Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be considered immediately.

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

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne and reserve my right to speak.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that the amendments be considered immediately. To this the member for Melbourne has moved an amendment that they not be considered immediately but be considered at the next sitting. The question is that the amendment moved by the member for Melbourne be disagreed to.

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

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative 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 agreed to, Mr Bandt, Dr Haines, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the motion moved by Minister Evans to consider the amendments immediately be agreed to.

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

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative 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 agreed to, Mr Bandt, Dr Haines, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Waste Reduction and Environmental Management) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

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

It's important to understand what these amendments do and why they should not be agreed to. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill 2021 itself requires that terms and conditions of financial assistance provided to companies be set out in writing and complied with. I'll talk in a moment about what those terms and conditions are. These amendments we are being asked to agree to exclude assistance in the form of equity investment from that requirement. What does that mean? That means that, when the government takes an equity stake in a project—potentially, as we know, a fossil fuel project—it is not required to have a written agreement laying out the terms and conditions putting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members will not engage in conversation whilst someone is speaking on the bill. It's that simple. If you can't control yourselves, just leave the chamber.

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

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member's time has concluded.

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

That is what this would permit: the government having some form of ownership stake in, for example, the expansion of the Beetaloo. The amendment would also allow—and this is why the amendment has to be opposed—the government to take some form of ownership stake in, say, an expansion of new gas projects in the Galilee. Not content with supporting the Adani mine, they now want to get some gas, potentially, out of there as well. It would also allow the government to take an ownership stake in new coal projects.

Government members: Hooray!

The government cheers this. By virtue of this amendment—which, I again repeat, the Labor Party is about to vote for and has gagged debate on in the Senate so that we could not debate this in the Senate; this is the first time this amendment is being debated—and as the government cheers, we are talking about publicly funded coal and gas. We are talking about, with this amendment, taking public money that could be going to schools and hospitals and using it for new coal and gas projects. The government cheers, and the Labor Party is about to vote for it.

Up until this amendment was brought before this House—we didn't find out when we were in the Senate, because Liberal and Labor did a dirty deal to gag debate on this—we thought that the Labor Party's position was also not to use public money for new coal and gas projects. Up until today, they had told us that was their position. But then, in the Senate this afternoon, we find this amendment being rammed through with no debate allowed from the Greens or the crossbench. The opposition come in here and complain about the government gagging them and shutting down debate. Well, that's exactly what you did today. On the day when we're about to hear a budget reply speech, supposedly about how great renewables are, they have just gagged debate and are supporting a bill that will go through that will allow the government—cheered on right now—to have public investment in new coal and gas projects.

Government members: Hear, hear!

I hear, 'Hear, hear!' from the government benches. That is why this amendment must be opposed. Even if you think that government's taking an ownership stake in a new coal and gas plant is a terrific idea, as the government and Labor clearly think you should, this amendment says not only that the government can do it but that they can do it without having to have the kinds of written agreements that are required for other forms of investment. If you thought sports rorts was bad, wait till you see coal rorts and gas rorts. That is what is being enabled.

This infrastructure facility as it stands at the moment is a slush fund, and this amendment gives the government even more leeway to dip their hands into the pockets of the Australian public, take money and give it to coal and gas infrastructure and corporations without even having to have the most basic principles of accountability. This amendment not only facilitates public money going to coal and gas but gives the government the capacity to not even have to tell the public how they're going to spend the money and what the terms and conditions of that investment are. This is astounding. This is an astounding diversion. It's a redirection away from accountability. It is a total abrogation of any kind of accountability and transparency. I repeat: the reason that we are here now, talking about this at length in this House—we were meant to rise at six o'clock, but they thought they'd try and sneak this through at the last moment—is that debate on this amendment and on this bill was gagged in the Senate.

I don't want to hear any more from the opposition about how bad it is that the government are investing in coal and gas when it is enabling it. That is what you are doing with this amendment and this bill, Labor. You are allowing the NAIF—just this week you have been in the press complaining about the minister and about how he doesn't have any restrictions on his actions and how he vetoes renewables. You are now giving him a blank cheque to go and buy coal-fired power stations and generation without any accountability. (Time expired)

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Melbourne's time has concluded.

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

So we are dealing here with a very basic principle of accountability—

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Member no longer heard.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the member for Melbourne be no further heard.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now 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 noes in this division, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative 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 agreed to, Mr Bandt, Dr Haines, Ms Steggall and Mr Wilkie voting no.

Proceedings suspended from 18:42 to 19:30