Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words—

"the bill be considered next sitting."

We are dealing with this here, on the eve of the budget reply, because a dirty deal was done between Labor and the Liberals in the Senate earlier today to gag debate and stop the Greens and crossbenchers from speaking on a bill that will enable public money to be used for new coal and gas projects. That dirty deal was done by an opposition that here complains about getting gagged by the government. We in the Greens and the crossbench usually support people having the right to speak in this place, whichever way they end up voting. But, in the Senate earlier today—for fear of being embarrassed about their vote to hand over to this terrible government billions of dollars in a slush fund for new coal and gas projects in the middle of a climate crisis—the Labor Party joined with the Liberals to ram it through the Senate. While there were still speakers on the speaking list and amendments to be debated, they voted to ram it through the Senate and gag debate. So we should not support that gagging and that abuse of process here now, by having these amendments be considered immediately, because there was no opportunity to even debate them in the Senate and to get to the bottom of what these amendments and this bill would actually mean. This bill and the amendments that we're being asked to immediately consider open up the space for a government that have said they want to expand the Beetaloo Basin, which will light the fuse on a climate time bomb, expand gas projects in the Galilee, which will also make it near impossible for us to reach our climate targets, and support new gas-fired power stations and potentially new coal-fired power stations as well.

The minister who is responsible for this bill and is seeking that these amendments be agreed to, just the other day, with respect to this particular fund, vetoed money going to a renewables project because he didn't like it, even though the fund itself said, 'Yes, we should be supporting renewables.' The minister said, 'No. I don't want money going to that. I just want money going to coal and gas.' The minister who is responsible for this bill and wants the amendments has stood up in this chamber and said he wants to take public money that could go to schools and hospitals and, instead, use it to expand new coal and gas projects. That is what the minister has said. If we do end up debating these immediately, then I want the opportunity to talk at some length about what these amendments will do. The minister has said he wants to take public money, which could go to schools and hospitals, and use it to fund new coal and gas projects. The amendments—again which I note I will speak to further—basically say that, when the government want to take an equity stake in a project, and potentially a new coal- or gas-fired power station, they're not even required to have a written agreement laying out the terms and conditions, putting publicly funded money at risk.

This is an astonishing abuse of process done to fast-track the climate crisis. I urge the government and those in the government who think that the climate crisis should be taken seriously—there are not many of them, and we know the Prime Minister is not one and the minister is not one, but there are some in this place who say, 'We take the climate crisis seriously'—to not debate today a bill that was gagged and rammed through the Senate and is going to make the climate crisis worse. Allow us the time to look through the amendments that weren't allowed to be debated in the Senate because the Liberals and Labor did a dirty deal to gag the Greens and the crossbench from debating them and scrutinising the amendments properly. Don't debate them today and don't consider them immediately. Allow us the time to look at them. If we have the time to look at these amendments, which is what my amendment to the minister's motion will do, what you will see is this: everyone around the world is saying that we are in a climate crisis and we need a plan to phase out coal and gas while looking after the workers and affected communities.

What we cannot do is build new coal and gas infrastructure. If you don't want to listen to the Greens, listen to the United States government and listen to climate envoy John Kerry, who has said there is no space left in our carbon budget to build new coal and gas infrastructure. It will become a stranded asset—that is, a very bad investment. If and when we get to the detail of the amendments, I will make this point at length. It will not only be a stranded asset, because you're exposing people to carbon risk; it will blow the chance of staying within our carbon budget. Not only should we not build new coal and gas infrastructure; we certainly shouldn't use public money to do it. I know that's not the government's position. The government's position is to do whatever the coal and gas corporations ask. That's who they take the donations from.

These gas corporations took in $55 billion of income in the last recorded year and paid zero dollars tax. And, instead of asking them to pay their fair share of tax, this government says, 'Let's line up to give you even more money.' And it's public money. These so-called free-marketeers in this government are quite happy to dip their hand into the Australian public's pocket and give that money to gas and coal corporations who earn billions of dollars in income and don't pay any tax. How is that fair? How is it fair that these corporations that pay no tax are now going to get public handouts? I know how the free market dissolves, when it comes to the government, whenever the big coal and gas corporations come and ask for handouts. The government is very happy to give them handouts. That's what they want to do. I expect it from the Liberals. But, up until today, I thought it was Labor Party policy not to give public money to new coal and gas projects.

I thought the Labor Party at least stood with us in saying that—whatever you think about whether or not there should be coal and gas projects, and the Greens want to see them phased out over the next 10 years and the Labor Party doesn't; okay, we've got that difference of opinion—you don't use public money to support new coal and gas projects. But, no. Apparently, today, the Labor Party's position has shifted. And, apparently, as we saw with the dirty deal in the Senate where this bill was rammed through, the Labor Party's position now is, 'We support the Liberals in giving public money to coal and gas corporations.' Liberal and Labor are now saying, 'Public money that could be going to schools and hospitals should now go to coal and gas corporations.' They are singing from the same song sheet. And these amendments that Labor now wants us to fast-track through this parliament say that, when the government's going to take an ownership stake and, potentially, own a new coal or gas power station or coal and gas infrastructure, you don't even need a written agreement or due diligence. That is now the Labor Party's position.

I expect climate criminality from the Liberals, but I didn't know Labor had flipped as well and was now up for writing the minister for resources a blank cheque to fund whichever coal and gas project he wants to anywhere around the country. But so desperate are the Labor Party to bankroll new coal and gas projects and suck up to the Liberals that they will gag debate in the Senate and stop the Greens and crossbenchers from shining even the smallest bit of light on this dirty deal that is being done. No, don't come in here and give a budget reply speech and talk about climate change and talk about renewables and pretend you care on the same day that you vote to say it's okay for the Liberals to give handouts of public money to coal and gas.

This should not be considered immediately. We should allow the time for debate that the Senate didn't have. But, if you do try and ram it through, we will hold all of you to account for the consequences of these dirty amendments. (Time expired)

See this speech in context