Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move government amendment (1) on sheet ZA499:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (after line 22), at the end of Division 6, add:

153ZBA Arrangements or undertakings in relation to employees

(1) This section applies if:

(a) a body corporate (the old employer) has made arrangements or undertakings in relation to employees of the body corporate (whether or not those arrangements or undertakings bind the old employer); and

(b) the Court makes an order under subsection 153ZB(2) or (3) for the old employer to dispose of assets; and

(c) the old employer disposes of the assets to another entity (the new employer); and

(d) regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph before the disposal specify requirements in respect of arrangements or undertakings in relation to employees; and

(e) the arrangements or undertakings satisfy those requirements.

(2) The new employer must comply with the arrangements or undertakings.

(3) Subsection (2) applies despite anything in the Fair Work Act 2009.

I might make a few quick remarks on this amendment.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had understood that the opposition would move its amendment on the same matter first.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm in the hands of the chamber. Senator McAllister, you have the call.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I move amendment (1) on sheet 8794 circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (after line 22), at the end of section 153ZB, add:

(10) If:

(a) a body corporate (the disposing entity) that is a national system employer (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009) is ordered to dispose of interests in securities or assets to a person (the receiving entity); and

(b) a provision of Part 2-8 of that Act would not apply, despite subsection (9), because a workplace instrument (the applicable instrument) that covered the disposing entity and an employee (the applicable employee) of the entity is not a transferable instrument (within the meaning of that Part);

Part 2-8 of that Act applies as if:

(c) a reference to an old employer in that Part included a reference to the disposing entity; and

(d) a reference to a new employer in that Part included a reference to the receiving entity; and

(e) a reference to a transferring employee in that Part included a reference to the applicable employee; and

(f) a reference to a transferable instrument in that Part included a reference to the applicable instrument.

(11) If:

(a) a body corporate (the disposing entity) that is a State public sector employer of a State (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009) is ordered to dispose of interests in securities or assets to a person (the receiving entity) that is a national system employer; and

(b) a provision of Part 6-3A of that Act would not apply, despite subsection (9), because a workplace instrument (the applicable instrument) that covered the disposing entity and an employee (the applicable employee) of the entity is not a State award (within the meaning of that Part);

Part 6-3A of that Act applies as if:

(c) a reference to an old State employer in that Part included a reference to the disposing entity; and

(d) a reference to a new employer in that Part included a reference to the receiving entity; and

(e) a reference to a transferring employee in that Part included a reference to the applicable employee; and

(f) a reference to a State award in that Part included a reference to the applicable instrument.

In the debate in the other place, Labor moved amendments to ensure that entitlements that are contained in registered enterprise agreements and in awards are preserved and protected for workers in the case of a forcible divestiture. Following the Senate inquiry into the bill, it became clear that a similar issue exists for non-registered agreements between workers and employers in the context of possible divestiture. The evidence suggested this was particularly significant at Liddell Power Station, where the workers have obtained important commitments from the employer, through their union, in relation to employment after Liddell's scheduled closure. The union and the workers understandably seek to preserve these commitments in the event of divestiture.

This amendment accepts that no worker at Liddell or elsewhere should be worse off as a result of divestiture, which is a remedy for prohibited conduct that workers themselves have no part in. This amendment will ensure that non-registered agreements between workers and employers, which provide workers with additional protections agreed by employers, should be safeguarded in the event of divestment. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this amendment. The Senate would be aware that the government has already moved amendments in the House of Representatives to ensure that under any forced divestiture the transfer-of-business provisions in the Fair Work Act would apply and provide all of the appropriate protections in the context of transfer-of-business provisions to employees. The proposed amendment would cause the transfer-of-business provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 to apply more broadly in the case of divestiture scenarios than they would under any ordinary sale of assets. The proposed amendment would alter the way the transfer-of-business provisions in the Fair Work Act apply in the case of divestiture under the bill by expanding the types of arrangements covered by the transfer-of-business provisions. Where relevant circumstances are satisfied, the transfer-of-business provisions will ordinarily apply to a transferable instrument such as an enterprise agreement. The proposed amendment would expand the scope of arrangements to which the transfer-of-business provisions apply to a broader class of instruments, namely any workplace instrument. The proposed amendment would mean that there are additional rights conferred in the case of divestiture that are over and above those currently contained in the Fair Work Act 2009 for usual transfer-of-business situations.

Even more concerning from the government's point of view, it is unclear precisely what additional instruments the proposed amendments would pick up. It would be a blanket obligation under the legislation to act consistent with any non-registered agreement, and we don't believe that that is desirable. We believe that it is preferable, in sharing the same objective, to ensure that, in the context of a forced divestiture, employee entitlements are properly protected. We believe it is preferable to give the government of the day the discretion to deal with any such non-registered agreements on a case-by-case basis to assess the public interest in each circumstance. That is why the government flag that we will be moving government amendments to give the Treasurer the regulation-making power to deal with non-registered agreements in that way.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I place on the record the support of the Greens for the opposition's amendment. Of course, we want to find ways to ensure that workers are indeed protected, and particularly those in relation to the fiasco that this government has created for the workers of Liddell. Let me put clearly on the record: we are disappointed that Labor are voting with the government on this piece of legislation. Yes, there have been some improvements in relation to workers' entitlements, but the overall impact of this bill, making climate change worse by allowing these polluting clunkers of power stations to remain open for longer, is only going to make it harder and harder for Australia to transition in a way that the science, the community and anyone who understands what's going on today would accept needs to happen.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8794, as moved by Senator McAllister, be agreed to.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you have moved the government amendments. Do you wish to speak to it?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just briefly. This amendment gives the Treasurer the power to make regulations to ensure that, when a body corporate disposes of assets under a divestiture order, the entity through which the assets are disposed of must comply with arrangements or undertakings that were made by the body corporate in relation to its employees and that satisfy requirements set out in the regulations. The government is confident that this amendment strikes the right balance between facilitating a smooth divestment process in the circumstances where divestiture is ordered while also protecting any rights or agreements previously negotiated between an entity which is subject to a divestment order and its workforce. But it does provide the appropriate level of discretion where the government of the day can make relevant judgements on whether a particular non-registered agreement is, indeed, in the public interest.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor welcomes this amendment by the government. As I indicated in my earlier remarks, we have been concerned to ensure that the workforce of a business that is subject to divestiture is not unfairly impacted by the operation of this bill. In particular, we are concerned to ensure that entitlements that are contained in non-registered agreements, essentially agreements between management and the workers, are protected. The reasons for this were explained by the Electrical Trades Union of Australia in their evidence to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee during our inquiry into this bill. They explained that a divestiture order applied to an ageing generator that was scheduled to close would put at risk all of the good work that may have been done in planning to minimise the impacts of closure and disruption to the community. Another union went on to explain how this was particularly important in relation to Liddell, a power station in my home state of New South Wales. The committee received advice from the CFMEU that there exists:

… the commitment made by AGL Energy Ltd to "no forced retrenchments" with respect to the retirement of the Liddell power station. This means the company will, inter alia, rely on employee retirements, voluntary redundancies, redeployment to the nearby Bayswater power station and redeployment to other activities at the Liddell site.

In our earlier amendment, Labor sought to ensure that agreements like this were protected. This amendment now proposed by the government will allow regulations to be made to ensure that, when a business disposes of a power station or another asset under a divestiture order, the entity to which the assets are disposed must comply with arrangements or undertakings that were made in relation to employees. Labor expects that the government would use this regulation-making power to protect workers at power stations like Liddell if divestiture orders were made against their owners.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment that I moved to this bill.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that government amendment (1) on sheet ZA499 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (8) on sheet 8799 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".

[prohibition on Commonwealth support for coal -fired 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.

[prohibition on Commonwealth support for coal -fired generators]

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (after line 22), 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.

(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (line 27), omit "5 and 6", substitute "5, 6 and 6A".

(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 27 (line 29), omit "5 or 6", substitute "5, 6 or 6A".

(6) Schedule 1, page 29 (before line 3), before item 2, insert:

1A Subsection 2A(1)

Omit "44E and 95D", substitute "44E, 95D and 153ZBA".

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

(8) 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.

These amendments go to the heart of the problem and the grave concern that the Australian Greens have in relation to this particular piece of legislation. This bill, make no mistake about it, will contribute to making climate change worse. It will contribute to ensuring that pollution continues to rise and climate change gets worse and that disasters such as those we're experiencing across the country today will become more horrid, more frequent and more deadly. That is the horrid and awful truth that we are confronted with today. As policymakers, as decision-makers and as leaders in our communities we have been called into action by some of the most senior members of the emergency services bodies across the country and by scientists, who have said collectively that it is time to reduce Australia's carbon pollution, to get serious about climate change and to deliver climate change action. Instead, we are seeing from the government legislation dressed up as something to do with reducing electricity prices when, in fact, all it is going to do is keep the polluting and dangerous coal being burnt for longer in this country, which will contribute to more and more global warming, and more and more disasters as a result.

We have been warned by scientists, by emergency services personnel and by our own children and next generation that we have to get serious about climate action and reducing pollution. This bill is going to make it harder for us even to get to the point of reducing pollution, because it will keep coal being burnt for longer and keep coal-fired power stations open and operating for longer—and the government wants to spend Australian taxpayers' money doing that. This amendment would at the very least try to curtail public money being spent keeping coal being burnt for longer and making climate change worse. That is a fundamental point. It beggars belief that we have a government that wants to spend taxpayers' money to make climate change worse by burning more coal and putting more pollution into the atmosphere, rather than deal with the emergency that confronts us today.

While I'm speaking about this, I will point out just how disgusted, how absolutely revolted, many people were to see the comments this morning by the former Deputy Prime Minister and former leader of the National Party, Barnaby Joyce, who—in the midst of the disaster that we are seeing unfolding, particularly in northern New South Wales over the past two or three days, in which people have died, homes have been destroyed and communities made distraught—had the gall to link the deaths of two people to whether or not they were Greens voters. That is absolutely unbecoming of somebody who is elected to this place, let alone someone who thinks he ought to be Deputy Prime Minister again. Marry his comments with the comments made yesterday by the current Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, who dismissed the very serious concerns that this issue is causing right across the country, particularly in rural and regional areas, where they are saying, 'Can we get some action on climate change, because our homes, our communities, our regions are now on fire.' What did Mr McCormack say? He said that climate change is just an issue of raving lefties from the inner city. It's not. This is an issue that is affecting the entire nation. It doesn't matter in what part of this country you live or were born. It doesn't matter how old you are, how rich you are, how poor you are or what you do for a job. Climate change is already having a huge impact. It is not a matter that affects just the inner city lefties. It is an issue that right now—today—is confronting the people of the bush, the very people that Mr McCormack is meant to represent. Between the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr Barnaby Joyce, these two blokes are sounding more and more like the obnoxious uncles at a Christmas party, doing whatever they can to piss everybody off and upset them, to grab a headline and insult people. It's not the behaviour that we should be expecting from someone who is the Deputy Prime Minister or used to be the Deputy Prime Minister.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson-Young, that's not appropriate language. I'd ask you to restrain yourself and withdraw it. You have the call.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know what you're referring to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You swore, Senator Hanson-Young.

The obnoxious behaviour—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Can you withdraw?

I withdraw the—I withdraw. Let me put it in a more direct manner.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you.

We have two men parading themselves out there on national radio and national television, one the Deputy Prime Minister, one the former Deputy Prime Minister, acting more and more like the obnoxious uncles at a Christmas party rather than acting like the leaders this nation needs to take action on climate change. It is unbecoming and revolting, and they should apologise.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The motion is that the amendments be agreed to.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fellow senators—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You don't have the call, Senator Whish-Wilson. I've already put it. I said, 'The motion is that the amendments be agreed to,' well before you stood up.

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I can do it. I will do it as an accommodation but, Senator Whish-Wilson, keep it parliamentary, please.

Thank you. I appreciate that, Chair. I just wanted to appeal to my fellow senators today. This legislation is nothing but a Trojan horse to support the coal industry. This amendment being put forward by the Greens that we are now debating removes the ability for this government to fund—using public funds—a coal-fired power station because it suits their politics. I can't say it suits their policy on energy or climate, because they don't have one. But it certainly suits their politics.

Let's put this whole thing into context. Ever since I have been here—I witnessed in my first two years as a senator the Liberal and National parties in opposition doing everything they could to undermine the clean energy package, which had been brought in by the Greens and Labor, that raises the world's gold standard legislation package to tackle the rising emissions that have led to global warmings and the climate emergency that we find ourselves in today. There has been relentless, cynical, ruthless campaigning to remove action on climate.

Let me tell you a little story, Chair. I remember Senator Christine Milne, when she was here, sitting in that chair across there, after campaigning her entire career inside and outside of this parliament to get action on climate. She wasn't the first Greens to be campaigning on action on climate change in this place. Ex-Senator Bob Brown raised it in his first speech, in 1996—over 20 years ago—the imperative for us to act on the biggest challenge to our society and our economy.

I remember when the last bit of legislation to rip up the clean energy package came before the Senate. This is after, in the other place, members of parliament had stood up and done their 'ring a rosie'—Mr Greg Hunt, Mrs Kelly O'Dwyer and so on and so forth—celebrating and destroying the only parliamentary action we've seen in a decade on climate change. I remember seeing that. And I remember seeing Senator Milne in the last moments of the debate, just before it went to a vote, and this is after nearly 14 hours of us sitting in this chamber, listening to the nauseating climate-denial politics of the opposition. Those who know former Senator Milne know she's a hard woman, but I saw her hand tremble as she packed up her files, as the vote went through, as the people were patting themselves on the back. I saw her hand trembling when she saw her life's work go down the drain. I followed her outside this chamber, in that room out there, and I witnessed something I never thought I'd see: Senator Milne breaking down in tears. But, being the person she was, rather than having me distressed, she said: 'Don't worry, Peter. We're still going to win this fight.' And we have never given up fighting for action on climate change. That's why we've raised this amendment today. That's why we consistently highlight the need for action.

I'm going to get my chance a little bit later to talk about the events we are witnessing around this country—the catastrophic events that CSIRO warned us about in 2006. I've fought hard with my colleagues to make sure this government hasn't cut funding to the exact agencies that monitor and manage the risks that it is so necessary for us to understand and prepare for in this climate emergency. We have consistently raised that the No. 1 issue for a government is to protect its citizens and that we are facing, from changing weather patterns, the greatest threat to our nation, to its economy, to its communities and to its ecosystems and its environment. In 2006 CSIRO warned us that by 2020 we would see the exact conditions that we have seen in New South Wales and Queensland. And it's not just New South Wales and Queensland; some of the changes we're seeing right around this country are off the charts. We have to do everything we can to act on reducing emissions and taking the strongest possible action, and this big-stick legislation today—and I commend my colleague Adam Bandt in the other place for his leadership in highlighting this—is just a Trojan horse to support the coal industry, which shouldn't surprise anyone who understands the modus operandi of this government. It is in the pocket of big business, doing the bidding of those who donate to its coffers to keep it in power.

I've got another theory for you, Chair and fellow senators. It's not just political donations. It's not just this broken democratic system that allows vested interests to buy influence in this place. It's also this mob here: One Nation. They are the biggest electoral threat to the LNP and especially to the National Party. In New South Wales and Queensland, the major parties haemorrhage votes to One Nation and, sadly, rather than standing up for principles like fighting for action on climate change, transitioning to 100 per cent renewable energy and spending money on the emergency services we need to tackle climate emergencies, they would rather pander to the antiscience, climate denial politics of One Nation. They have become One Nation in an attempt to hang on to power. That's what the cynical politics of this debate is now.

This bill is designed to be hung out there so that the Nationals and the Liberal Party can go out to these marginal seats and say, 'Hey, look what we've done: we're supporting coal and we're supporting employment in your region,' regardless of the fact that, as leaders who make the decisions that affect real people's lives, they could be putting in place a transition plan away from coal to renewables and the industries of the future while at the same time reducing emissions and taking the strongest possible action on climate change. That's what leadership looks like, that's what the Greens do in this place and that is what this amendment is. This is leadership on climate.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will be opposing the amendments moved by Senator Hanson-Young. As I indicated in my earlier remarks and my second reading contribution, our focus in dealing with this legislation has been on ensuring that any backdoor privatisation of assets—specifically in Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia—was ruled out and also that workers affected by divestments had access to protections. The Greens' amendments are largely unrelated to this particular bill, and they have the potential to jeopardise some of the important agreements that Labor has arrived at in pursuing these interests of stopping privatisation and protecting workers.

Our commitment to climate action is unshakeable, and that is why last month in this place, with the support of my colleagues, I called upon the government to declare a climate emergency.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments on sheet 8799 be agreed to.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move the remaining amendments of the Greens, (1) to (3) on sheet 8798, together:

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 28 (after line 19), 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.

These amendments relate specifically to the major concern that people have in relation to this bill and the motivation of the government: that it is to make it harder for the Liddell Power Station to close. We know that this bill is being used as part of the government's broader bully tactics against AGL to force them to keep Liddell open rather than to close it, despite the fact that all of the evidence, all of the advice and all of the expertise shows that, if we are to start reducing pollution, if we are to meet the Paris Agreement, if we are to get well and truly on the way to net zero emissions by 2050, we are going to have to start closing some of these older coal-fired power stations. If this bill is to pass, which it will because of the support that the Labor Party are giving the government, we don't want to see it being used to override decisions and announcements that are already made.

We heard Senator McAllister speak in relation to the previous sheet of Greens amendments, saying that it wasn't in direct relation to the bill. Well, this one clearly is. You can't run that argument on this one, because this is precisely related to allowing for AGL to ensure that they can do what it is that they have said—that's to retire Liddell because it is old, because we need to be reducing pollution and because it's just simply not efficient any longer to be keeping it open.

We know that what this bill is about. Despite all the dressing up and window-dressing in relation to this being about lowering power bills, we've heard directly from government members in the House of Representatives debate that this bill is all about sticking it to AGL because of their decision to close Liddell and to retire what is a coughing and spluttering clunker of a coal-fired power station.

This amendment is important, because the last thing we want to see is the government dogged by the ideological battle inside their party room between those who don't understand the science of climate change and those who do—and there are some. I'll pay credit to that. There are plenty of people inside the Liberal Party who understand the science of climate change, but there are others who have their heads so deep in the sand that they have no idea what is coming in terms of the huge impact that global warming is bringing to our communities and to the future of this planet. They think that, as long as they keep talking about how much they love coal, everything will be okay. The fight and the ideological war inside the Liberal and National parties should not stop this country moving forward towards a clean renewable energy future. It certainly shouldn't. The ideological war inside the Liberal-National coalition should not be used to bully AGL and in fact other companies who are rightly seeing the writing on the wall. They want to transition out of coal because they can see that it doesn't make smart business sense and it doesn't make environmental sense.

Climate change is already here on our doorstep and there is a moral obligation to act. So let's put this amendment in place, even if it's just to help the Prime Minister deal with some of those dinosaurs in his own party who think that loving coal, at any cost, is the only way forward. This amendment is important if we are to transition to get coal out of the system and to ensure that companies like AGL can make smart business choices without the fear of being bullied by the government of the day.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor won't be supporting this amendment. I am horrified by the approach taken by the government to the energy system. I am horrified by the continual discussion about direct investment and public money being applied to new or old coal-fired power stations. I think the approach that they are taking is ad hoc, political and totally failing the public. But the solution proposed by the Greens in this amendment doesn't deal with the material problem in this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. In Labor's view, the role of the ACCC and of the courts set out in the legislation that is actually before us in the chamber appropriately removes ministerial discretion and adequately addresses these concerns. On that basis, we won't be supporting the amendment.

Amanda Stoker (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

Progress reported