Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment (Extension and Other Measures) Bill, which, for everybody's mercy, I'll just call the 'NAIF bill' in future. People will remember that when this first was set up five years ago it was at the behest of the National Party and it was a $5 billion slush fund for coalmines and dams. The then Minister Canavan was in charge at the time, and it was pretty obvious that that's what they were seeking. They extracted that commitment from the Liberal government, and, hey presto, we got the NAIF.

It's been interesting to watch over the subsequent years. There have been some positive projects that have received funding under NAIF, projects that we would consider environmentally sustainable, job creating and generally good for the region. So it's been fascinating to watch what was initially set up as something to fund dirty projects that would wreck the planet but keep the Nationals happy actually be a force for some good when it funded those positive projects. So we approached this amendment bill with some interest.

The bill now wants to extend the NAIF for a further five years, because they actually have had trouble getting the money out the door. Maybe it's because those coalmines and dams are in fact uneconomic and a bad idea, and the private sector sees that and doesn't want to go through with those sorts of developments. But these amendments also want to put a departmental officer onto the NAIF board, they want to remove the ability of state governments to veto funding going to projects in their states and they want to expand the types of funding mechanisms to include equity investments and acquisition of derivatives.

The amendments have been promoted as a way of achieving flexibility, but the aim is really clear: the government wants to deliver for its mates. That's what it does best, and certainly what it did in last night's budget. We raised concerns at the time that this would be a bank for fossil fuels, and with these amendments, proposed by the government in this bill we're debating now, that would be locked in. It would be undeniably a bank for fossil fuels.

Minister Pitt, who's the minister now, didn't even try to hide his desire that the NAIF be used as a slush fund for the gas industry when he made his remarks last time this was debated, and, in fact, I think it was in the media last week that he boasted about how these amendments would open up more opportunities for Beetaloo infrastructure financing. We know the Beetaloo is a massive gas basin that this government and, I think, sadly, the opposition at the time—I remember an announcement from the then leader Bill Shorten promoting the Beetaloo as a gas extraction boon—now want the NAIF to fund. And it's somewhat ironic—frankly it's hypocritical—because Minister Pitt just used his veto power as the relevant minister to stop funding going to a wind farm with a battery backup. Yet he wants public money to go to opening up a new, massive gas basin, which would turbocharge the climate crisis, when we have alternatives to gas as energy that don't wreck the climate. Minister Pitt wants to use public money to stop renewables. He doesn't want it to fund renewable projects that would've created 250 jobs in northern Queensland; no. He instead wants it to open up a new gas basin.

We're kind of used to that from this government. It's fossil fuels or nothing. It's yet another dirty energy fund that is yet another fossil fuel subsidy. It's adding insult to injury, really, because in last night's budget—as I've said numerous times since then—we saw yet more fossil fuel subsidies. So this government is handing out public funds to coal, to oil, to gas—to the dirty energy sector—hand over fist. They cannot get the money out the door fast enough when it is public money for dirty projects. And yet they're blocking funding for clean renewable projects.

Minister Pitt has also boasted that the amendments will allow the Commonwealth to bypass the states and take away that veto power. It's very interesting, because the states' veto power was in fact used to block public money going from the NAIF to Adani for one of their coal railways. The Queensland government at the time—who were a Labor government and are still in power in my state of Queensland—felt the force of a really strong public campaign that demanded that they stop public money going to opening up the Galilee coal basin, which, if it was opened up, would be the equivalent of the seventh largest emitter in the world, if it were a country, that basin is so big and so much of a carbon bomb. Full credit to the Queensland Premier at the time, who, under so much public pressure, stopped that funding going to Adani. So it is very interesting indeed to hear Senator Watt say that his party has now consulted with the Queensland government and the other relevant governments, who, apparently, according to Senator Watt, don't want that veto power anymore. Well, little wonder! The Queensland government also love coal—they love opening up new coal basins; they love supporting coal and coal-fired power—so of course they don't want the ability to say no. They want to be able to say that their hands are tied—that they can't stand in the way of this public taxpayer money going to the fossil fuel industries—because, actually, they think that's a good idea. Frankly, I think that says all you need to know about the approach of both of the big parties to spending taxpayer dollars on fossil fuels.

We will be moving a series of amendments to try to fix this fund and turn it into a fund for sustainable, job-creating, positive projects to service northern Australia and treat it with the environmental sensitivity and the dignity that the community desires for good development in the north. There have already been some great projects funded under this NAIF. We want to see more of the good projects funded and less of the projects funded that First Nations mobs have not consented to, that are making the climate crisis worse and that don't generate anywhere near the jobs that they promise—as is always the case with the coalmining sector, which, frankly, wants to automate as quickly as possible.

We have long argued that the NAIF should consider the federal government's policy commitment to the Paris Agreement. Our current domestic pledges, and the ambition needed to come anywhere close to what the science says is needed to meet international goals under that agreement, without question mean not funding fossil fuel infrastructure. And yet the Morrison government wants to use the NAIF to fund gas pipelines. It wants to open up new gas fields. It wants to use public funds to throw more fuel on the climate crisis. The $51 billion in fossil fuel subsidies in last night's budget wasn't enough for this government! They want this $5 billion slush fund to be able to open up new gas pipelines, roads and new gas facilities. They just want more and more taxpayer dollars for the fossil fuel industries that donate to their re-election campaigns and then often offer them plum jobs when they leave parliament. It's an absolute lark!

We will be moving amendments to say that the NAIF should not be allowed to invest in fossil fuels because we are in a climate crisis and we have other alternatives that can provide clean energy that's more affordable, that creates more jobs and that respects the environmental limits of the north. I hope that the opposition has a rethink on their position on that because, when amendments were moved in the House calling for NAIF to not invest public money in new coal, in oil, in gas, they didn't want that. They voted for this fund to be able to invest in fossil fuels, and the government of course voted as well. I hope they have had a rethink on that position because I actually thought they expressed differently at some point, but I will leave it for them to explain their position.

The other amendments that we'll seek to move would require the environmental impacts of a project to be assessed as part of the process of deciding whether it's suitable to invest in. That would include looking at the principles of ecologically sustainable development, which includes the precautionary principle, which says: 'If you're not sure you're not going to stuff something up, well, don't do it. If there is a risk of stuffing it up, just hold off.' Our amendments would codify those. We moved those same amendments when this fund was first set up five-odd years ago. We received absolutely no support for them then, and I hope the story is different now.

Onto the investment risk, there are proposals for the government to change the modes of funding that can be made available under this facility. Equity investments, which is what is being proposed, open NAIF up to more speculative investing, which would leave the government holding significant risk for the benefit of private companies. Acquisition of derivatives can leave the government with an open-ended unquantifiable liability if a project proponent becomes insolvent. There have been a few examples of projects that NAIF has funded that have then been canned. I will be asking in the committee stage of this bill what has happened to that money, so this is a live prospect.

There are some worthwhile small-scale projects including those championed by First Nations that would benefit from broader investment opportunities, and that is exactly why we're moving an amendment saying that only those smaller scale or First Nations operations should be allowed to access this equity funding. Without that amendment, we fear that these government amendments would in fact incentivise speculative investment that could underwrite gas supply and prop up otherwise stranded assets. Given the NAIF's poor governance practices and processes for assessing the risk on public lending, especially risk in relation to fossil fuels and climate change, this is an unacceptable risk. Tighter rules around eligibility for equity investment options introduced by the bill are essential to ensure that the government isn't left carrying the can for unsustainable fossil fuel projects, which is exactly why our amendments would restrict the use of equity investments to projects undertaken by small businesses and Indigenous corporations. Again, I urge the chamber to consider supporting those amendments so that we can get the benefit for those small operators and Indigenous corporations without yet another pathway to subsidising fossil-fuel infrastructure.

The bill also proposes to remove the mandatory requirement for infrastructure to stimulate population growth in northern Australia. But removing that requirement will again make it easier for the minister to push NAIF into funding gas infrastructure and pipelines, including pipelines that aren't even located in northern Australia. In terms of the board, requiring the secretary of the department to be a member of the NAIF board undermines any semblance of independence and makes the NAIF directly susceptible to ministerial influence, as if it isn't enough already. The minister's been spruiking fossil fuel projects already and using NAIF to further the government's discredited and dream-like state of a gas-fired recovery.

When the NAIF was created, the government said:

The expert, transparent and arms-length design of the Board lends credibility to financial markets, while ensuring the Commonwealth invests in projects which are viable, provide public benefit and unlock the potential of northern Australia.

When it turns out those investments aren't in fossil fuels, the government tries to regain control of the decision-making process. In the Senate inquiry into the operation of the NAIF, we heard evidence from First Nations and regional communities in northern Australia that the board did need to take a more innovative approach to investment and look beyond the traditional and often outdated and unsustainable projects like mines and dams, yet this bill and this government are stuck in that same tired 1950s mindset.

On the veto power, which I touched on earlier, we strongly oppose allowing NAIF to loan directly to entities, bypassing state and territory governments. Previous reviews have in fact raised concerns about the constitutional validity of direct loans, and the government hasn't provided any compelling evidence that those concerns have been addressed. So we're calling for this bill to be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee to allow this issue and other problems with the bill to be examined. This is an opportune time for me to foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment standing in my name.

The NAIF's clear function is to grant financial assistance to states and territories for the construction of northern Australia economic infrastructure. That's from the existing legislation. Previous reviews of NAIF identified the need for it to work more closely with state and territory governments, not to completely ignore and go around them. So providing the option of bypassing the states and territories simply increases the federal government's power and takes away a key check and balance. It also puts worthwhile projects at risk where the constitutional validity of the loan arrangement is unresolved. In short, this is yet more public money for fossil fuels, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can amend this facility so that it promotes positive sustainable development in the north. That's exactly why the Greens will be moving the amendment I mentioned.