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

It means the government is not required to have a written agreement laying out the terms and conditions when putting publicly funded money at risk. What that does mean? What do these amendments that we are being asked to agree to tonight, as part of a deal that gagged the crossbench and the Greens from talking about this bill and these amendments in the Senate, mean? We had no debate on these amendments at all in the Senate—absolutely none—because Labor and the Liberals decided they would do a deal to gag the crossbench and the Greens from speaking. These amendments that we are now having a debate on—any debate on; this is the first time these amendments have been debated at any time in the parliament because of that dirty deal to gag debate—mean that if, under the NAIF, the government decides to use public money to invest in a new piece of coal or gas infrastructure, and it decides to do it by taking an equity stake—that is, it decides to part-own it—we do not need to have a written agreement available and disclosed that sets out the terms and conditions on which that equity stake is being taken. That is an astounding proposition when it comes to the use of public money generally. It is an astounding proposition that you can have public ownership taken in something without the requirement for there to be a written agreement. You would think that this government would be loath to take equity stakes in anything, given their supposed free-market ideology. Apparently that all falls away when it comes to fossil fuels. They are quite happy, according to these amendments, to take an equity stake in a coal and gas project. So it's, 'Let renewables fall over and use this fund'—as the minister just did—'to veto investment in a renewables related project.' Even though the facility itself said it was worth investing in, he said, 'No, we are going to veto that.'

A government member: Hear, hear!

But when it comes to coal and gas—I hear, 'Hear, hear!' as an interjection coming in. I'll take that interjection which says, 'Hear, hear!' Apparently it is a very good thing that the government vetos funding in renewables.

So we have it very clearly that the government's position is not to fund and take ownership stakes, or any kind of investment, in renewables. Alright. That's what the government wants to do. But, apparently, it's okay when it comes to fossil fuels. In other words, the government says it is fine to have some form of public ownership of coal and gas stations. The Liberal government says, 'We are going to have some form of public ownership in coal- and gas-fired power stations or potential infrastructure.' We know the kinds of projects that the government has in mind with this amendment. We know them because the minister has spoken about them in this parliament. They're projects that include, for example, expanding the Beetaloo Basin. The minister has called that, without any hint of irony, 'the hottest play on the planet'. We know that, if that expansion is allowed to go ahead, we blow any chance of Australia meeting its climate targets and we put the rest of the world at risk, by lighting the fuse on a climate bomb. That is the kind of project that is envisaged by this amendment. This amendment would potentially allow the government to take an ownership stake in a corporation that it might set up, or it might go and support some kind of private— (Time expired)

See this speech in context