Senator BARTLETT (4:43 PM) —In relation to those issues and some of the responses that the minister has been given, it is important to emphasise that a lot of the minister's responses have indicated that this is just a matter of convincing the states that it is in their interests and that it is a positive thing. I am quite sure that it is a positive thing and that it is in the states' interests; it is certainly in the nation's interests and in the environment's interests. But what has been glossed over is part of why it is important to move with this amendment now. It is not just a matter of convincing the states; it is a matter of convincing federal cabinet, the Prime Minister and some other people such as Minister Anderson. It is quite clear that it is an ongoing fight for the federal government to hold firm to this as well. It is important to emphasise that because it is not just important from the environment's point of view but it is also a clear commitment that the government gave. It was not some little wink on the side; it was quite a clear-cut commitment. The Democrats certainly continue to place a lot of importance on the commitment that the Prime Minister himself made.

It is important that the Senate sends a clear message to the Prime Minister and the government more broadly that we believe this is a matter that should be inserted in the act, it is a matter of urgency and the government should move this way. As the minister correctly said, given the wording of the existing act now as it has been amended, there is no requirement for the states to agree. They do not have a veto. Obviously it is preferable they support changes, but if we had a consultation process that dragged on until the states were happy, that would in effect give them a veto. I emphasise again that it is not just a matter of the states being happy but a matter of cabinet itself agreeing and sticking to the commitments the Prime Minister gave. It is an important issue. The Senate should be sending a clear message to the government more broadly that it believes it is important, by supporting this amendment.

I take this opportunity to correct the record slightly in relation to some aspects of comments that have been made in relation to the Democrats' support for this act. I will try not to do this repeatedly, but it is important to again make it clear. I certainly do not try and hide the fact that the Democrats were crucial to this act coming into place or that that was done via a guillotine which limited debate. The Democrats did not do that lightly but, as I have said a number of times already, it was done because we believed there was a window of opportunity to achieve a significant improvement to federal environmental legislation. That may well have closed. The fact that the government has had trouble sticking to its own commitments and the Prime Minister has had trouble sticking to his commitments since then gives a clear indication that the window may well have closed. We would not have a framework for inserting a greenhouse trigger if we had not taken that opportunity and put this new, improved environmental legislation in place. It is worth re-emphasising. I certainly do not suggest there was universal support at the time from the environment movement for that action of the Democrats. As I said, we chose to take a hard decision because we were concerned about getting the best outcomes for the environment. I have not heard of too many environment groups going around calling for a repeal of the EPBC Act and a return to the previous legislative regime.

Senator Brown's comments last night in the second reading stage might have given an indication that there were mechanisms there before, such as the corporations power. He may want to return to the government having to use indirect mechanisms such as the corporations power, and the decision making minister being people such as Senator Minchin rather than the environment minister, but the Democrats certainly do not. We believe where we have got to under this legislation is a significant advance. I have not heard of many environment groups that seek to move backwards to that previous regime. It is worth emphasising again some of the assessments that people have made since they have had the time to examine it. I acknowledge that, because of the way in which the bill was passed, there were a lot of changes that people had to have time to look at. But, given the ongoing `misunderstanding', to put it politely, of the Democrats' motivation and role in this, it is important to put on the record again the reasons why the Democrats agreed to improve our national environment legislation. I would have thought it would be pretty clear why we would take an opportunity to improve the overall mechanism for national, federal control over the environment—but apparently not.

Simon Molesworth QC, who is national president of the Environment Institute of Australia and founder of the Victorian Environment Defenders Office, said at a conference last year in Sydney organised by the Environment Defenders Office that the EPBC Act is:

I could read any number of quotes like that. I am sure others who wish to continue to oppose the existing act could find quotes to say the contrary, but it is clear that there is a significant body of opinion from people who understand environmental legislation and the history of it in Australia that this is a significant advance overall. That is the reason the Democrats supported it. We certainly do not try and hide the fact that we were responsible for guillotining it through or that that was clearly a less than ideal process, but we do not resile from what I believe is significant achievement in providing not just a major advance in overall federal environmental protection but a platform for further improvement. We have a mechanism in place for further expansion of federal environmental powers that would not otherwise have been here and we would not be having this debate today. Maybe the minister might have preferred that. I am sure we will be having similar debates in the future with future governments about continuing to use this platform to further strengthen federal environmental protection. I thought it necessary to correct the record in relation to that. The Democrats certainly do not resile from our actions and, in supporting further improvements to this act, we certainly do not in any way concede that that suggests that somehow or another it was a mistake to support the initial bill establishing the act and the significant advance that made.

It is about time that we looked forward in relation to this issue and looked to making further improvements. It is pleasing that the opposition is again putting this trigger forward—and I acknowledge it was put forward last year. It is important that opportunities be taken wherever possible to increase the overall strength of our commitment at national level to overseeing, regulating and controlling our greenhouse emissions. It is clear that our performance is getting worse rather than better and it is also clear that it is a serious global issue. I urge the government, when it gets the amended bill, to take account of the views of the Senate and agree to retain this trigger as an added protection. As the minister himself said in his statements earlier, this is a commitment that the federal government has taken on board in the international arena and it is, quite frankly, a bit ridiculous that we have a federal government now sending out messages that it is resisting opportunities to give itself legislative power to ensure that its international commitments are able to be met.