And it’s not just business complaining – environmental groups rightly say our laws don’t protect  nature. 

There’s consensus on the path forward: clear national environmental standards, streamlined  processes that avoid duplication, fair compensation for affected landholders, regional planning  with “go” and “no-go” zones, and better access to quality data. 

Now we need government action. 

Labor backed away from reform last term. This time, we need a commitment to act within 12  months.  

Not everyone will get everything they want – but when the current system fails both business  and nature, perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of progress. 

Second, let’s expand carbon pricing through the Safeguard Mechanism

The Safeguard aims to reduce emissions from Australia’s 219 biggest polluters. It was  strengthened in the last parliament, is well-understood by business, and is a de-facto carbon  price on 31% of national emissions.

There isn’t political momentum for the economy wide carbon price favoured by economists  (and some business), so let’s focus on making the Safeguard mechanism work better, by fixing  shortcomings like over-reliance on low integrity offsets and generous exemptions for “trade exposed” industries. 

Most importantly, let’s send a clear signal that the Safeguard will be expanded in the future, and  more of the economy covered by carbon pricing. This should start, as the Productivity  Commission has recommended, with the one-fifth of heavy industry emissions that currently  fall outside the scheme’s scope. 

The Safeguard comes up for legislated review next year. The roundtable needs to set clear  expectations about what that review should achieve. 

Third, we must reform the diesel fuel rebate  

The Safeguard Mechanism is meant to incentivise emissions reduction in heavy industry, but those incentives are undercut by the diesel fuel rebate. 

Our current system rebates mining companies $495 for every 1,000 litres of diesel used off road, and effectively charges them a $5 carbon price under the Safeguard.

This means the government is literally subsidising diesel at 49 cents a litre, and discouraging miners from shifting to electric trucks and renewables. 

The rebate distorts investment, undermines climate policy, and benefits big mining companies. The government should take up the Grattan Institute’s proposal to wind back this generous rebate, apply an emissions charge instead, and begin the shift to road-user charging. 

And finally, let’s get a fair return on our resources and use that revenue to reduce debt

Day three of the roundtable will focus on tax. A good place to start is ensuring taxpayers get a fair deal when our resources are sold overseas. 

In the 1990s, governments collected around 30 cents in revenue for every dollar of oil and gas sold. Today, it’s closer to 7 cents – despite surging gas prices following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. 

And while the gas industry makes more money and pays less tax, governments are footing the bill for decommissioning their assets – like the estimated $500 million for cleaning-up Chevron’s Barrow Island project.

Economists agree on the need to tax resource rents more. Doing so is economically efficient – because unlike other industries, gas fields can’t decide to move offshore. Reform here would create space to reduce debt or cut inefficient taxes that impose excessive burdens elsewhere,  such as income taxes on younger workers. 

Of course, these aren’t the only climate reforms we need. But adopting these four proposals at the roundtable would help reduce emissions, unlock investment, and boost productivity.