Albanese government threatens to adopt Greens’ new climate trigger

Business warns that Tanya Plibersek’s threat of a climate trigger in new green laws would devastate the economy and kill projects industry-wide.

Tanya Plibersek passes by Minerals Council CEO Tania Constable at Minerals Week in Canberra on Wednesday. Picture: Adam Taylor

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles. Give us your feedback.

You can now listen to The Australian's articles.

The peak business lobby has launched a blistering attack on the federal government, warning Anthony Albanese his economic credentials would be trashed if Labor struck a deal with the Greens to pass new environmental laws with a virtual climate trigger that it claimed could devastate the economy.

The Australian understands the government alerted business leaders late on Wednesday that it would bring on its Nature Positive bill for debate in the Senate as early as Thursday and it was close to a deal with the Greens, in a show of ­political brinkmanship to the Coalition and the business community that it intended to get the laws passed despite their concerns.

A climate consideration enshrined in laws to establish an ­Environment Protection Agency, as demanded by the Greens, would amount to a broken pledge to the business community and the mining sector, which have ­bitterly opposed such an ­inclusion. It would also have ­fundamental consequences for the economy through its impact on the assessment of all new future projects, business leaders have warned.

In an escalation of the increasing hostility between Labor and the business community, Business Council of Australia chief executive Bran Black claimed Labor’s economic credibility was now at stake.

“The government’s economic credibility is on the line if they do a deal with the Greens,” Mr Black told The Australian on Wednesday. “The BCA strongly advocates for the net-zero transition, more renewables and a reduction of emissions, which is already ­legislated through the Safeguard Mechanism.

“A climate trigger or climate considerations could be economically devastating, and a Greens deal should be ruled out. The Prime Minister went to Perth and said he wanted jobs and economic activity in relation to Nature Positive and that’s at risk with a Greens deal.

Mr Black said the BCA had long urged bipartisanship on contentious legislation concerning land use. “If the government can’t reach a deal with the Coalition, undertaking significant environmental reform in a bipartisan way, the legislation should be pulled,” he said.

The new battlefront emerged following an admission by Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek to mining executives on Wednesday morning that the government had been negotiating with the Greens on a climate consideration, despite the Prime Minister last week claiming that the agency would only be a compliance body.

If Labor struck a deal with the Greens on a climate trigger being included in the bill, it would be a reversal of the government’s position in its negotiations with the Coalition on the bill.

Ms Plibersek’s office told ­senior business leaders on ­Wednesday afternoon that the government was close to a deal with the Greens and planned to “bring on the bill” as early as Thursday.

A climate consideration in new environmental laws would not only affect mining but would apply to new projects across all industries and sectors. It would also, by definition, apply to renewable energy projects.

Ms Plibersek admitted in a question-and-answer session to mining executives in Canberra that Labor had been in discussions about a climate consideration. In response a question from Minerals Council of Australia chief executive Tania Constable on whether she would rule it out, the Environment Minister said: “Well, I think the way we consider climate in this ­country right now is through the safeguard mechanism. We’ve got the trajectory to net zero.

“We know that large projects have to fit within that. But at this stage I’ve got to be clear, we are in intense negotiations right across the parliament. I’m not going to pretend to you that there is, you know, there’s no discussion of climate considerations as part of that negotiation. I’m not going to pretend that.”

The Greens had originally ­demanded a climate trigger be ­included in the legislation, which would prohibit projects with ­carbon emissions above a certain level. This would have had the effect of killing off many of the government-backed critical minerals projects. The Greens then watered down the language to “climate consideration”.

Ms Constable told The Australian that a climate consideration was “a climate trigger by stealth, a wolf in sheep’s clothing that represents a direct threat to Australia’s clean-energy transition”.

“Australia already has extensive climate regulatory architecture in place to reach net qero, including the Safeguard Mechanism, the Renewable Energy Target, the National Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reporting Scheme, and the recently passed mandatory climate-reporting laws,” Ms Constable said.

“Putting another layer of climate regulation and obligation on projects would hurt the clean energy transition without delivering any environmental benefit.“

Opposition environment spokesman Jonno Duniam accused Ms Plibersek of a betrayal of good-faith negotiations on the bill between the government and opposition.

“To now learn that the government has, this whole time, been in secret talks with the Greens to insert a job-destroying and economy-killing climate trigger does make us question whether the government are at all interested in protecting jobs and getting the balance between the environment and the economy right,” Senator Duniam said

“The Coalition have been locked in negotiations with the government to amend their unworkable Nature Positive bills to make them the least worst possible for businesses and the community. This was displayed in the Prime Minister’s announcement last week that a federal EPA would be a compliance-only body, caving to Coalition demands to gut the assessment component of this unelected bureaucracy that the Environment Minister originally proposed.

“It looks like all that Tanya Plibersek is interested in is passing a bill no matter its form, no matter how many jobs it wipes out, no matter the impact on Australia’s standing among the international business community or the amount of time it takes to get an environmental approval under this government.”

Peter Dutton said the government had broken “good faith” with its plans to establish an environmental protection agency, adding that the Coalition’s key concern was the climate trigger.

The Opposition Leader criticised Labor for using non-disclosure agreements to prevent stakeholder consultations leaking, arguing that if the bill was in the nation’s and the sector’s best interest then all details should be made public. “Some of our concerns have been answered by the government; others haven’t,” Mr Dutton told a Minerals Council of Australia event.

“It’s caused me great concern and suspicion that the government’s required people to sign non-disclosure agreements in their negotiations.”