Senator BROWN (5:08 PM) —I was not opposed to expediting the proceedings, but I did want to ask Senator Allison on each amendment—most of these amendments were put forward by the Democrats and they are now dumping them—what it is that the government said to her that has encouraged her to cave in like this. This is an extraordinary event that we are witnessing here. We saw yesterday the Democrats vote for this bill, which does involve this terrible proposal that forests be burnt and turned into electricity and that that be classed as renewable. We have seen the Democrats turn down an earlier Greens amendment that, before that happened, there should be a Commonwealth environmental impact assessment, remembering there will be an assessment at state level—but in Tasmania at least that means nothing because the minister can simply override it.

Now we are seeing the government say to the Democrats: `Look, we are going to apply a little bit of pressure to you. We won't let this legislation through if you do not agree to us rejecting these amendments from the Senate, even though you put up some of them.' As Senator Bolkus has said for the Labor Party, the pressure is really on the government because it wants to go to the COP6 talks at The Hague on global warming in the Netherlands next month and say that it has passed this legislation; it has at last passed a piece of very modest legislation to do something about the enormous problem of global warming in Australia. Instead, a quick chat in the back row with Senator Allison during the course of these proceedings, if we are to understand the minister—and I am still waiting to hear from Senator Allison on this—sees a comprehensive cave-in on these amendments, with the exception of half of one and a bit of another. We are talking about a dozen amendments at least. Most of these amendments are core Democrat territory, which is that to set aside the environmental component is to be transparent and is to be publicly accountable. They are saying, `Make the government be publicly accountable.' The first amendment, which is apparently now going to be thrown out by the Democrats, is just stating that the object of this bill is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and also to ensure that renewable energy sources are ecologically sustainable. This is not just Greens territory; this has been in the past a bulwark of Democrat environmental policy. But here, if Senator Hill is to be heard correctly, Senator Allison is saying, after a quick chat from him, `We'll dump that.' This is extraordinary behaviour from the Democrats, if that is the case. The pressure is on the government. The government would accede to these amendments because it wants to take this legislation to The Hague, but with a quick chat the Democrats have caved in to Senator Hill on it, having said they would not—all within the space of about 20 minutes.

I am not going to go further at this particular juncture on this because I do want to hear from Senator Allison. I have been in parliaments long enough to know that sometimes there are extraordinarily unforeseen circumstances which lead people to act totally out of keeping with past behaviour, past principles and even party policy. So I cede the floor to Senator Allison, who no doubt is going to be shepherded from here on by Senator Hill in this matter. But I think Democrat voters and all Australians deserve an explanation for this behaviour.