31 May 2024
Topics: Climate trigger and environmental laws, Federal EPA, Liberal Party
E&OE
Tom Connell:
The Liberal Party’s warning and a so called ‘climate trigger’ in the future, that would mean major projects, including mining projects, have to consider overall emissions and therefore could be blocked. Joining me now, Shadow Environment Minister, Jonathon Duniam. I just want to stress I haven’t seen anywhere that Labor is saying they’ll actually do this? But what about the theory of it at some point, would this make sense even if not right now that we’re not just going to say, endlessly dig up and export coal for 50 or 100 years, even if other countries do want it?
Senator Duniam:
Well, it’s a bit of a balancing act. First, let’s just be clear; yesterday, I think it was, the Prime Minister was asked whether he would rule out using a climate trigger and he refused to do so. So, it’s on the cards. It’s something that’s being talked about. It’s part of the government’s consultation paper on stage three of their environmental laws. So it’s very in play. Now, measuring our carbon emissions and managing the impact we have on the environment through carbon emissions and other factors as well is important, but that has to be balanced against economic and social need as well. And the climate trigger will in no way take into account the economic benefits of what we do when it comes to digging up coal and extracting gas and using it for energy generation and manufacturing and the like. So that is the problem with the climate trigger. It doesn’t have any balance in it at all.
Tom Connell:
So we do often hear people on the Coalition side say, “hey, even the coal we export, it’s replacing dirty coal”, it might be true in some circumstances, but if that’s not the case in the future, say a country is founded that they’re still using coal because it’s relatively cheap from Australia rather than going for, you know, a more renewable future, is that a point in time that we should question whether or not we just ship coal, just because other countries buy it?
Senator Duniam:
Well, if you look at the countries that are buying it, and the biggest consumer of Australian coal being India, that resource is being used to power the transition from poverty to relative comfort and some prosperity for millions and millions of Indians. I mean, the reality is they need that energy to be able to keep the hospitals running, to keep the factories running, to keep the lights on. And I think if we deprived them of that resource and force them into some sort of renewables transition because it’s “the right thing to do” that would be a bad thing. People would go backward in terms of their standard of living. So on that, it’s not a forever thing, but certainly, we should do what we can to support those countries as they transition from poverty to prosperity.
Tom Connell:
Ok, not forever. Fair enough. Want to ask you about the Peter Dutton pledge. He wants to cap time frames for environmental assessments. Would that be mining projects or all projects?
Senator Duniam:
All projects, Tom. I mean the assessment process, both at the state and federal level is so incredibly complex and protracted and when you’ve got projects that can be in assessment phase for more than a decade, I think it says that there is something wrong. So, to be able to put some guard rails around limiting those times, I think is entirely sensible.
Tom Connell:
And how do you do that? What’s the time frame for example? How do you set the time frame?
Senator Duniam:
Well, if you go and talk to both sides of any debate when it comes to a new development, that is, the community, the environmental movement and then industry, the proponents of a development, both want certainty. So, if you talk to those who are engaged in the approvals process, a mining company or a renewables company, the studies they go through, the process as they have to undertake, they can put a timeline on. So, it shouldn’t take a decade to get a new mine approved.
Tom Connell:
Ok, so it’s a case-by-case scenario. You have an assessment. You talk to both sides. They say we can get this done in two years, as an example, and that becomes the cap. Is that how this works?
Senator Duniam:
I think what we need to be doing is setting a cap and working with industry to develop that cap. We need to actually fully understand what is feasible and what is doable. We don’t want to set an unreal… (interrupts)
Tom Connell:
But I’m just asking is it a case by case or is it like you know, there’s a project of this size you get a year? If it’s this size, you get two years, but what is the cap? What does it relate to?
Senator Duniam:
The cap would be around the nature of the project, and probably to as your description there indicated, that if it is a project of a certain size, certain geography etc, then this is what we would be looking at in terms of a time frame. And it is something that is developed in consultation with the industry, the people that go and commission the experts to do all of the studies necessary to get this approval up. So, it’s not just some random number generated out of Canberra, it is something that is done off the experience of those engaged in the process now.
Tom Connell:
And what if it’s missed? So the projects given a year and after a year they go look, we’ve done 70 per cent of the work, do you just have to have a decision based on that? Do they get an extension? In other words, it’s not a real cap, what happens?
Senator Duniam:
Well, if you look at the reason why many of these delays occur in approvals processes, it’s because the bureaucracy in Canberra do this thing called “stop the clock”. They stopped the timeline on an assessment and go away and think about what’s been provided to them. Most of the delays occur at that end and that is what we need to clamp down on. Now, of course, going and getting a study done on… (interrupts)
Tom Connell:
Ok, I’m just asking what happens. It’s done. The times expired. They don’t have 100% of the data. What happens then?
Senator Duniam:
Well, I would be urging the bureaucracy to get their act together and get it sorted. So on that basis, I would hope that if an extension is required, one could be sought, but it’d have to be a very good reason. If a proponent needs further time, then so be it. But, if it’s the bureaucracy… (interrupts)
Tom Connell:
OK, so not a hard cap.
Senator Duniam:
…then there is no excuse. When a delay is caused by the bureaucracy, it won’t be tolerated. If a proponent requires more time to comply with requests for further information, then I believe it should be considered because they’re the ones who are out there doing the work required by law. The bureaucrats are the ones who often take too long to make a decision.
Tom Connell:
Ok. So, when you say “not tolerated”, what does that mean for the bureaucrats? You go “well, too bad you’ve had enough time. Make a decision”. Is that what you mean by not tolerate it?
Senator Duniam:
Provide your advice to the Minister, so the Minister can make a decision. This is the thing now, if the data is incomplete, that means the proponent hasn’t been able to provide the information. On that basis, the proponent would hopefully be seeking to extend time a little bit, or if it is incomplete, then how could you assess it? It really is a case-by-case thing. My view is you put the timeline in, bureaucrats must abide by it. If a proponent can’t and they tell us, they should be able to, then that’s when you consider these things on a case-by-case basis.
Tom Connell:
Let me ask you just finally and briefly look, I’m not sure if you caught it, but you were there, you were, you were in the video, actually it was a moment in Senate Estimates when Bridget Archer was mentioned and Bridget McKenzie said, “the Labor member for Bass” a couple of times and had a chuckle and you gave her a friendly pat as to say, ‘oh, keep that quiet’. Is that the running joke in the Party? That Bridget Archer is not a real Liberal?
Senator Duniam:
No, it’s not at all. Our political party, like the Labor Party, like the Greens… (interrupts)… no, not a running joke at all. Our political party is like a family. There are often tensions. People have different points of view, and most of these, you know, sometimes come out. So look, it’s not a running joke. People have different views about different things. There are sometimes frustrations, but at the end of the day, we’re all part of one Party and both Bridgets’ do work together for the same goal and I enjoy working with both of them.
Tom Connell:
Alright. Maybe you’re the intermediary keeping things ticking. Jonathon Duniam, appreciate your time today. Thank you.