Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (3) as circulated in my name together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 26 (lines 5 to 14), omit subparagraphs 153ZB(3)(a)(i) and (ii), substitute:

  (i) if the body corporate is an authority of the Commonwealth—an authority of the Commonwealth that is genuinely in competition in relation to electricity markets with the body corporate in relation to which the order is made and that the Commonwealth has a controlling interest in that is equal to or greater than the controlling interest that the Commonwealth has in that body corporate; and

  (ii) if the body corporate is an authority of a State or Territory—an authority of that State or Territory that is genuinely in competition in relation to electricity markets with the body corporate in relation to which the order is made and that the State or Territory has a controlling interest in that is equal to or greater than the controlling interest that the State or Territory has in that body corporate; and

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (after line 6), at the end of section 153ZB, add:

  (9) If a body corporate disposes of interests in assets to another body corporate as required by an order made under this section, then for the purposes of paragraph 311(1)(d) or 768AD(1)(d) of the Fair Work Act 2009, there is taken to be a connection between the body corporate and the other body corporate as described in subsection 311(3) or 768AD(2), as the case may be, of that Act.

Note: This means any employees of the body corporate who become employees of the other body corporate and satisfy paragraphs 311(1)(a) to (c) or 768AD(1)(a) to (c) will be transferring employees in relation to a transfer of business for the purposes of Part 2-8 or Part 6-3A of that Act.

(3) Schedule 1, page 31 (after line 11), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 4—Review of amendments

15 Review of amendments

Before the end of the period of 4 years after this Schedule commences, the Treasurer must establish a review of the effectiveness of the amendments made by Parts 1 and 2 of this Schedule, including a review of the following:

  (a) impacts on electricity market performance, including market efficiency, equity, reliability, affordability, emission reduction and investment outcomes;

  (b) any other factors relevant for an assessment of the effectiveness of the amendments on the Australian electricity sector and economy.

I don't intend to discuss these amendments in great detail. I have dealt with them in my remarks in relation to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 more generally. They essentially deal with three issues. The first is to close absolutely the loophole that existed in the original bill and still exists in the bill in its current form around privatisation of publicly owned electricity assets, particularly in those states of Queensland, WA and Tasmania, where the communities have said time and time again that they want their electricity assets to be publicly owned. This was an issue first raised by the Labor Party and the member for Kennedy. The government has made some progress in relation to it, but amendment (1) closes the loophole entirely. I'm glad that the government is willing to support that.

The second amendment deals with the protection of worker entitlements in the event of a divestiture order. Obviously workers are not to blame in any sense for any of the conduct envisaged by this bill. Their entitlement should be protected absolutely. They should not be prejudiced in any way. Amendment (2) deals with those entitlements that are contained in registered enterprise agreements and awards by giving effect to those protections already contained in the Fair Work Act in the event of a divestiture order.

The third amendment deals with a review of this legislation prior to the sunset clause going into operation. I commend all three amendments to the House.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendments to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. This week, Labor's position has been raised with me. It has changed since the legislation was introduced during the last parliament, and that's because the legislation has been changed. The Labor Party makes no apology for sticking to our guns on some critical issues regarding this legislation. The Labor Party will always stand up for workers' entitlements. That is what we have ensured and will ensure through these amendments.

Secondly, the Labor Party regards privatisation of essential assets as something that has proven to not achieve the outcomes that those people who argue that government should just get out of the way—'Leave it all to the market, and it'll somehow work out!'—think it will. In practice, in part as a direct result of privatisation, we have seen energy prices go up, not down. We have seen, due to a lack of energy policy from this government, prices continue to go up for consumers at the same time as emissions are going up. This government does not have an appropriate energy policy, and this legislation is not a substitute for that.

These amendments deal with critical issues. We said that the original legislation brought forward by the government provided, essentially, a back-door way for the Commonwealth to dictate to state governments that assets should be privatised, in spite of the fact that privatisation of electricity has been a major issue during election campaigns in Queensland, on a number of them; in Western Australia, with the election of the McGowan government; and, of course, in Tasmania, where electricity assets remain in public hands. This legislation, as it stands, dealt with wholesale privatisation and ruled that out. But it left open partial privatisation of assets. Under these amendments, this is what will occur: if there is a divestiture proposed of any public asset, it can only be bought by another public asset. What that does is provide an assurance which Labor has sought. If these amendments are carried—and I expect them to be—Labor will have achieved an outcome that is appropriate.

The second issue is that of workers' entitlements. We want to make sure that, as a result of this legislation, if divestiture does occur, no worker is worse off. We want to make sure, as a condition of our support, that that occurs. The amendments that we have ensure that the transmission of business provisions in the Fair Work Act apply, so that workers' entitlements will be transferred without any loss of leave entitlements, superannuation and all the other measures that apply. That is important.

There's a third issue, which we will also deal with through the Senate inquiry—that is, that some workers' entitlements aren't part of award agreements. Some of them are in unregistered agreements; I particularly refer to agreements between the CFMEU Mining and Energy Division and AGL. Both AGL and the union want those entitlements to be protected. So we will pursue that through the Senate inquiry. We will pursue appropriate amendments in the Senate, and I would expect that, consistent with the government's support for the amendments that we're moving here, they would be accepted as well.

Labor will always stand up for workers' entitlements. The government, when it framed this legislation, just didn't give them a second thought. That's not surprising, because that's the attitude that it has—never standing up for workers, never standing up for entitlements. This is the same government that's presiding over wage stagnation at a time when everyone from the Reserve Bank to the IMF is saying that it's having an impact on our economy.

I commend these amendments to the House. They're important amendments. It's also important that we examine the impact of the legislation prior to the sunset clause kicking in. That's what the third amendment here does.

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (3), (4) and (8), as circulated in my name, together:

(3)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (after line 3), at the end of subsection 153X(1), add:

Note:   An order cannot be made under this section if it would have the effect of inhibiting, delaying or stopping a planned closure of a coal-fired generator: see section 153ZE.

(4)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 25 (after line 26), at the end of subsection 153ZB(1), add:

Note:   An order cannot be made under this section if it would have the effect of inhibiting, delaying or stopping a planned closure of a coal-fired generator: see section 153ZE.

(8)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (after line 3), at the end of Division 7, add:

153ZE No orders under this Part that would affect planned closure of coal-fired generator etc.

Despite Divisions 5 and 6, an order must not be made in relation to a body corporate under either of those Divisions if the order would have the effect of inhibiting, delaying or stopping a planned closure of a coal-fired generator.

What is clear is that this government wants a big stick so that it can beat companies into keeping coal-fired power stations in the system for longer. This comes at a time when the world's scientists have said that, to have any chance of meeting the targets that the world signed up to in the Paris Agreement, we need an orderly plan to replace coal-fired power stations with renewable energy at a rate of about one a year between now and 2030. So we need to be closing coal-fired power stations and replacing them with renewables in an orderly way. We need a plan to do that. That's what the science that the government purports to accept says.

But what has been clear from the contributions to the debate so far from both sides—and I'll go to specifics in a moment—is that this bill allows the government to use the powers in the legislation to effectively keep coal fired power stations like Liddell open for longer. From the government side one need look no further than the contribution from the member for Hughes, who said in the Hansard:

We have in New South Wales a coal-fired power station, Liddell, that AGL say they want to close down … That is anti-competitive conduct …

…   …   …

Therefore, that is why this legislation is so important. We cannot stand back and watch a company with a very substantial degree of market power in an industry that supplies an essential service like electricity engage in anti-competitive conduct by closing down a coal-fired power station—

Julian Simmonds (Ryan, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Hear, hear!

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

I hear 'hear, hear' from the government side. It's crystal clear that this bill allows the government to intervene to keep Liddell and other coal fired power stations like it open for longer.

Government members: Hear, hear!

And they cheer. The government is accepting it. The opposition, who is now shepherding this bill through, understands that that power exists in this bill. The member for Shortland, who is the assistant spokesperson on this, made the point in his contribution yesterday that it potentially threatens the arrangements around the closure of Liddell, and the member for Kingsford Smith made exactly the same point. The opposition is about to support through this place a bill that everybody in this chamber seems to accept allows intervention to keep coal fired power stations in the system for longer. That is a bad provision to have in the bill. I expect it from the government, but the opposition should not be supporting it.

We need to do two things. One is to amend the legislation to exclude the ability for the powers under the legislation to apply when there is a planned coal fired power station closure. That's what amendments (3), (4) and (8) do. I urge everyone in this chamber to support the amendments so it will be crystal clear that AGL can proceed with its planned closure of Liddell and that other companies who accept the science can announce in good time that they're going to close their coal fired power stations and know that this legislation will not be used, as everyone accepts it can be at the moment, to interfere with their projects.

The second thing we need to do—and I understand that the opposition has made reference to things that might happen during the Senate inquiry, so I hope the opposition will change its position—is insist on these amendments when this bill comes before the Senate, so that we don't pass a piece of legislation that allows this climate-denying government to keep coal in the system for longer. Everyone is now on the same page that the government can do that, if we pass this bill. I commend these very sensible amendments to the House, so that, if the government is not going to do the right thing and come up with an orderly plan to replace coal with renewables, like they've done in other countries, then companies who decide that they want to do it won't be inhibited by this bill from so doing.

Mark Butler (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I might make some broad remarks about all of the amendments moved by the member for Melbourne. I very clearly understand the first substantive policy point contained in those amendments, around taxpayer financing for new coal fired power stations or for extending existing coal fired power stations. It's a point I've made myself in this debate on more occasions than I could count over the last few years, but it's not a matter covered by this bill.

I also understand the second substantive policy point that was really the focus of the member for Melbourne's remarks then, about the powers contained in this act being used, effectively, to manipulate the closure schedules of existing coal-fired power stations. I think that point would certainly have much more weight, were the powers to order divestiture still in the minister's hands, with the greatest of respect to the minister. But, with the changes that we have been able to obtain so that those powers are now in the hands of the Federal Court, on the advice of the ACCC, I don't think that those points have the weight that they may have had previously.

More broadly, though, I make the point, as the Leader of the Opposition indicated only just then, that our focus—particularly in this bill, because we think the bill will pass both chambers in one form or another—has been to protect against the privatisation of those publicly owned assets that remain in the jurisdictions that the Leader of the Opposition outlined, and to ensure that there is no prejudice to worker entitlements in the event that a divestiture order is made. We're utterly committed to delivering those two protections for communities, who have said time and time again that they want their electricity assets to remain in public hands and also worker entitlements—two things I know the member for Melbourne feels strongly about, as well.

We know that the member for Melbourne's amendments are not going to be passed by this parliament. We understand the policy position. I have some sympathy, obviously—I've said that time and time again myself—for the policy positions being advanced by the member for Melbourne. But our focus, our very clear focus in this debate, is on those two protections that were identified by the Leader of the Opposition.

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I'd take this opportunity just to make a couple of comments on this amendment and the speech we just heard from the member for Melbourne. This bill is focused on competition policy, on competition reform. The Greens can't see the world through any other lens but emissions. Emissions are important. We're focused on emissions and we have clear policies which will overachieve on our 2020 targets, and we've laid out to the last tonne how we'll will reach our 2030 targets. But to the Greens there is no issue other than emissions, and anticompetitive conduct is something they're completely happy to live with, they seem completely unconcerned about it, because they have one lens through which they look at the world.

We know that in this place just last week they moved a motion on climate emergency, and I've been puzzled as to what the definition of that is. Well, the member for Melbourne has been helping us out with that. The definition has been given by the Greens in the Senate. It is clear: no oil, no gas, no coal—and, frankly, in that world, no hope. There is no hope, because that is what the Greens want to see, and they see the world through that lens only. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Greens are going to get to the parliament in future sittings, and I'm not sure how they're going to get home, because oil is pretty important for transport around this country. But they are focused simply on emissions.

One of the things they want is to see all of our coal-fired power stations bulldozed straightaway. They want to see them gone. We have seen what mismanaging this does in Victoria, where the Victorian government encouraged the closure of the Hazelwood power station. We saw a large slab of electricity supply going out of the market. We were assured by people like the Greens that this wouldn't have an impact on prices. Well, we saw exactly what it did. It more than doubled the wholesale price of electricity on the day it was announced. Now, that doesn't worry the Greens, because they want to see a higher price for electricity so that people don't use it. They don't like electricity. They don't like economic development. They don't like a strong economy, because a strong economy to them is at odds with what they want to achieve.

Our approach to coal-fired power stations is characterised by the Liddell task force, where we've been very, very clear. If we have a coal-fired generator which is planned for closure, we put notice periods in place, as a result of the recommendations of the Finkel review, and we want to see either like-for-like replacement or life extension. It is simple. We can't afford to see large parts of the electricity supply disappearing from the marketplace because guess who will pay. It will be the hardworking families and small businesses of Australia and the people employed by energy-intensive industry who will pay the price for mad green policies that are all about the premature closure of coal-fired power stations—and gas as well. They hate gas as much as they hate coal. This bill is squarely focused on anticompetitive conduct, on manipulation and distortion of the market, on shutting out new competitors coming into the market, on failing to pass on substantial and sustained savings to customers. These are things that really matter to middle Australia. That's the focus of the legislation. We're pleased that Labor is joining us. We're happy to support their amendments of course, because they were already embodied in the original bill. For the avoidance of doubt, we're happy to support Labor's amendments but we're not going to support the amendments put up by the Greens.

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

Just briefly, in response, it takes a special kind of genius to lift pollution and lift power prices, but that's what the minister has done under his government. Fantastic! Great move! Well done, Angus. You've lifted pollution and you've lifted power prices. The independent Australian Energy Regulator has said people are paying more on their power bills now than when the carbon price was enforced and we were reducing pollution as well as generating money that could be used for households and put into renewable energy. You've managed to lift pollution and lift power bills. Great work!

I'm not going to take lectures from a government that, after it abolished the carbon price, doubled wholesale power prices.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member for Petrie, on a point of order?

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the member for Melbourne to refer to the minister by their correct title.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remind the honourable member for Melbourne to use the correct title of members.

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

I'm not going to take a lecture from the minister about power prices when, after they abolished the carbon price, wholesale power prices doubled. That is the effect of what they've done. And now they're playing catch-up, trying to work out how to keep coal in the system for longer and bring down prices. What they haven't worked out is you can't do both. If we had an orderly procedure for replacing coal with renewables, where the fuel is free for renewables, then we'd bring down pollution and bring down power bills. But, as I said, it takes a special kind of genius to lift pollution and lift power bills, but that's what this minister's been able to do because he has made the industry the most uncertain it has been for a very, very long time. And this bill is going to do more of that.

What he shows in his contributions talking about the so-called premature closure of power stations is two things. One is that he's a science denier through and through. He just does not accept what the world scientists have said—that there's a link between coal and global warming and that, if we want to give ourselves the best chance of defeating the climate crisis, we have to have an orderly plan to replace coal with renewables. It's basic physics. But the minister doesn't believe in physics. That's what we've heard in his response, and that's no surprise. The government's facade, their new approach, for dealing with climate change is no longer to say, 'We don't accept the science,' but to say, 'We accept the science, but, don't worry, we're doing something about it.' It's a paper-thin veneer. You can just see the minister itching to say, 'No, we want coal around forever and we don't believe in renewables at all.' That was basically the essence of his contribution just then. That's why we need these amendments. We're hearing the deniers out in force; they're running the show, and we shouldn't be aiding and abetting them. If the minister says, 'Look, this bill is only about anticompetitive conduct,' then he should support the amendments because all the amendments say is, 'You can have the rest of the provisions, the bill just can't get in the way of an orderly closure of coal-fired power stations.' You can have the rest of your bill. If he truly believes it's got nothing to do with climate and everything to do with competition, then support these amendments because it shouldn't get in the way.

With respect to the opposition spokesperson, the amendments that have been moved around entitlements and so on are amendments that we support. They are worthy amendments and I'm glad they got through. But we only need them because the bill, now, is going to get through with Labor and Liberal support.

In the last parliament, the position that we were in was that by standing up to the government and saying, 'No, there's certain things we won't allow you to do,' we were able to get them to put the legislation off, to the point where it potentially was not going to be passed at all. I say again, with respect, it's not enough to say that the Federal Court is now involved—and, by the way, they weren't amendments that the opposition secured; they were in the revised bill that was put already. It's not enough to say that. Are you seriously saying that it won't affect a company's decision if they have the threat of litigation hanging over them, instigated by the minister? Of course it will. If a company has to work out if it has to go through an ACCC process and then potentially a Federal Court process, all initiated by the minister, it is going to affect their decision. They will say, 'Okay, if the price you want for taking the foot off our throats is that we're going to keep the coal-fired power station open for longer, then that is what is going to happen.' It is crystal clear from the government that that is what they want. We should amend the bill to remove the ability for the deniers in government to keep coal-fired power stations open for longer.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the question negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Dr Haines, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting aye.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1), (2), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10) and (11), as circulated in my name, together:

(1)   Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 2), at the end of the heading, add “and prohibition on Commonwealth support for coal-fired electricity generators”.

(2)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (after line 2), at the end of section 153A, add:

This Part also prohibits certain Commonwealth support for coal-fired electricity generators.

(5)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (after line 6), after Division 6, insert:

     Division 6A—Prohibition on Commonwealth support for coal-fired generators

     153ZBA This Division binds the Crown

This Division binds the Crown in right of the Commonwealth. However, it does not bind the Crown in right of a State, of the Australian Capital Territory or of the Northern Territory.

     153ZBB Prohibition on Commonwealth support for coal-fired generators

     (1)   The Commonwealth or an authority of the Commonwealth must not, on or after the commencement of this Division:

           (a)   provide financial support or other support for the purpose (or for purposes that include the purpose) of the refurbishment or building of a coal-fired generator; or

           (b)   purchase, or assist the purchase or transfer of ownership of, a coal-fired generator; or

           (c)   provide financial support to an owner or operator of a coal-fired generator to use, fund, extend the life of or operate the generator.

     (2)   For the purposes of this section, financial support includes any support that involves a current or potential future financial exposure to the Commonwealth, including the Commonwealth underwriting investments or entering into other financial arrangements.

           Exception—regulatory processes

     (3)   Subsection (1) does not apply to support or assistance provided solely for purposes connected with the Commonwealth or authority:

           (a)   processing an application for an approval, licence or permit (however described) that is required under a law of the Commonwealth; or

           (b)   undertaking any other regulatory process under or in accordance with a law of the Commonwealth.

            Exception—transition assistance or research

     (4)   Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply to:

           (a)   financial or other support provided in connection with a program that provides transition assistance to workers affected, or who may be affected, by the retirement of a coal-fired generator; or

           (b)   funding research by an approved research institute (within the meaning of section 73A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936), so far as the research relates to coal-fired generators generally and does not relate only to a particular coal-fired generator or particular coal-fired generators.

            Exception—managed closures

     (5)   Subsection (1) does not apply to:

           (a)   the provision of support in relation to a coal-fired generator; or

           (b)   the purchase, or the assisting of the purchase or transfer of ownership, of a coal-fired generator;

if the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the support, purchase or assistance is the managed closure of the coal-fired generator.

            Subsection (1) has effect despite other laws

     (6)   Subsection (1) has effect despite anything in this Act or any other law of the Commonwealth (whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this section) unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

     (7)   Subsection (6) does not affect the operation of section 153ZC.

            Executive power of the Commonwealth not otherwise limited

     (8)   This section only limits the executive power of the Commonwealth to the extent set out in this section and does not, by implication, limit that power to any other extent.

(6)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (line 11), omit “5 and 6”, substitute “5, 6 and 6A”.

(7)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (line 13), omit “5 or 6”, substitute “5, 6 or 6A”.

(9)   Schedule 1, page 29 (after line 5), after item 2, insert:

     2A Subsection 2A(1)

     Omit “44E and 95D”, substitute “44E, 95D and 153ZBA”.

(10)      Schedule 1, item 3, page 29 (line 8), after “XICA”, insert “(other than Division 6A)”.

(11)      Schedule 1, item 14, page 31 (after line 11), at the end of the item, add:

        (3)   Subitem (1) does not apply to Division 6A of Part XICA of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, as inserted by this Schedule.

It's clear from the last two votes in this parliament that the government and the opposition are prepared to intervene in the energy market and tell companies what to do, and it's clear that the government and the opposition are content with intervening to say, 'Let's keep coal-fired power stations open for longer even where the companies agreed to close them down.' So we are squarely within the realm of: what is the appropriate way for the government to get involved in the energy market?

These amendments do a very simple thing. These amendments say that you cannot use public money to keep open a coal-fired power station for longer or to help build a new one. That is very, very important when we are dealing the question of how the government is going to get in and rummage around in the internal workings of the energy market—as this bill is clearly dealing with—and where we now have a bipartisan position that it is okay to keep coal-fired power stations open for longer, using the powers under this bill—

Mr Burns interjecting—

Well, you just voted for it. You may not know it, but you just voted for it. I hear the interjection from the member for Macnamara. We know, separately, that the government want to intervene in the market to use public money to keep coal-fired power stations open for longer. We know that because we've read about it in newspapers that they are finalising their shortlist and they want to take money that could be going to schools and hospitals and use it to keep coal-fired power stations open for longer or, in other ways, support the operations of existing coal-fired power stations or potentially create new ones. These amendments would put a stop to that. These amendments say, 'No; public money is for schools, hospitals and renewables.'

At a time when we need an orderly government plan to retire coal-fired power stations and replace them with renewable energy, we should not allow the government to intervene in a way that is going to prop up an industry that should be on the path towards managed closure—in an orderly way that respects the workers, that keeps the lights on and that ensures that prices start coming down. These amendments are very sensible and, in the past, the opposition and others have supported them. I hope that this is a set of amendments that can be carried, because at the moment we know that the government are hell-bent on using every power they have to use public money to keep more coal in the system—and we have to stop them.

Those who believe in the free market should support this because it's about saying, 'Don't use government money to subsidise something that should be on the way out.' And this is something that should be supported by those who believe in climate change and accept the science of climate change. I suspect that, if you asked most people in this country, 'How would you rather a public dollar be spent: do you want it to make dental care available for everyone under Medicare, do you want it to go to schools and hospitals or do you want it to prop up coal-fired power stations?' they would say, 'We would rather it go to services.' I think most people would be shocked to know that the government currently does have the power to give public money to coal-fired power stations.

I commend these amendments to the House. I hope that, especially in the context where the door has been opened by the opposition by saying, 'We're going to accept the government's bill on certain provisos,' they include this proviso as well. If they're now in the business of negotiating and doing deals with the climate-denying government to pass their energy policy, then they should insist on something that will stop the government keeping coal-fired power stations open for longer than they should, especially if it involves taking money from the public purse and putting it towards coal-fired power stations.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes in this division, I declare the division negatived in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Dr Haines, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting aye.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.