Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got some relatively simple questions in relation to the $200 million grant program that is associated with the Fuel Security Bill 2021. I'm wondering what the status of that particular grant program is. When are we likely to see decisions made by the minister, and contributions or grants being made to companies?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Boosting Australia's Diesel Storage Program received a range of high-quality applications, with the program guidelines focused on fuel security benefits, strategic regional locations and good job opportunities for Australia. Applications for the program were considered by a committee of officials at the department of industry, and the committee has provided advice on the different scenarios to the minister. The minister is considering a range of issues in the guidelines and will continue to engage with that committee in the department of industry as needed. The minister will make a decision in due course, as the government is keen for the construction projects to commence soon to meet the 2024 time line for the increased diesel stockholding obligation. Following the decision, the department will contact applicants directly to negotiate the grant agreements.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So within the month or two you're likely to see some applicants receive notification of success?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is considering a range of issues in the guidelines and will make decisions in due course.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's not an unreasonable question, to at least get a rough time frame for that. Is it expected that these grants will come this year? Or will it be next year? Will it be within the next couple of months? I'm trying to get a feel for what the process is. We could wander through and ask questions about what the process is from here on in. I don't want to waste our time; I just want an indication of the rough time frame.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated, there are some processes the minister is still going through. But I think the key point in the information I gave you is that the minister and the government are keen for the construction projects to commence soon, to meet the 2024 time line for the stockholding obligations.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does that go to the geographical location or spread of the grants? There was some information in the guidelines about geographical spread. Obviously you wouldn't want all your storage in one location. I'm particularly interested in whether or not there's consideration of storage in South Australia.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The information I have here doesn't provide state-specific information, but it does indicate that the program guidelines are focused on fuel security benefits, strategic regional locations and job opportunities.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder if you might take that question on notice, just to see whether or not you can give more details. You would understand I'm particularly interested in South Australia. I just have a couple more questions.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that on notice.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I have a couple more questions. I understand it involves approximately 780 megalitres of fuel storage generation. I'm trying to understand what that quantum is in the context of the entirety of our storage capabilities. Is it another quarter? Is it another half? Is it another 10 per cent? I would like a rough order of magnitude of what that quantum is in relation to existing fuel storage.

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice is it represents a 40 per cent increase in our diesel stockholdings as of now.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a final question in relation to the grants. I looked to see in the guidelines the requirements for an Australian company with its substantive operations here. The guidelines don't talk about parent companies. I am wondering: Is it the intention of the minister to examine whether or not grant applicants have parent companies domiciled in tax havens in places like the Cayman Islands or Guernsey? Is that one of the checks the minister will conduct in respect of the grant applications?

Richard Colbeck (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Submitters will be assessed based on general reputation and capacity to deliver the grants.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the jobs created by this package, the Prime Minister's media release speaks of 1,750 jobs created during construction. I'm interested in some more details of what that estimate is based on—what types of jobs they are likely to be and how long those jobs are expected to last for.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry. I just changed over with Senator Colbeck, so I might, with your indulgence, ask if you could ask that question again.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister's media release speaks of 1,750 jobs being created during construction as part of this package. I want to know some more details about that estimate. What are those 1,750 jobs—in what sorts of areas—and how long are each of those jobs expected to last for?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that those 1,750 jobs referred to are in construction and they would happen in, I think, the lead-up to 2024.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Construction of what, specifically?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be for the major refinery upgrades that are needed to deliver the low-sulphur fuel.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you tell me a bit more about what those major refinery upgrades are? What needs to be constructed that's going to create those 1,750 jobs?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some of that detail will be determined on a refinery-by-refinery basis, but it will be for the technical upgrades that are needed.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are we talking about just the two refineries? Is there any assessment, then, as to those 1,750 jobs? There must be some background to that estimate. Are they split equally between both refineries? What is that estimate based on?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's based on information provided by the refineries.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you able to share that information with us?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know that there's much more I can add to the answers that I've already given.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you give us more detail on notice? If there's an estimate down to 1,750 jobs, there must be some background information to determine that level of jobs, which you clearly have information about. It would be valuable for the Senate to know about. It's the sort of information that would have been tabled in an inquiry, if we'd had one into this bill.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can take that on notice and see what additional information can come back, obviously subject to things such as commercial-in-confidence.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Also in the minister's speech we were told that this package of the fuel security services payment is going to support 1,250 jobs that exist in the refineries. Is there any expectation that employment is going to change in the two refineries over the period this package is in place?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We would broadly anticipate that the employment in the refineries themselves would remain relatively stable, with the additional jobs coming in the construction phase.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister's second reading speech in the other place also refers to another 1,000 direct jobs. Can you tell me what those jobs are.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those are construction jobs from the $200 million diesel storage program.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So they're not part of the fuel security payment; they're part of the $200 million as per the conversation that Senator Patrick was just having with you. What is that estimate of 1,000 jobs sourced from?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised it's based on Treasury estimates and applications that went into the program.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But it's a grants program, and you just told Senator Patrick that the grants haven't been awarded yet. So it's applications that went into the program? Have you already got a short list of programs that are likely to receive money?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that what I was referring to was coming from a prior request for information.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you tell me some more details about what information you got through that prior request for information? How many companies came forward with their proposals as to what they could do with some money to construct diesel storage?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that on notice.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The explanatory memorandum says, on page 4, that the measures in the bill associated with the fuel security services payment are expected to have a financial impact of $2.047 billion over nine years from 2021-22. What's the amount of money expected to go out in this financial year?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the $2.04 billion is a worst-case scenario based on historical amounts, so there isn't a figure for each individual year.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've got about 10 days left of the 2021-22 financial year, and we have had regulations in place for money to potentially go out up until now. Has any money been expended up until now? What's your expectation of how much money would be expended under the program in the last 10 days of this financial year?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It doesn't start until 1 July 2021.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But there has been a regulation in place for money to be able to be expended before 1 July 2021. Has any money been expended under that regulation up until now?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might just get you to clarify. I think you might be referring to a different program rather than this particular piece of legislation.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding was that there was a regulation that has already gone through that was allowing payments to be made.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a separate grants program from this legislation. I understood your question to refer to this particular legislation. But I am advised—if I understand the question correctly—that up to $83.5 million could be paid out under that grants program. It's based on actual production levels, and those haven't yet been reported to us.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do you have an expectation that you will be paying out that $83.5 million in this financial year?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's the maximum that we would pay out, but we expect to receive the report soon and then we will obviously know how much of the $83.5 million would need to be paid out under the scheme.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said that's a maximum, and you've just said the $2.047 billion is a maximum. Do you have any expectation or any estimate you can give the Senate as to how much is expected to be paid out in the next financial year, in 2021-22?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would depend on the level of production and the refining margins at the time.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not very helpful. There must be somebody in the department who's got an estimate. Given we are about to start that financial year in eight days time, there must be some estimate given current oil costs. I know that the cost is dependent upon production. I know it's dependent upon the price of oil. But what is the expected amount in this coming financial year?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't really have anything that I can add to those previous answers.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So we're just basically here with no clarity whatsoever. What about subsequent years? You said that $2.047 billion is the worst-case scenario. What is the expected cost over 10 years?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated earlier, the appropriation of up to $2.04 billion is based on the worst-case scenario if both refineries were paid the highest amount over the entire period, which is obviously highly unlikely. So it is a worst-case scenario. For example, this would assume COVID-19-like economic conditions on an ongoing basis to 2030. Actual payments are expected to be less, as refinery margins have already improved from 2020.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a lower cost that the government is budgeting for?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The lowest cost would be zero.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What's it expected to be?

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know, with respect, that it's possible to answer in that kind of granularity. It's based on all of those factors that have been outlined. Obviously that's the range.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1295 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1, column 2), omit the cell, substitute:

(2) Clause 71, page 62 (after line 8), after the paragraph beginning "This Part also", insert:

Finally, this Part deals with the review of this Act by the Productivity Commission every two years.

(3) Page 71 (after line 2), at the end of Division 3, add:

85 Report by Productivity Commission

(a) the 2-year period following the commencement of this Act;

(b) each successive 2-year period.

(a) the measures implemented by this Act to improve security and confidence in Australia's fuel supplies including employment generated;

(b) the impact of the manufacture and sale of electric vehicles on fuel security, economic activity and employment generated by the following:

(i) electric vehicle and electric vehicle component manufacturing;

(ii) battery manufacturing and commodity value-adding;

(iii) investment in fast charging network infrastructure;

(iv) the purchase and use of electric vehicles in Australia;

(v) any related matters;

(c) other forms of zero emissions transport including zero emissions fuels such as clean hydrogen and the impact of zero emissions transport on fuel security, economic activity and employment generated.

These amendments basically have two parts. One is essentially that this legislation shouldn't proceed until we've also got an electric vehicles strategy and we've also got something else going on other than ongoing dependence on fossil fuels. The second part of these amendments is that there should be a review of this act by the Productivity Commission to see whether the way the money being spent is the best way to spend the money. Specifically, it would amend the bill to ensure that it doesn't commence until the passage of the Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021. That's the private senator's bill that I am putting forward.

We think it's exceedingly reasonable that you should not be handing out $2 billion to fossil fuel refineries until, as part of a package, you also have an electric vehicles strategy. We think it so reasonable that we would happily submit it to the pub test right around the country. We would love nothing more than for the punters in every pub, cafe, restaurant and other dining establishment in the country, no matter whether they are eating goat's cheese or having a beer, to be asking: if the Liberal Party wants to be giving $2 billion to fuel refineries for fuel security, shouldn't they also be having a strategy for electric vehicles? If you're really serious about fuel security, surely a part of the equation is reducing your reliance on oil? You can do that. Other countries around the world are doing that incredibly successfully by increasing their number of electric vehicles. Basically, the reality is that, if you submitted that to the pub test, it would pass, because people get it. The government wants to accuse us of pulling stunts, but this is very basic and very reasonable. If you want to hand over billions of dollars to fossil fuel companies, have an electric vehicle strategy.

This is a very simple and very fair amendment. We think that the Senate should support it. It's a way of getting this government to be accountable. We have had a proposal for an electric vehicle strategy for a number of years now, and it has just been put off into the never-never. That electric vehicle strategy transformed itself into a 'future fuels discussion paper', which does nothing at all to encourage electric vehicles. Meanwhile, we have states that have to go it alone to work out what they are going to be doing with electric vehicles. We saw some very good proposals from the New South Wales government in the last week. On the other hand, we have the Victorian government putting in place a discriminatory tax against electric vehicles.

Having these two linked together is a very good and appropriate way of dealing with the issue of fuel security. Not only should you be considering, as this government is, 'How do you prop up aging oil refineries?', but at the same time, 'How do you deal with the climate crisis? How do you reduce our reliance on fossil fuels?' That is the only thing that will work in the long term. What the government is doing at the moment, saying, 'Here's $2 billion for your fossil fuel mates', is completely out of step with what is needed, and it is completely out of step with what the rest of the world is doing: reducing the amount of oil, gas and coal that is being burnt and reducing our reliance on that. So we think it is a very reasonable thing to do.

As I said in my tabled speech on the Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill, this bill is a very reasonable and measured approach. It simply requires the government to provide a regular statement outlining their approach to electric vehicles. It would also require a report by the Productivity Commission on how Australia's approach compares with that of the rest of the world. We know Australia has been left behind due to the Liberal Party's inaction. But, rather than obfuscation, ducking and weaving and avoiding accountability, this bill would simply require them to be up-front with Australians about what they're doing, or failing to do, and how far we are lagging behind the rest of the world. I commend my amendment to the Senate, and I really hope that it has the support of the government and the Labor Party.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure what kind of pubs you're frequenting, Senator Rice, that they would meet the Greens' pub test. I drink at the Chisholm Tavern, and I don't think they would believe a word of what was just said, or in fact in 99 per cent of the pubs in this country. I suspect that in these pubs you refer to, which have goat cheese—and I'm all for goat's cheese; I think goat cheese is delicious—they might be consuming more than just alcohol in order to accept the pub test you have just put forward.

On the amendments, the government doesn't support either amendment. The first amendment moved considers matters outside the scope of the bill. The amendment would introduce risk and uncertainty to the commencement and delivery of these important measures. The measures in this bill are needed now. We can't afford delays. The bill must come into effect on 1 July 2021, otherwise there is a real risk that both refineries will withdraw from their in-principle agreement and cease operations. The bill will immediately protect the 1,250 jobs at our local refineries and protect our workers in fuel dependent industries, like our truckies, tradies and farmers. This is critically important.

The government does not support the second amendment moved either. This amendment seeks to enable Productivity Commission reviews on matters unrelated to the vital fuel security measures in the bill. In line with regulatory best practice, the government will closely monitor the impacts of these measures on the market and on Australia's fuel security. The government is already committed to a milestone report after two years, which has been agreed to by both refineries.

This is referenced on page 60 of the EM. It will ensure that the fuel security service payments are working as intended and are appropriate to market conditions. It will consider how the implementation of the minimum stock holding obligation is progressing, and will assess the implementation of the fuel standards aromatics review.

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

I rise to place Labor's voting position on the record. I do want to observe that, in the debate that occurred just before this one, I recalled the remarks of Mr Sharma in the other place, who warned about the problems that arise when people insist on turning sensible debate about climate change into a silly culture war. The contribution from Senator Seselja just now, rambling on about goat's cheese, is exactly a classic in the genre. This is unnecessary and unhelpful.

The government's response on electric vehicles over time is incredibly disappointing. It's why Labor has announced its own electric car discount, to make electric cars cheaper so that more families can afford them and to reduce emissions. But, as we've made clear over the course of the debate, we do think that these bills are vital. We note that they are well overdue. We don't think holding them hostage to a separate set of ideas as proposed by the Greens is a sensible way to proceed. It's on those grounds that we won't be supporting the amendment before us.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to respond to the issue that having to wait for the Electric Vehicles Accountability Bill 2021 to pass would delay payments to oil refineries. As we've already seen, there has been a date—1 July—put on this, but the government is already getting money out the door. You have already approved payments of up to $83.5 million by regulation. If this was delayed beyond 1 July, it would be completely within the power of the government to extend getting money out the door through regulation. This is not holding it up. This is just allowing us to have a sensible debate. It's allowing us to consider the issue of giving $2 billion to a fossil fuel company, given the fact that we are in a climate crisis and given the context of the absolute necessity to address our carbon pollution by shifting to zero carbon transport.

I'm here today wearing a scarf, which I was given yesterday morning by a Christian organisation called Common Grace. This scarf represents how global temperatures have risen over the last 100 years from dark blue here, in 1919. You can see the Black Summer of 2019 here. This is the crisis that we are facing shown here. We are facing a climate crisis. There is no time to continue on. This government does not have even half-hearted measures, not even an electric vehicles strategy or a future fuels strategy, but it actively undermines action on climate change. It's actually going against what the rest of the world is doing. The G7 acknowledged that we need to at least halve our carbon pollution by 2030 and stop giving subsidies to fossil fuel companies. This government is just completely out of step. You are being climate criminals by continuing this sort of action and these subsidies, continuing the pollution that is the destroying our future. We are told that we can't even send a bill off to a Senate inquiry. We can't even have the opportunity to have debate. We can't link it with issues that would do something constructive by shifting a lot of the transport that currently needs petrol and diesel to much cleaner alternatives.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 1295, as moved together, by leave, by Senator Rice, be agreed to.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move my amendment No. 1 on sheet 1307:

(1) Page 69 (after line 8), after clause 80, insert:

80A National energy security strategy and plan

(1) The Minister must table in each House of the Parliament, on or before 30 June 2023, a national energy security strategy and plan.

(2) The national energy security strategy and plan must:

(a) outline how Australia's energy systems (including fuels) will be made more secure and resilient beyond 2027; and

(b) include all of the following matters:

  (i) the future of Australian refineries beyond 2027;

  (ii) how Australia will transition from fossil fuels to emerging energy sources;

  (iii) the retirement of fossil fuels;

  (iv) the development of alternative energy sources;

  (v) investment in alternative energy sources;

  (vi) any other investment required to implement the national energy security strategy and plan; and

(c) include an explanation of how such matters will be implemented.

(3) The Minister must publish, on the Department's website, the national energy security strategy and plan.

This is a very simple amendment but a very important one. What it does is require the minister, whoever is in government, to table in each house of parliament on or before 30 June 2023 a national energy security strategy and plan.

I don't want to cast this in any political light and I don't want to pre-empt any particular solution, but there are some minimum requirements of the plan. It ought to tell us what's going to happen in the future, beyond 2027, noting that is the date in the legislation when refineries may choose to not continue operating. So the question is: If that occurs, what are you going to do? Are you going to put in place another program to encourage them to be here? Senator Hanson has suggested we look at building our own refineries or at least owning our own refineries. This is not prescriptive about the solution. It just says that the government ought to be able to lay out what the plan is.

It would make sense, for example, if we are in a situation where we don't have a lot of fuel and there is vulnerability in supply chains, to examine how we shift away from those fuels to other fuels or other forms of energy, such as electricity—for example, electric vehicles. How do we switch to new fuels like hydrogen or ammonia? The plan calls on the government to lay out, if we're going to transition away from fossil fuels, how that will be done in a sensible fashion. It would look at things like how we shift from road to rail if that is a way of reducing dependency on fuel. How do we shift to, perhaps, coastal shipping if, indeed, that reduces our dependency on fuel?

So this amendment requires the government to lay out a plan. I think most Australians would say, 'That's a pretty sensible thing, having an energy security strategy and plan.' The Australian public would expect nothing less of the government of the day than that it be able to say, 'This is how we're going to solve our energy security problems,' and offer up perhaps some cost-benefit analysis associated with options that are put on the table. Again, this is not prescriptive about what the solutions are; it just requires the government to lay out solutions. I ask the Senate to support this very sensible amendment.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government won't be supporting this amendment, as there are already a range of initiatives that focus on new and emerging technologies. The proposed amendments are beyond the scope and objects of the bill, which focuses on liquid fuel security. The government will continue to work closely with the refineries throughout the commitment period, to understand their ongoing pressures now and post-2027. There is already an agreed two-year review point built into the agreement with refineries. The bill and its legislative rules already consider matters beyond the initial 30 June 2027 period and provide a mechanism for refineries to extend their commitment and receive funding support until 30 June 2030.

The government is currently developing and consulting on a future fuels strategy that will set out the government's direction and actions to enable the private sector to commercially deploy low-emissions road transport technologies at scale. The government has a suite of additional policies to encourage the development of alternative energy sources, including the Future Fuels Strategy, the National Hydrogen Strategy, the Energy Security Board's post-2025 market design paper, Australia's long-term emissions reduction strategy and the Technology Investment Roadmap, which focuses on new and emerging low-emissions technologies.

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

I will place on record the opposition's voting position. Senator Patrick did me the courtesy of coming to speak to me about his proposal, and I thank the senator for doing so. As has just been made clear, the government will not accept this amendment here and, I gather, did not accept it in the other place. These bills are vital. As I said earlier, these initiatives are well overdue. I was part of the PJCIS committee process that examined fuel security. It came to the conclusion in early 2018 that arrangements were entirely inadequate and requested that the government undertake a review of the adequacy of our fuel supplies. But, for the sake of Australia's fuel security and the workers at our two remaining refineries, we will not support this amendment, so as to facilitate the passage of these bills.

It is unfortunate, I observe, that the government's incompetent management of its own legislative agenda means the Senate cannot amend legislation in the usual way, because the government has chosen to bring this right up against its own deadlines.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Greens will be supporting this. The minister's response, saying that the issues in this amendment are beyond the scope of the bill, goes to the very nub of the problem, which is that you can have a bill that gives up to $2 billion to fossil fuel companies—a subsidy to fossil fuel companies—without considering the broader scope of fuel security, without having a plan, obviously without having an electric vehicle strategy, without having any plan as to how you are going to reduce your need, the demand for those fuels. It is just incompetent governance. Then for the Labor Party to say that they are not supporting this amendment, because it is going to delay the passage of this bill, is just a complete cop out. As I said earlier, the government had the ability through regulation to give payments from the time of the budget, so we could have properly considered and debated this very far-reaching and very expensive legislation. We could and we should be considering very sensible amendments to this legislation. For Labor not to be supporting them, just because they are dancing to the government's tune, is completely appalling. What is the point of having an opposition?

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm quite disappointed at what's happened here. I sat and listened to all the speeches in the second reading debate. I listened to Senator McAllister, Senator Ayres and Senator Sheldon, who all criticised the government for its lack of organisation over the last two or three parliaments in managing our fuel security. Yet, when I put on the table a proposition that says, 'Lay out a plan,' there is no support for that concept. Senator McAllister mentioned the request of the PJCIS to look at fuel security. There is a document sitting on the minister's desk—from the Liquid Fuel Security Review—that has not been made available. That is the sort of thing that happens with this government. It is completely opaque in respect of advice that it receives and in respect of planning. Minister, if you say that all of these things are already coming together in different places, then just stick it in the one document.

And to the Labor Party: I don't buy the fact that, as you say, this holds up the bill. Just to be really clear on how this works—because clearly the opposition doesn't understand it—if you support this amendment tonight, the bill will then get passed, it will go back to the House with an amendment and then the House can debate it. In fact, Labor could stand up in the House and say: 'Do you know what? There ought to be a plan.' That could be dealt with tomorrow, and it could be back in this chamber by tomorrow afternoon. So to suggest that this amendment would hold up the legislation beyond this sitting week is actually deceptive; it's misleading. That's not how it works. Everyone needs to understand that.

The Labor Party could support this amendment. They say that in principle they agree that a plan ought to be put on the table. They know how the government will work if there's no legal requirement to do so, yet they suggest that they're not going to support this because the government won't be able to deal with it in the House tomorrow. It's just crazy, and it is disappointing. In order to be a government, you have to be a strong opposition first, and you have to realise that. Senator McAllister has engaged politely with me on this. I've also engaged with Mr Bowen in the other place.

Do you know what? Labor has to learn to stand up every once in a while—stand up and do the right thing. Don't pretend that procedurally this puts the bill at risk. It doesn't. It simply takes some courage. Anthony Albanese in this instance has failed. I didn't speak to Mr Albanese, but one presumes that this was at least discussed with him. We need to get a backbone from the opposition. We need to get the opposition standing up, being strong, supporting good legislation. This is a disgrace.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment on sheet 1307, moved by Senator Patrick, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move my amendment on sheet 1296:

(1) Clause 46, page 37 (lines 23 to 27), omit the clause, substitute:

46 Publication of information

(1) The Minister must table in each House of the Parliament, as soon as practicable but no later than 15 sitting days after the end of each financial year, a statement relating to fuel security services payments made during that year.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include the following information:

(a) the total amount of fuel security services payment paid for quarters ending in each financial year;

(b) a list of each FSSP fuel for which a fuel security services payment was paid;

(c) for each fuel security services payment paid:

(i) the FSSP fuel for which the payment was paid; and

(ii) the amount of the fuel security services payment ; and

(iii) the number of litres of FSSP fuel refined; and

(iv) the number of cents paid per litre of FSSP fuel; and

(v) the name of the person paid;

(d) the total number of litres of each FSSP fuel for which a fuel security services payment was paid;

(e) any other information required by the rules.

(2) The Secretary must publish, on the Department's website, the Minister's statement under subsection (1).

This is really the minimal—absolutely minimal—set of accountability measures. As we've been saying, potentially up to $2 billion of taxpayers' money is being given to the oil refineries. We've got zero answers from the minister tonight, and also when I've asked questions in estimates, about the expectation of how much is going to be expended. This amendment would give at least a bit of accountability after the fact—asking for the basic figures as to how much is being handed out to the oil refineries to be tabled in parliament: a list of the fuel security service payments, when it was paid, what it was paid for, the number of litres refined, the number of cents per litre, the name of the person paid, the total number of litres of each type of fuel, and any other information. It's just a bit of basic accountability so that at least, even after the fact, we can have this basic knowledge of what our money—our subsidy to fossil fuels—is being spent on.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government won't be supporting this Greens amendment. Provisions in the bill are sufficient to inform the Australian public about the payments made to refineries. Aggregated payment information will be published on the department's website quarterly. The bill also allows for legislative rules to include further information about these payments should it be considered appropriate. The rules will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The government will be able to ensure that only appropriate information is recorded and published and that commercially confidential information is not disclosed. There is a risk that commercial information could be disclosed through this amendment. Disaggregated data at the level proposed would likely pose commercial-in-confidence issues. It would give information about the amounts of different fuel types produced by the refineries which is not otherwise publicly available. The Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Act, which also legally protects this information, would also require amendments, and this would potentially delay the bill's passage. It's the government's intention that, through the rules, only the aggregated amount paid quarterly to both refineries would be published. The refineries are also required to report publicly to the ASX, which would include reporting payments from the government. The refineries report to the ASX at least twice a year.

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

Labor will not be supporting this amendment, for the reasons that I provided earlier. The government has allowed this entire bill to run up against the clock. There is a concern that, if amendments that are not acceptable to the government are made to this bill, it will cause the bill to be bounced back to the other place and bounced back here. The Labor Party does not intend to be responsible for jeopardising payments which are intended to commence—

Senator Patrick interjecting—

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Patrick!

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

I note that Senator Patrick is shouting from elsewhere than his own seat. I simply wanted to observe that the Labor Party does take responsibility for the decisions we make in this chamber. Unlike parties elsewhere, we consider ourselves a party of government, and that means actually making decisions in the national interest. We consider that it is in the national interest that this legislation be passed, in the remaining time available to us this week, to allow payments to commence.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 1296, in respect of the Fuel Security Bill 2021, be agreed to.