Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

At the outset I should note that I share some of the concerns raised by Senator Shoebridge with respect to the schedule in the Treasury Laws Amendment (2022 Measures No. 4) Bill 2022 which is seeking to address the so-called Douglas decision. I would like to note that I also have received many representations, which I have passed on, from veteran groups in relation to their concern about equity in this regard.

In particular, Senator Shoebridge raised issues in two areas which are not supported by the legislation. I would like to quote from the submission from the Defence Force Welfare Association national office, dated 31 January 2023, to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee:

Areas which are not supported:

So there are real concerns in the veteran community in this regard, and I think the government, and senators of all political persuasions, need to reflect upon this. We should achieve an outcome, ultimately, where with the same service you get the same outcome and where there is equality of treatment across our veteran communities, notwithstanding when they may have enlisted or when their service was completed. The same service should result in the same outcome.

So I support many of the comments of my friend Senator Shoebridge in this regard. I commend the minister on his engagement with respect to this. I think this needs further engagement, further clarity and further simplification, and I think we need to do better than this. We need to do better than this for our veteran communities. Whilst I will support the bill, there does need to be some reflection on this, because I don't think it's entirely satisfactory, to be frank.

The second point I'd like to make in relation to the bill is to touch on some of the concerns raised by my good friend Senator McGrath in relation to the billions and billions of dollars in spending for transmission projects that have not been recommended by the Australian Energy Market Operator but which have made their way into schedule 8 of this bill—billions of dollars We also see a hidden $1 billion fund for the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to circumvent the independent CEFC process. We need those independent processes to test the robustness of investment cases, and it is very disappointing to see a $1 billion fund introduced into this bill which is not subject to those independent processes.

I also note that there have been legislative changes that remove safeguards for investments in the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. Again, we need that independent rigour in this legislation, and we just don't see it. We actually see an undermining of it, and that is deeply concerning to the coalition opposition. There will be amendments, as I understand it, which will be moved in that regard.