Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I foreshadowed in the second reading debate, I wish to move an amendment. As I spoke to it at some length in the second reading debate, however, I would, before moving it, put the question to the minister as I believe he was probably out of the room when I was giving my introductory remarks. So I will be a little bit more specific. Can you, Minister, enlighten the chamber as to the state of preparation within the Commonwealth government for an oil shock and the state of preparation for oil rationing? If the minister could give us some advice on those matters, it would be greatly appreciated.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the information you are seeking is quite detailed. We do undertake to get back to you with a very detailed response, if that is satisfactory to you, where we are more than happy to get you the information you are seeking, but I am advised that there is just a little bit too much to gather at relatively short notice. But we are very happy to commit on the floor of the chamber to get you that information.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that response. If that is the case—which was the reason that I put these questions a little while ago—I would appreciate that. I will also seek a little more information while we are at it. Could the minister point to me where there are, in any act, regulation or decision, criteria before any current minister or Commonwealth agency that explicitly address sensitivity to future energy prices—oil and gas—aside from considerations there might be in increasing those prices as a result of carbon levies or carbon taxes or whatever form that may take? I am talking specifically about the situation on world oil and gas markets to which Australia will not be immune when these prices go north again. Because quite frankly, Minister, I cannot find it. I hope you will speak to the amendment that I am about to put and perhaps give us some tangible reasons as to why you are intending, as I believe you are, to vote those amendments down. All the amendments do is put a safety net under large tranches of Commonwealth funding, particularly for road infrastructure, that would cause the minister to at least have regard to those matters.

As I said in the second reading debate, I am not putting handcuffs on the minister and I am not binding him to any form of decision one way or another; I am asking that these matters be explicitly addressed and reported on before we commit the Commonwealth to tens of billions of dollars of funding on infrastructure which may well shortly be obsolete. Those are the matters on which I would seek any advice that you are able to provide us with now and certainly anything that you are able to provide us with subsequently.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am seeking advice. I can indicate that, as you thought, we will be opposing your amendments. We believe that they are already covered by the act and that this is a very stringent process which must be followed, and therefore we believe that they would be redundant in this particular place.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suspected that that might be the case, and I do not propose to dwell here long. If the minister or any of the officers at the table could just point us to where in the act fossil depletion or sensitivity to future energy prices is addressed, I will make a judgment from there as to whether to withdraw the amendments if that has indeed been addressed.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whilst Senator Conroy is trying to run the government—as I said before, their amendments come written on the back of an envelope, and they are not here to call the divisions as they are; they have to recommit motions, which just demonstrates how hopeless the government are at running the chamber, let alone running the country—I just want to indicate for the record that the coalition will not be supporting the amendments proposed by the Greens.

Whilst we appreciate that the sentiment behind the amendments is to bring greater accountability to this government—and, heaven knows, greater accountability is always needed when dealing with the Labor Party in any aspect of life—we think these amendments are wrong. As I have mentioned to Senator Ludlam, had we been aware of the amendments prior to about two minutes before he spoke, perhaps we could have had some discussions about more appropriate amendments that might have got to the result Senator Ludlam was seeking. But I think Senator Ludlam acknowledges that, with a couple of minutes notice and the fact that I am only representing the shadow minister, who is in the other place, we were only able to give them very brief consideration.

The shadow minister, Mr Truss, who senators will remember was a very distinguished minister for transport, amongst other things, and who has experience with these matters, has indicated that the approvals process for getting major projects in action is already a very, very long process. Making the approval process subject to a disallowable instrument of either house of parliament would mean that the process would be extended by at least another six months and perhaps more.

In relation to the other two amendments to be moved by Senator Ludlam, it is our understanding that most of those items are in fact items which can be addressed through the EPBC Act—an act, I might say, of the coalition government. In relation to amendment (3), whilst again it would be interesting to see the statement of reasons, the result might well be, ‘Well, so what?’ Apart from tabling them before the parliament, nothing seems to follow from that, and the reasons, I guess, we could in any case get from the estimates process at the appropriate time. So, for those reasons, very briefly explained, the coalition will not be supporting the Greens amendments.

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just add some further information. I am advised that the government believes that the issues that you are flagging, Senator Ludlam, are encompassed within the following two sections: section 11(d), which reads ‘the results of any assessment of the economic, environmental or social costs or benefits of the project’, and also section 55(c), which is ‘the results of any assessment of the economic, environmental or social costs or benefits of the project’. We believe that those issues you have raised, while not being specifically mentioned, are encompassed within that assessment process to include issues like those that you are more specifically identifying.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ludlam, I note that you have not formally moved your amendments, so I ask you to bear that in mind.

Scott Ludlam (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Chair. I will do so now. I thank the minister and the opposition spokesperson on this issue. Remarkably unsatisfactory as those contributions were, I nonetheless thank you for at least putting them on the record. Minister, I put to you that the reason these issues have not been addressed is that they are not explicitly mentioned, and that is all I was seeking to do. Without wanting to draw the debate out any further, I will put the amendments now. I seek leave to move the three amendments together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 6), after item 22, insert:

22A  At the end of section 9

Add:

        (3)    An instrument approving a project with a value exceeding $200 million is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 8), after item 23, insert:

23A  Section 11

Before “The”, insert “(1)”.

23B  At the end of section 11

Add:

        (2)    The matters to which the Minister must have regard in deciding whether it is appropriate to approve a project with a value exceeding $50 million include, but are not limited to, the following matters:

             (a)    the results of the Environmental Impact Assessment;

             (b)    the results of an assessment of the economic and social costs or benefits of the project;

             (c)    the alternatives to the development;

             (d)    the extent to which energy price sensitivity has bearing on the project.

        (3)    Before approving a project with a value exceeding $50 million, the Minister must cause to be tabled in each House of the Parliament a statement of reasons for the Minister’s decision to approve the project, addressing at a minimum the matters set out in subsection (2).

(3)    Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 12), after item 25, insert:

25A  Paragraph 13(1)(d)

Omit “.”, substitute “; and”.

25B  At the end of subsection 13(1)

Add:

             (e)    include any statement of reasons provided pursuant to subsection 11(3).

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Ludlam’s) be agreed to.