator Roberts, it might be that you and I don't agree on the science. Whilst you hold out the prospect for agreement, I am more pessimistic. But I do think perhaps we might find more agreement around questions of business. I know that you have a former association with the mining sector, and I wonder if I could point you to the evidence that was provided by the Minerals Council of Australia to the Senate hearing in February. Tania Constable said:

The mining industry recognises that there is a very big task that is required to reduce emissions, and we have been on that path for a long time. The minerals industry has signed onto net zero by 2050. We have not been sitting on our hands waiting for policy change. We have been making that change over time. In 2020, the Minerals Council of Australia and its members released our first climate action plan. Since that time we have reported on an annual rolling basis our activities across the industry. It has been measured and, as I said, it has been recorded. MCA members have around about 39 separate activities that go from fuel switching—changing out of current energy sources to new energy sources—autonomous operations, renewable energy, battery storage, digitisation, a whole range of issues on site and in our headquarters, so across all of our operations. That is ongoing and will continue to be ongoing. It is a hard task, but every member is taking action.

When I read Ms Constable's evidence, I went and got the report that she referred to, the progress report that they published in 2022. It actually talks a bit about how important this work is. It talks about the fact that it makes a difference not just here but internationally because it provides the opportunity for Australian industries to support people all around the globe—millions of people all around the globe—in their journey to decarbonisation.

Senator Roberts, the business sector has been calling for certainty around our climate and energy policies, and they have made the point repeatedly that the lack of certainty in this regard was a problem under the previous government. For example, BP, a company I know you would be familiar with, said this:

bp reaffirms its support for reforms to the safeguard mechanism to provide incentives for large emitters to reduce their emissions in support of Australia's emission reduction targets. We support the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change and believe ambitious climate policies, like the safeguard mechanism reforms, will be essential to enable the world and Australia to meet these goals. We look forward to working with the government as the reforms are finalised.

Rio Tinto has a similar story:

Rio Tinto supports the use of a reformed Safeguard Mechanism as part of a suite of policy measures to incentivise genuine industrial abatement.

Origin said they are supportive of developing a policy framework that is consistent with ensuring safeguard facilities deliver a proportionate share of national emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement. Woodside said:

A fair, robust and transparent Safeguard Mechanism ('Mechanism') can support a reduction in Australian emissions, as well as encourage businesses and industries to further innovate and adopt smarter practices and technologies in line with our collective emissions reduction targets.

APPEA said that, if appropriately designed, the safeguard mechanism can form part of an economy-wide package of measures that encourage low-cost abatement while supporting economic growth.

The business community understand that they are working in a global environment where their investors and trading partners expect us to have a plan to reduce our emissions as a country, and they expect businesses to have a plan to reduce their emissions. We've talked about it already in this chamber, but 80 per cent of the facilities covered in the safeguard mechanism have already adopted a net zero target by 2050 or a net zero target of some kind; some of them actually have one in advance of 2050. These decisions, these changes to business practices and these prospective investments in technology are already factored into the way that many covered businesses have been thinking about their businesses, their investment plans and their pricing. What the reform we are progressing here today will do is give those businesses certainty and give them a clear understanding of the expectations that will be placed on them by government. I reiterate that we are not the only entities that place expectations on these businesses. Shareholders increasingly make it clear that the provision of capital is dependent on a clear pathway being established towards decarbonisation. It's one of the reasons that so many of these businesses are already on this path.

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

I'm quite befuddled by the approach the government is taking to questions being asked by a member of the crossbench. I think that Senator Roberts, who will say things that others will disagree with, should be respected for his views and not be talked to in the way that he just has been.

I want to add something to the record. We had a quote from the minister relating to APPEA. I will put on the record some words that their CEO, Samantha McCulloch, put on record as a result of the dodgy deal we've seen done here:

New gas supply investment needs policy and regulatory certainty but instead, the Labor-Greens deal creates additional barriers to investment, further diminishing the investment environment and adding to the growing list of regulatory challenges facing the sector.

While the minister is cherrypicking quotes that talk up the certainty in the environment and how businesses welcome the opportunity to work with government, we have to look at the hard, cold facts here of what actually is happening and what industry is saying in response to a dodgy deal having been done, rather than misrepresenting the attitude of some of these groups, including APPEA, who are very concerned about what's happened here and who haven't been, as far as I'm aware, part of any consultation on the last-minute dodgy deal done between the Greens and the Australian Labor Party. I'd love to know whether they were consulted on the way through on the Greens demands for their agreement to this legislation. Anyway, we'll come to that, I'm sure.

Yesterday I asked a question, and I wonder if, overnight, the government have gone and checked, across their records, whether they possess this information. The minister has spoken at length about the expectation and understanding the government has that many industries, many of those captured facilities, will have in place plans to reduce emissions that somehow mirror or match the government's own policies. I'll ask this same question again. How many of the 215 facilities captured by the safeguard mechanism had existing plans to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by the year 2030?

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

Senator Duniam, I answered your question yesterday. You're asking the same question. I don't have anything to add to my previous answer.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to reflect on a few things today: just the level of frustration my colleagues and I have felt in this place over the last decade under a Liberal government doing absolutely nothing about climate change.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it's all about you, Peter?

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I arrived here in 2012. I'll get to you in a minute, Senator Canavan. Don't you worry. It's not all just about me. Actually, what I'm about to say is all about people like you.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Whish-Wilson. Please direct your comments through the chair.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll get to Senator Canavan soon, because actually it is all about him and people like him.

Opposition senators interjecting—

If I could have the respect of the chamber to make my contribution. Chair, I know why Senator Canavan's trying to disrupt my contribution, because it makes him deeply uncomfortable.

I've been in this chamber, as Senator Waters has, for over a decade. I've witnessed the Clean Energy Future Package being passed into legislation. At the time, it was considered right around the world to be the gold standard in legislation, with a price on carbon, money for renewable energy through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, money for higher-risk investments in research and development and innovation through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, and so much more. Then we witnessed the Liberal-National coalition getting into government, using three-word slogans and shamelessly tearing up climate action. The period during which we had the Clean Energy Future Package in place was the only time emissions in this country have gone down.

It is also a source of frustration to me and my colleagues that that great work the Greens did with the Gillard government seems to have been written out of history by both the Labor Party and the mainstream media and is totally forgotten in discussions in the lead-up to this so-called safeguard mechanism debate that we're having here today. Of course, it's also frustrating that, after nine years of the Greens carrying the torch in this place for climate action and for future generations, what we get is actually Liberal Party legislation, first brought in by Tony Abbott, a climate denier, and then perfected by Mr Angus Taylor from the other place, who you would have to say is a climate sceptic, and Mr Scott Morrison in the other place. I swear I heard Senator Wong in the chamber just a few weeks ago in question time goading you guys for not supporting the legislation, because it's yours. In fact, she even said that the changes the Labor Party were hoping to bring in in the unamended safeguard mechanism were signed off by your party room. How fricking cynical is that? How cynical is it that the legislation the Labor Party was bringing to the parliament is actually your legislation? The Australian people need to know that you can't even vote for your own crappy legislation, because it's all about being in opposition, isn't it? It's all about saying no to everything.

And then, Senator Duniam—through you, Chair—you had the cheek to stand up in here and point to children in the gallery and say that this legislation, which is some kind of climate action, is not good government. How outrageous!

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order, Senator Whish-Wilson! I have Senator Duniam on his feet.

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

Point of order: he's misleading the Senate. I didn't actually say that. I said this is bad process and a dodgy deal, and you know it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you for that, Senator Duniam. Senator Whish-Wilson, you have the call.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the point of order, Senator Duniam. I've obviously hit a raw nerve there. The fact that this Liberal Party is in opposition is a good thing. For anybody who wants action on climate change, this is a good thing, and I'm proud of my political party for getting amendments to this legislation that have improved it and have made it a lot more difficult for fossil fuel projects to proceed, because that is what the science tells us we need to do. That is what the IPCC report which coincidentally landed last week told us we need to do. That is what the conservative International Energy Agency tells us we need to do.

But I want to be really clear about this. This legislation we're going to pass today is not enough. It is nowhere near enough. The fight must go on. If we're going to stop new fossil projects going ahead, we need to let the Labor government know at every turn that this is not acceptable. I want to put on record today that yesterday in the parliament—in fact, they've been here for three days—there was an alliance of ocean groups from around the country, who have been having many meetings with MPs, calling for an end to all fossil fuel exploration in our oceans and to the endless acreage releases that these fossil fuel companies are given by governments every year. I remember when Mr Scott Morrison phoned in from climate negotiations in Paris just three years ago—

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Stop driving cars, Peter!

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, have some respect in this chamber. I know it doesn't suit your political charades to let me finish my contribution.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Have some respect? Give me a break.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senators, interjecting is disorderly.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're probably squirming in your chair, over there, Senator Canavan, but let me continue—

Mate, you're always laughing when we talk about climate action and the importance of this for future generations. Mr Scott Morrison phoned in from a climate conference in Paris to deliver to the APPEA conference in Western Australia, at the time, via video link, 80,000 square kilometres of new ocean for oil and gas companies to go out there and explore. But you know what? It wasn't just the Liberal-National government. Last year the Labor government handed 46,000 square kilometres of oceans for oil and gas companies to go and explore as well.

While this Ocean Alliance was here yesterday, Zali Steggall, in the other place, tried to suspend standing orders to bring on a bill to ban the PEP-11 project that the Liberal-National government stopped. We know they stopped it because Scott Morrison used secret powers to stop it. That's how important the Prime Minister felt stopping an oil and gas project was. He knew it was political poison for the Liberal-National government in the last federal election.

It's also, by the way, the only fossil fuel project that Anthony Albanese, our Prime Minister, in the other place has publicly opposed. At the same time we're negotiating the passage of this legislation in the parliament, Minister King, the resources minister, in the other place yesterday was talking up the future of fossil fuels in this country. She talked up that she wanted to see exponential growth of oil and gas and coal in this country. So that's where the Labor Party are at. And I hope that it's noted by the Australian people.

I want to get this on the record today: thanks so much to the communities around this country—like those off King Island in Tasmania, off the Otways, off Western Australia, off the New South Wales coast and off South Australia in the Great Australian Bight—who are fighting to stop fossil fuel exploration. In particular, I want to thank Drew McPherson and Kate Coxall from the Surfrider Foundation; Lisa Deppeler from the Otway Climate Emergency Action Network, OCEAN; Uncle Rob Bundle from the Southern Ocean Protection Embassy Collective, SOPEC; Freja Leonard and Belinda Haydon from Friends of the Earth; and Craig Garland, who's well known to Senator Duniam, a Tasmanian fisherman who's a lot more than that. He's been an absolute champion for our oceans in Tasmania and elsewhere.

People know when they're being conned. Community Alliance were in here yesterday lobbying to try to stop new oil and gas projects. By coincidence, they're here the week we're to pass the safeguard legislation, the week after the IPCC report landed. They got to see Minister King, in the other place, talking up how Labor want to see more fossil fuel and gas development.

I want to make it clear today that the Greens have done a really good job, in really difficult conditions, to get some kind of improvement to this legislation that will make a difference. But it will not be enough. I call on all environmental groups around the country, all communities—anyone who cares about the future of climate and climate action—to hit the streets and let this government know that every single fossil fuel project they approve is not acceptable. And then, at the next election, vote for the Greens and crossbench MPs who do care about this. At the next election we can get the balance of power in both houses, and we will stop new fossil fuel development across the board.

That's my message today. I look forward to listening to the contributions now of other senators in the chamber—in silence and with respect.

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

nator McALLISTER (—) (): In brief, in response to a couple of the contributions, there are two things. Senator Whish-Wilson, as you know, we were appreciative of the willingness of the crossbench, including the Australian Greens, to work with us on sensible amendments to our reforms. We have the view that the reform package we're bringing before the parliament will make an important change. It will be important for Australian businesses and it will be important for the Australian climate.

We don't agree with you, as you know—we didn't agree and continue to disagree—on the question about whether or not new coal and gas facilities should be banned. Nonetheless, we do appreciate your willingness to engage constructively with us and, again, I reiterate the invitation that's been on the table since we formed government, which is that we are willing to work with all willing partners. It is a shame that the opposition chose to deal themselves out of this discussion, as they have on so many other questions that are before the parliament.

I want to provide some additional information to Senator Roberts. Senator Roberts asked me about quite a number of matters. In particular, at one point he was asking me about implementation of the Chubb review, or at least some of the findings of the Chubb review. I want to add that, in addition to seeking advice on revoking the avoided deforestation method, the minister has now actually revoked the method. That wasn't clear in my remarks before.

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

We attempted yesterday to get some information relating to the impact on specific facilities. I don't accept that the government, who is foisting this upon the Australian community and economy, can sit here and say that they will not talk about specific facilities, because the impact is important. I want to turn to V/Line, which is a public transport provider in Victoria. I understand it's a captured facility, which, of course, will be required to reduce its emissions by 4.9 per cent. How much will it cost for V/Line to meet the government's emissions target? Has any work been done—any consultation, any communication? I'd be grateful to know.

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

I'll seek advice, Senator Duniam, but there are 215 covered facilities, and I'm not in a position to provide detailed information about each one of those businesses.

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

I find it absolutely astounding that there's been a huge amount of consultation—in-depth, genuine, good-faith consultation with industry, with all state and territory governments, with the crossbench et cetera—and we can't talk about the impact on 215 facilities of what we knew was coming before this parliament by way of legislation mandating emissions reductions. You refused again to answer whether any of the 215 facilities captured by the safeguard mechanism have existing plans to reduce their emissions by 30 per cent by the year 2030. That was a question I asked yesterday. You said perhaps the department would be in possession of the information. Today you said you have nothing further to add. I can only assume the government hasn't even gone and checked with these 215 facilities.

You don't have any information on that first question. You don't have any information on how much it will cost V/Line to meet the government's mandated emissions reductions targets. Therefore, I suspect you won't be able to tell me how much more Victorian passengers will have to pay in fares to meet the costs associated with this safeguard mechanism, so I'll skip over asking that question; we can just take it at face value that they'll be paying more as a result of this. Let the record show that that's what is going to happen. Do we know how much it will cost V/Line to convert from diesel locomotives to electric as a measure to meet the emissions reductions baseline that this legislation is going to establish? Do we know how many batteries are going to be required, for example? I would hope the government have gone and done some work with V/Line, a massive contributor to public transport in the state of Victoria.

Of course, AEMO has warned the state of Victoria, and the government, that Victoria could face electricity rationing or blackouts in the coming years due to the government's mismanagement of the grid. How much electricity in megawatt-hours is going to be required to power electric locomotives in Victoria if they choose to try and comply with the enforced baselines under the safeguard mechanism?

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

The purpose of consultation is to establish a framework for good policy. It is not to take responsibility or seek to otherwise manage the business decisions of individual entities. Yes, of course the government has sought to consult as widely as possible. We've been through this before. We released a public consultation on the safeguard reforms in August and an exposure draft of the bill last October. The department has met with environment groups, with covered facilities, with industry bodies, with government agencies, with carbon market participants, with other industrial businesses and with other interested parties. I can seek information about whether or not V/Line elected to participate in that. I don't have that information with me at the moment. Over 240 stakeholders made submissions on the safeguard consultation paper and over 50 made submissions on the draft bill. Many of those stakeholders said that they support the government taking action to deliver on our climate targets and to support reforms to the safeguard mechanism to reduce emissions from the industrial sector.

The government released details of the full proposed reforms to the safeguard mechanism in January for consultation. We talked about this last night. That included draft rules, which contained quite a lot of detail because, as you observed, whilst this bill creates the architecture for the reforms, for reasons that I have explained this morning to Senator Roberts, many of the decisions are necessarily and appropriately contained in subordinate legislation, and it was appropriate that the draft rules be put out for consultation as well. Consultation closed on 24 February 2023 and, again, more than 250 submissions were received. The bill before us incorporates a number of the stakeholder suggestions from that period. A new objective has been added to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 to ensure that the net emissions of safeguard mechanism facilities must decline overall. It requires that the minister must be satisfied that any new safeguard rules are consistent with this objective, and it strengthens the compliance regime. Penalties for exceeding baselines will reflect the amount of exceedance and may require that businesses make good by surrendering credits to meet their baseline. There's also an anti-avoidance provision commencing from the date of introduction that will prevent businesses structuring themselves in a way to avoid obligations under the reforms.

Senator Duniam, I think we have had a healthy conversation in the chamber. I have sought to answer your questions, but I really am not in a position to talk or speculate about the individual business decisions that will be taken by individual entities that are covered by this mechanism.

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

I find it absolutely astounding that, with only 215 captured facilities, with months of consultation and with a government claiming to be interested in issues like the cost-of-living, driving down power prices, not offshoring jobs and making sure that legislation actually works, that the minister can't tell me in a general sense how many of the 215 facilities—we're not talking about millions of entities here. We're not talking about tens of thousands. We are not even talking about thousands. We're talking about 215 specific facilities that the government haven't gone to seek to understand the material impact these laws and, in addition to the laws that were put on the table, the amendments that were made as part of the dodgy deal between Labor and the Greens would have. I don't find it acceptable, as we are hurtling towards being forced to vote on this legislation, that we can't be told whether every single punter in Victoria that uses V/Line to get to work, to go to visit their parents in aged care or whatever they might be doing, is going to be paying more to catch a train because of the safeguard. You don't know where these entities are at, yet you want us to vote. The Greens are content, having scored their deal, to support this and wave it through. You can't tell us about V/Line and you can't answer general questions about the 215 facilities and where they were at with 30 by 30. Let's move to a couple of other specifics. Hopefully there will be some advice forthcoming.

Aurizon have three facilities listed under the safeguard mechanism and Pacific National have one. In the Australian Financial Review today—and I'm sure that, if you're not aware of the article, others that are supporting you will be or will take this time to familiarise themselves with this reporting—there is a report that Pacific National will invest hundreds of millions of dollars over the next five years to reduce emissions. It will have to spend a further $12 million a year by 2030 on offsets to avoid being penalised under the government's changed safeguard mechanism. According to this article, the extra costs that are going to be imposed on rail freight will be passed on to the customer. This goes back to the point that we are not talking about millions of facilities here with some sort of blanket coverage where it's all very nebulous and hard to quantify. We're talking about 215 specific facilities. Can you tell me, Minister: as we hurtle towards a guillotine that Labor and the Greens have agreed should be in place to have this economy-changing and economy-destroying legislation brought into place, what are the extra costs that are going to be imposed on Australian consumers who utilise these services? Does the government or the minister agree that transporting freight by rail produces less emissions than moving goods by heavy trucks on the road network?

Perhaps you could also tell us whether any modelling has been done around the extra emissions that will be generated through the use of road transport to transport goods as opposed to rail transport. Noting that this is all about driving down emissions, I argue that it's about driving up power prices and driving emissions offshore. In this case it seems, based on the information being provided by rail freight companies, it's about driving up emissions here, because chances are, we'll be putting goods on trucks that are not covered by this mechanism, and there will be more carbon emissions because people will not be able to put goods on trains. So let's start with that. Let's see how we go. I hazard a guess we won't get an answer, but I'll get some rhetoric and some Labor talking points, and then we'll go to the next question.

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

I understand that the coalition policy position was once that Australia should reach net zero by 2050. It's unclear to me whether that is still the position. I think it is. Can anyone tell me it's not?

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

Can anyone tell me it's not? No idea? We don't know?

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

Are you inviting me to?

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

Sure.

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

At the invitation of the minister, I will indicate that the coalition have a proud record of dealing with these issues. We don't believe in taxing the life out of the Australian economy. We don't believe in shutting down businesses to achieve some ideological outcome. We don't believe in doing dodgy deals with the Australian Greens. That's the difference between the government and the opposition. The government are the government today because they conned the people of Australia into voting for them. That's why they're there—because they promised the people of Australia they were going to reduce power bills by $275 for everyone. Do you know what? That promise, made 97 times of course, is now not one they're going to stick to. It's one they won't even mention.

The minister asks me what our position is. We care about the environment. We care about carbon emissions and dealing with them. But we're not going to tax the life out of the economy just to offshore our emissions. When it becomes unaffordable to do business here, when it becomes unaffordable to manufacture cement, aluminium and steel, do you know what they're going to do? They're going to start doing it overseas. They're not going to do it here. They're going to be doing it in countries where they don't give a damn about the environment, where they don't have a mechanism like the one we're doing. This is what companies will sadly do. When we push the emissions out of our backyard so we can't see them and we can all feel good about our lattes on a Saturday morning, do you know what we're also doing? We're sending jobs offshore from places like Georgetown in Tasmania, where smelters are going to be impacted by this. Norske Skog in the Derwent Valley, the only newsprint mill in Australia, will be captured by this. That's the difference between us and you. We do not want to destroy the economy on the altar of Labor-Green ideology. You want to talk about our policies? We stand with consumers, we stand with households and we stand with businesses, not with Labor talking points.

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

Thanks, Senator Duniam. I note you didn't make any reference to net zero by 2050, and I'm still unclear about whether or not that's a policy that is part of your suite of policies.

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

Yes, it is. But we won't be doing it by destroying the economy. You want to talk about coalition positions because you can't answer questions about the impact of Labor policy and Labor legislation. We don't know how many of the 215 facilities are going to be able to comply with this baseline without shedding a single job. I note that no promise has been given about that. I'd love to know whether the government commits to there being not one job lost out of these 215 facilities. I guarantee you that I'll get an answer about extensive consultation and working collaboratively with a very willing crossbench—very willing, indeed—but there will be no promise given because 'we can't speak about specific entities,' or 'we can't speak about specific facilities,' or 'we can't speak about Australian jobs'. You know what? That is not the priority of this legislation. That is not the focus. It is a siloed, myopic approach to dealing with something that they are doing a deal with the Greens on and are doing with no regard for the impact on the economy.

The perverse outcome here in dealing with this issue this way is that, not only are you not going to get the environmental outcomes you promised Australians, you're going to get worse environmental outcomes. It's all going to go offshore to countries where they don't care about the environment, so our global responsibility as global leaders, as responsible citizens on this planet is all just talk. It isn't reality, according to this government. We're going to have bad economic outcomes.

Minister, we remain committed to our policy on net zero, but let me tell you, I expect an answer. I expect a guarantee today that not one job will be lost because of your safeguard mechanism and the deal you've done with this mob down here, the Australian Greens.

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

I appreciate it. It took a while, but we got there. It is an intriguing—

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

Well, you’re the minister.

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

Senator Duniam, you offered. It was a rhetorical question. I do accept that you don't have to answer my questions in this forum—I accept that's not how it works—but you chose to. I was interested to hear that net zero remains your policy. The issue was that your implementation arrangements in government were catastrophic. You didn't land an energy policy. You had 22 different energy policies; none of them landed. And what did business say about that? What did they say about it? The Energy Supply Association said this about your government:

The current uncertainty will itself drive up prices. Banks have put away their cheque books on energy projects. Policy uncertainty has rendered electricity generation projects unbankable—

unbankable—

That cost has been masked because lower demand has meant we haven’t needed new projects but when new assets are needed, that risk premium will be there and it will push up … prices.

That's what the Energy Supply Association of Australia said. They're the suppliers. What do the users say? The Energy Users Association said there was 'a dysfunctional political environment'—dysfunctional—'that had dramatically increased the risk associated with investment.' And it is why, prior to us forming a government and since, organisations have lined up to call for clarity around how the safeguard mechanism could be improved to give certainty to covered facilities.

Senator Duniam, in all of the contributions you've made, you have given no indication about whether or not you think that reform of any kind is necessary. It appears that you think the status quo is fine. That is the only thing that we can conclude from your engagement, or your failure to engage, with the policy process that has been undertaken over the last eight months. It's the only thing we can conclude. One of your frontbenchers went on television and said that you are the opposition and don't have policies, and I suppose that that is true. I suppose that is true in relation to climate and energy. It was certainly true when you were in government, and it caused the problems that we've been discussing this morning and that we'll continue to have to deal with on behalf of the Australian people from government.

Business is looking for us to implement these reforms, and it's a reality that you have failed to engage with over the course of the debate. The Ai Group talked about the approach:

The treatment of new facilities appears to strike a workable balance—

a workable balance—

providing pathways for new projects that stack up to go ahead without adding to burdens on existing facilities or threatening national emissions goals.

Those groups essentially confirmed those views earlier this week in response to the remarks made by Minister Bowen.

There is a need for reform, and the government would have happily engaged with the opposition had the opposition been willing to do so. We made it clear that we would work with anyone across the government and across the parliament who was willing to engage but, regrettably, you chose not to do so, and that will be for you to explain.

The decisions taken by individual businesses in response to the revised approach to the safeguard mechanism will depend on the specific circumstances of those businesses. As we've canvassed already, the design of the mechanism includes a whole range of flexibilities so that businesses can choose the least-cost pathway for compliance. There are options, of course, for businesses to reduce their emissions on site. There are options for businesses that choose to make those investments to generate credits that may be sold if such an investment reduces their emissions below their allocated baseline. There are options for businesses to borrow credits from the future if they plan to make an investment at a future point. There are options for businesses to purchase ACCUs from the market.

These are features of the design—a design to provide business with flexibility—and they are a consequence of the consultation undertaken with business over the eight-month period we've described. But they necessarily mean that government can't prescriptively say how an individual business will respond. That would be for an individual business to decide, and they will make their best judgements based on their assessment of the technology, their assessment of their operating environment and their assessment of their investor appetite. The question you're asking is a question for business. But we have consulted with them and engaged with them about the mechanism, because we want to deeply understand what they think would provide the necessary flexibility for them to be on the path to net zero. As we've pointed out, there are costs and consequences for the Australian economy and for businesses if we don't get on this pathway. They arise from uncertainty, they arise from the response from the international community, they arise from responses that might be made by our trading partners and they arise from decisions that might be made by investors.

All the information before us suggests it is important that we make clear how we are going to achieve our targets. It's why the BCA said:

Australia needs a credible, durable framework to reach its climate targets and grow the economy.

It's why the Investor Group on Climate Change said:

The reforms will help to unlock investment in the new and existing industries that will maximise Australia’s competitive advantages in a net zero world.

They also said this:

The willingness of a diverse range of lawmakers to work together provides investors with the greater clarity they require to deploy the billions of dollars Australia needs to reach net zero by 2050.

It's important, isn't it, because these reforms will help to unlock investment in the new and existing industries that will maximise our competitive advantage. I don't know why the opposition wasn't interested in the conversation about how to do that, because our stakeholders wanted it. Your business stakeholders wanted it. But it wasn't a conversation you wanted to be a part of.

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

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this false claim that there was an invitation to sit down and work through bad policy. I've said it already in this debate: you can't improve the unimprovable. We said before the last election that it was all about technology, not taxes, and the best way to work with the big emitters, the 215 facilities caught under the safeguard mechanism, was to work with them to incentivise investment in R&D, technology, to find ways to minimise their emissions. That is a good way to go.

The minister herself has said through this debate that a number of entities caught under the safeguard mechanism had in place plans to meet targets. That's an acknowledgement that working with them to incentivise investments in R&D and better ways to do what they do to minimise the impact on the environment, namely reduce carbon emissions, is a good way to do it. Taxing the life out of business is not a good way to do it. I've run through the impacts that that will have. I note, in answer to my question, which was: 'Can the government guarantee that not a single job will be lost as a result of taxing the life out of these entities caught under the safeguard mechanism?' no guarantee was given. So in Australia, in addition to not knowing how much more train tickets are going to cost in Victoria, in addition to not knowing how much higher power prices are going to be, in addition to not knowing whether cement manufacturing is going to be a viable industry in this country, we don't know whether people are going to lose their jobs over this. But I have a hunch, a little suspicion, that they will, that we're going to make ourselves uncompetitive through this bloody minded approach to driving down emissions through tax, not technology, and working against business, not with them.

All of the quotes that the minister has read out talk about businesses being willing to work with government. I'm not so sure the feelings they have today about this brave new world we live in, where Labor and the Greens collude in a smoke-filled backroom of this parliament to cook up schemes that are going to be disastrous for business, disastrous for jobs and, in fact, bizarrely, bad for the environment with more trucks on the road, less trains on the tracks and power prices going up. And, of course, as I said before, we have this global responsibility to countries across this world to help them reduce their emissions. It's something this government have talked about a lot, but instead what we're doing is we're sending our emissions over to those countries to get in the products that we depend on. I don't understand why this government thinks that this is a good way to go.

I appreciate this repeated invitation for us to be a part of the solution and to work with this government. But, I will tell you what, the baseline, the red-line issue, for this government is, 'You can come and work with us provided you agree with taxing business more.' We promised at the last election that there would be no taxes of this nature being brought in. You didn't. You did also promise that power prices would go down, and $275 a pop was promised. I note there's no reference to that anywhere in this debate, apart from coalition senators and those who've made contributions to this debate who highlighted them.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a number the government can't now say!

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

I'll take the interjection from Senator Brockman, which was, 'It's a number the government can't now say.'—except when it comes to a tax! Eerily enough, that promised power price reduction of $275 has materialised as the amount of tax businesses are going to have to pay per tonne of carbon emissions over the baseline—$275! So, they dubbed the Australian people by making a false promise, a promise they knew they couldn't keep and had no intention of keeping on election day, as evidenced by the fact that not one Labor member, not one Labor senator, has said in this building or on TV or in the papers that it remains their promise. I invite the minister to—at some point before one o'clock today, before the guillotine comes down on this debate, on this horrendous piece of legislation, where the Labor-Green deal will be voted on in this brave new world of backroom deals where we'll have consultation and collaboration if you agree with us but not if you don't, and of we'll freeze you out and you can just suck up the consequences.

The minister also talked about those costs and consequences of not acting, with no reference to the costs and consequences of doing what this bill will do. There's no modelling, or, if there is, we're not allowed to see it. We don't know of the 215 facilities captured under this legislation how they'll be impacted. As I said before, it is not beyond expectation to be able to go out to 215 facilities and say: 'Hey, if we impose on you a 4.9 per cent per annum reduction in emissions, how will it affect you?' They haven't even done that. We don't know what the impact will be. How many jobs will be lost? Many. Power prices going up? Guaranteed. And do you know what? It's the beginning of the end.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! As it is 11.15 am, the committee will report progress to the Senate.