Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table two supplementary explanatory memoranda relating to the government's amendments to be moved to the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023, and, by leave, I move amendments (1) to (8) on sheet UC140 together:

(1) Clause 5, page 4 (after line 16), after the definition of Australia, insert:

Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets means:

(a) if:

(i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution was communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement in June 2022; and

(ii) that nationally determined contribution has not been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement;

the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set out in paragraphs 10(1)(a) and (b) of the Climate Change Act 2022; or

(b) in any other case—the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets included in:

(i) Australia's current nationally determined contribution communicated in accordance with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement; or

(ii) if that nationally determined contribution has been adjusted in accordance with paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Paris Agreement—that nationally determined contribution, as adjusted and in force from time to time.

(2) Clause 17, page 15 (after line 16), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) In performing its functions, the Board must have regard to:

(a) the desirability of transforming Australia's industry and economy by:

(i) growing or improving Australia's industrial capability; or

(ii) improving Australian industry's ability to pursue value-adding opportunities; or

(iii) supporting a long-term improvement in Australia's economic diversity; and

(b) the desirability of attracting private sector finance or investments into the priority areas of the Australian economy; and

(c) Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and the desirability of supporting decarbonisation; and

(d) the desirability of creating secure jobs and a skilled and adaptable workforce; and

(e) the desirability of enhancing Australia's resilience against supply chain vulnerabilities; and

(f) the desirability of encouraging the commercialisation of Australian innovation and technology.

(3) Clause 17, page 15 (line 24), omit "Subsection (4) does not", substitute "Subsections (3A) and (4) do not".

(4) Clause 75, page 46 (after line 25), after paragraph (1)(c), insert:

(ca) in the case of the Corporation—environmental, labour, social and governance matters to be considered by the Corporation in relation to:

(i) the Corporation's investment functions; and

(ii) the Corporation's investment powers;

(5) Clause 75, page 47 (after line 5), after paragraph (1)(f), insert:

(fa) in the case of a designated subsidiary of the Corporation—environmental, labour, social and governance matters to be considered by the designated subsidiary in relation to:

(i) the Corporation's investment functions being performed through the designated subsidiary; and

(ii) the designated subsidiary's investment powers;

(6) Clause 82, page 51 (line 8), omit "and".

(7) Clause 90, page 56 (line 5), after "delegate to a", insert "senior".

(8) Clause 90, page 56 (line 10), after "function to a", insert "senior".

We thank the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the many other stakeholders, including members of this place, who have provided their valuable feedback on this bill. In response to this feedback, the government is moving these amendments to the bill.

Firstly, in respect of functions of the board, while investing to diversify and transform Australian industry is the core objective of the NRF, we also recognise that there are several important considerations that the board should have regard to in performing its functions. That is why we are proposing further amendments to clause 17 of the bill to make it clear that the board must have regard to a number of other important matters that have informed our design of the NRF from the outset, transforming Australia's industry and economy, attracting private sector investment and not crowding it out, meeting Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reductions target and decarbonisation, creating secure jobs and a skilled and adaptable workforce, enhancing resilience in Australia's supply chains, and encouraging the commercialisation of Australian innovation and technology.

Our proposed amendments to clause 75 require the corporation to develop policies on how environmental, labour, social and governance matters need to be considered in relation to its investment functions and powers and also its subsidiaries. This represents modern investment best practice, and we thank those stakeholders who raised these issues. By introducing these amendments, the government reaffirms that one of the most important outcomes of the National Reconstruction Fund will be the creation of secure, well-paid jobs in these key industries that build upon our national strengths. The fund will revitalise and strengthen our local supply chains to ensure that we have our own industrial and manufacturing capabilities.

By legislating the core functions of the board to include the creation of secure jobs, we are emphasising one of the biggest benefits that our domestic manufacturing industry provides and will continue to provide: opportunities for Australians to make a meaningful, high-skilled contribution to our nation's future. Nearly 85 per cent of the jobs in manufacturing are full-time.

When we proposed the National Reconstruction fund in March 2021, Labor said we were doing this to rebuild secure work. When he announced the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022, itself a huge investment in manufacturing capability in the US, President Joe Biden said that it would 'lift up American workers and create good paying union jobs across the country'. 'Union jobs' is universally recognised language for secure, safe, high-skilled, well-paid jobs. That is exactly what this government is doing with our National Reconstruction Fund, creating jobs that communities can build around, especially in regional, remote and outer-suburban Australia. We're investing in businesses so that they can invest in their workers, developing the skills that we need to meet any challenges that the future may have in store. But we're only going to get there by working together—government with business and their people. We all have a common goal: an Australian industry that will lead the world. This can only be achieved if everyone has a voice, which can be heard, and a stake in the success of our collective effort.

Finally, in response to comments by the scrutiny committee, we also propose a minor amendment to clause 90, to make clear that the CEO may only delegate their powers and functions to senior staff. This amendment brings the clause into line with the CEFC Act and will not significantly change the operations or the functions of the NRF. I therefore commend the bill to the Senate.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will not be supporting the amendments moved by the government. I do know that, unfortunately, this is going to be subject, the committee stage, to a guillotine that is going to kick in at 8 pm. I know that Senator Hume, Senator Scarr, Senator Brockman and, possibly, Senator Rennick—we have a number of issues that we would like to endeavour to get through in the short time, just under three hours, that we have available.

In terms of the board appointments minister, as the bill currently stands, section 19(1) states that the ministers will, by written instrument, appoint board members. There is, however, no process stated for which these appointees will be selected from. Could you take us through what process the minister would enact to ensure that merit based appointments do occur?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

nator FARRELL (—) (): Thank you, Senator Cash, for your question. There will be the normal processes that would apply in the consideration of board membership. Obviously, there will be merit based board appointments. When you're dealing with something like the National Reconstruction Fund, emphasis will be on people with those skills that might best be capable of implementing this much needed and very ambitious project.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you state that normal processes will apply, could you please outline to the Senate what those normal processes are, and, when you say that the minister will ensure people have the appropriate skill set, how is that going to occur?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister will select from a list of candidates prepared by the department, the skills matrix taking into account the qualifications listed, in the bill, at section 19(2).

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the skills matrix be made public?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That skills matrix is already in the bill.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the board positions themselves, will they be publicly advertised?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On what basis will they not be publicly advertised?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government has decided not to publicly advertise them.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On what basis did the government make the decision—given all of the comments that were made, in particular, prior to the election in relation to transparency and integrity by this Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and other members of the government—that you will not be publicly advertising these positions?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cash, you really have got a cheek, talking about transparency, when the former prime minister did not reveal to the Australian people that we're—

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on. It's a straight question.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you don't realise, Senator Henderson, the seriousness of what the former Prime Minister did—and, I might say, some of the comments of your current female shadow bench. The former government didn't even tell the—

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Farrell, please take a seat. Senator Henderson?

Sarah Henderson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order. I would ask Senator Farrell to withdraw that denigrating comment about women on our side of the chamber. Women on our side of the chamber have been subjected to some pretty horrendous treatment in recent days. I would say to Senator Farrell that it's most improper to reflect on women on this side of the chamber in that way. I would ask him to withdraw it.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My comment was a compliment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I was listening carefully to the backwards and forwards. Senator Farrell, you got pretty close to some concerns that were raised, but it might help the Senate if you just explained. Finish your sentence, because you didn't quite finish it. Then, if necessary, I'll ask you to withdraw, but at this stage I won't.

I was complimenting women on your side of the bench, but if there was anything I said I unreservedly withdraw.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cash.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've established that—despite statements by the now government prior to the election and, in particular, even in relation to the political commentary that the minister himself made, in answering this question, to reflect on the previous government—under this government, in relation to the National Reconstruction Fund board, the board positions themselves will not be publicly advertised. Can you, then, advise whether board positions themselves will undergo a selection process, including interviews?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that there will be discussions with the candidates but not formal interviews.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you say, 'discussions with candidates', have any of these candidates already been identified?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you say, 'discussions', who will be having those discussions?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The department.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

CASH (—) (): Will the minister or the minister's office be involved in any of the discussions?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is the advice will go from the department to the minister, and then the minister will ultimately make a decision.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

nator CASH (—) (): Is the minister bound to accept the recommendations from the department?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does that mean that the minister does not, in any way, need to accept the recommendations put forward by the department and, on that basis, the minister could themselves put forward their own selection?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've already explained how the process is going to work. There's a matrix. The department will propose some names, which will come to the minister. The minister will make a decision post the receipt of those names.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's very important to understand because, obviously, there are other processes that will be gone through when these names are announced. The minister is not bound to accept the recommendations put forward by the department. I just want to confirm that means that the minister may themselves appoint anyone they like.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is standard practice, in terms of the appointment of board members. What will happen here is consistent with what typically happens in the appointment of board members, both under the former government and under this government.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under section 19(2) it lists the experience or expertise relevant to being appointed. How was the conclusion reached that a person with experience in industrial relations was a qualified person for the purposes of a bill that establishes a quasi bank for the manufacturing sector?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought that would be an absolutely fundamental feature of a project as large and as ambitious as the National Reconstruction Fund. As I said in the address I gave at the start, today, we're looking for well-paid jobs in this sector—high-skilled, well-paid jobs—and I would have thought the wonderful unions, in this country, which have contributed over decades to the creation of those wonderful well-paid jobs would be a very important feature of any board that sets out to be as ambitious as this particular project.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all due respect, I didn't mention unions, so I do find it interesting that you jumped straight to that. I actually mentioned 'qualified persons' as defined in the act. But it is interesting, and the problem I have with your answer and your natural inclination to talk about unions is in relation to the next question I have for you. Why was the decision undertaken, then, to include section 19(2)(1) where it states 'any other experience the minister considers relevant is a suitable parameter for a board appointment' given, in particular, you said there was a skills matrix?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think there's anything for you to be concerned about there, Senator Cash. The minister is a very, very sensible fellow, and if there are skills that he believes are vital for the success of this project—let's understand, this is an ambitious project. It's all about building things in Australia again.

I was here, very sadly, on the day that your government, Senator Cash, pushed Holden out of this country. This government is about rebuilding Australia, making up for 10 years of neglect in this sector and getting back secure, hopefully full-time, jobs for Australian workers in what will be one of the great transformative projects of this country. Rest assured that the fellow to do that is Mr Husic, the minister who's looking after this. I have the greatest confidence that the board he will select will have all the requisite talents and skills and abilities to make a success of this National Reconstruction Fund.

Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I give the call to Senator Cash, we'll finish here with a couple of lines of questions, and then we'll go to Senator Allman-Payne.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the minister's comments—with all due respect, Minister, I know you're enjoying this. I know you're smiling. That's fine, I accept that, but for the fact that you are now a minister of the Crown representing a government.

I remember when I was on the other side, and you used to ask questions and you demanded and expected an answer. We would do our very, very best to provide you with those answers. It is a great shame that you now treat the opposition—and the people of Australia, quite frankly—with contempt. You do not even make an effort to try and answer any questions, whether it's in question time or whether it is now in the committee stage, where we're subject to a guillotine in two and a half hours—two hours and 40 minutes—to try and understand better the way this bill will work.

Based on the answers you have given to me: there is no process, basically, stated for which these appointees will be selected from, other than there's a skills matrix; the government will make recommendations to the minister; and the minister doesn't have to regard any of those recommendations. You've admitted that, with experience in industrial relations, that goes straight to unions. Any other experience—well, the good news is that the minister is the right person for the job and we should just trust them! So, basically, in relation to this line of questioning, this leaves board positions open to anyone the minister may choose. Is that correct?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I was being exceptionally helpful by providing all of the information, and I completely reject your categorisation of my answers as not answering your question. There are provisions in the bill as to how appointments will be made. There's a skills matrix. There will be a selection process done by the department—not by the minister. Names will come up to the minister, and a final process will be taken to select the best possible board members to run what is a very ambitious National Reconstruction Fund in this country. I don't think there's anything in all of that which is inconsistent with past practices in terms of significant boards and appointments of these types of boards. More particularly, I don't think I could be any clearer about how that process is going to work.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to begin by thanking the government for the constructive approach that they've taken in relation to the negotiations for the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation Bill 2023. I hope that we can continue in that vein as we proceed to discussing upcoming bills on housing. The Greens took a policy for a manufacturing fund to the election, and we strongly support public investment in rebuilding manufacturing in Australia. The amendments that the Greens secured in the House will ensure that the National Reconstruction Fund will be focused on creating high-quality jobs across a diverse economy, particularly in regional Australia. We note that the previous government did try and use public money through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to fund coal and gas. They were unable to do so because of the guardrails that had been put in place on that bill by the Greens and Labor. We are pleased that we now have the same assurance that the NRF won't be used to fund the climate crisis.

With respect to the government's amendment on sheet UC140, I wish to indicate that the Greens will be supporting that amendment, which, amongst other things, means that the board must have regard to the Paris climate targets when making investment decisions. This is absolutely essential in a climate crisis. We also welcome the additional amendments, which require the board to have regard to the desirability of creating secure jobs. A thriving industry base relies on the reversal of the trend of casualisation and insecure work. We support viable industries driven by good jobs and powered by renewables. At this point, I want to foreshadow that we are also in support of the amendment by Senator Pocock on sheet 1895. We are not just in a climate crisis; we are also in a biodiversity crisis, with the sixth mass extinction underway. The Greens welcome this amendment from Senator Pocock and any consideration the NRF has towards biodiversity loss.

During the inquiry into this bill and also into the National Energy Transition Authority Bill, the importance of taking a regional development approach to decarbonising our economy and the value of creating renewable energy industrial precincts were relayed by a number of witnesses. My question to the minister is: Can the minister confirm whether the NRF will be able to create industrial green energy hubs within existing industrial areas? If so, can the government provide examples of places where renewable energy industrial precincts could be developed using funds from the NRF? For example, would the NRF be able to invest in the development of green energy hubs in existing industrial zones in places like Gladstone, Townsville and the Hunter Valley?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Allman-Payne, for your contribution and thank you for your support and sensible engagement with the government about this project. I think your party's role is in stark contrast to the opposition's in how one might go about getting constructive changes that you'd like to see into important pieces of federal legislation. I should congratulate you on the approach you have taken in these discussions—open-minded and genuinely interested in making the NRF bill better and securing positive outcomes for manufacturers and industry sectors that add value to Australian resources.

I've seen the report that the senator references, and the point I would make is that coordination across government is going to be vital to the success of this terrific project. With the NRF, Rewiring the Nation, Powering the Regions as well as other government investment vehicles, like the North Australia Infrastructure Facility and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, we are confident that we're getting the right tools in place. That said, of course the NRF board will determine investment decisions independently.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to take the minister back to the fact of how this board is going to be appointed. You made reference to the fact that the department will be picking people to go onto the board, not the minister. Will the department be advertising for people who may have the experience and knowledge to apply for the positions to put their names forward?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, thank you for your question. I think you might have misunderstood what I was saying there, so I'll just run through the process again. The bill itself sets out a skills matrix for the sorts of people the government believes are necessary to make a success of this new body. The department will then make an assessment about the people who have those relevant skills, and then we'll submit to the minister a list of the people they believe have the appropriate skills to do that job.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I find it very hard to believe that the department will have on hand a list of names of people they think will fill this role. All jobs must be advertised, and on a fair and democratic basis, people should be able to apply for these positions. Where are the names going to come from in the first place? Someone's got to present those names. It's got to be either the minister or the department that is going to present these names. Why isn't this opened up to the best eligible people around the country who may apply for a position to work on the board? Why isn't it open for anyone to apply for this?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's nothing unusual about the process that's going on here, Senator Hanson. It's a practice that governments adopt in the selection of the best people whom we believe will be able to do the job of setting up this body and making a success of it. I think you need to reference particularly section 19(2) of the bill, which sets out a matrix of the sorts of skills a person is going to need in order to do the best for the country in terms of this new body. I think when you look at that matrix, and you see the range of skills people will be looking for, you should have some confidence that the department will be able to find the people who are best suited for this job and give that list of names to the minister to make a final determination as to who will be the best people in this country to do that job.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

SON (—) (): We have in place laws in this country whereby corporations, organisations and businesses must advertise a job. They can't just put forward a list of names of people who want it—that is against the law. You must open it up for people to apply for these positions. Why do you think that you, or this government or this new department, have the right to put in place people who you think will do the job? That's not complying with the laws of the nation, which you impose on corporations and other businesses. They have to follow the guidelines; why do you think that you can do whatever you want to do?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't believe that what is being proposed here, with due respect, is contrary to the law. I think it's worthwhile noting that Treasury does keep lists of people who have the skills and abilities to meet the skills metric in the bill, and of course it's the bill itself that is setting out the criteria for the selection of these people. Anybody who's interested and thinks they have the skills can no doubt make contact with the department and say: 'Have a look at me. I have these qualifications.' As I said, Treasury has a list of people who have the skill sets in the skills metric that is set out in the legislation, and I am very confident that the best possible people—and the most skilled people in the country to build this ambitious new organisation—will it be selected. When you see the final list, you'll have great confidence that the best people in this country have been selected to do that job.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tell me: would the people whose names are on that list be union reps?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope so. I hope there are some union representatives on the board, because a key objective of this new fund is to ensure that we get high-paid, well-skilled jobs, but being on the list doesn't mean that the department is going to select them. The department may decide that a union official or, for that matter, a representative of business, with skills in industrial relations, may not be the best person to be on the board. Let's wait to see that process work. I'm very confident that the department will come up with the best possible list of people who can do the job that we want them to do to start rebuilding Australia.

High-paid, secure, important, innovative jobs in this country is what we need. We've had 10 years of inaction under the previous government. We're about to start building things in Australia again. Of course, you're well aware of the submarines that we're going to start building in due course. This government wants to build things in Australia, like we used to do—we used to build terrific Holden cars in Elizabeth, in South Australia, and we used to build terrific Toyota cars in Victoria. We want to start building things in Australia again. Ultimately, the people who are going to be on this board will oversee that process, and I think that, when you see the final list of names, you'll be satisfied that we've selected the best and most qualified people in this country to run this fund.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the minister conferred with industry, particularly the manufacturing industry, on the impacts of high energy prices, which will result from the government's deal with the Greens, and whether that deal will impact the projects that would potentially be eligible for this fund?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure how you link the passing of this bill with the issue of higher electricity prices. As we discovered after we came to office, your government failed to disclose increases in electricity prices. This government is one that's been putting downward pressure on electricity prices by caps on gas and coal. I pay tribute to the outgoing Premier of News South Wales, Dominic Perrottet. To his credit, he was prepared to join forces with the federal government to assist in pushing that downward pressure on electricity prices.

This is not a government that's interested in higher electricity prices. We want prices lower. We don't keep them a secret. We don't keep them under wraps. We don't change the dates for disclosure of them like the previous government does. We acknowledge the problems that are existing right around the world, at the moment, as a result of the terrible war between Ukraine and Russia.

We believe in putting downward pressure on those prices, but there's nothing in this bill that would, in any way, see an upward pressure on electricity prices.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister, but what I asked was whether the minister has conferred with industry since this deal was done, potentially, on the impacts of this deal on the manufacturing sector and on the projects that might be eligible for this fund. If you have consulted with industry, I'd be interested in knowing who in industry you have consulted with since the deal was done. If you haven't consulted with industry, I'd be interested to know why you haven't consulted with industry.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Knowing Minister Husic as I do, he's a great one for consultation. I don't think we've ever had a minister, in this space, who consults more and talks with manufacturers about all of the issues that are currently affecting them. I don't want to reveal confidential cabinet discussions, but I think I can say this: there's no finer minister, in this space, who is prepared to go in to bat for manufacturers.

I'm sure that he talks to them about a whole range of issues, including electricity prices. In fact, I'm told that they frequently complain that the previous government completely ignored their issues around rising electricity prices, and it's a breath of fresh air that we have a minister who's prepared to sit down with them, listen to their concerns and take some action. I might say, those stakeholders that you refer to are very supportive of the legislation, and it's a pity that the opposition have decided to deal themselves out of this process.

I have already gone through what I thought was a very good process, last week, in dealing with one piece of legislation that I know you were involved with directly, Senator Hume. Some of your colleagues could take a feather out of your cap and follow the very sensible way in which discussions should take place. We do want the opposition to be involved in these processes. The constant negativity and saying no I don't think does you any good.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's so annoying, isn't it? It's so frustrating!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is frustrating, Senator McKenzie, that you sit there and just keep saying no. If you really wanted to be an alternative party of government—I'm starting to think, now, maybe things are so bad and you've lost so many elections that you've lost any hope of ever becoming an alternative party of government. But if you are serious about being an alternative party of government then one of the criteria for that is engaging with the government of the day. Look at what the Greens did. They didn't just roll over.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, resume your seat. Senator Brockman?

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

The minister is performing as he does in question time. He is not talking about the bill. He is going off on a flight of fancy of his own. Could you please bring him back to the question and back to the bill?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Brockman. Minister, I ask you to turn your attention towards the question again.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chair. I was just offering some helpful advice to a party that's just lost, finally, government in every mainland state in the country. They've lost federal government. I'm just trying to offer them some advice on how they might want to re-engage, firstly, with the stakeholders who have a vital interest in this issue and who are supporting the government in this regard. I've been answering your questions, plus I'm trying to give you some advice—some help. I'm just trying to help you.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just for the minister's information, I have dozens of questions here that we would really like the answers to, and I am still on question 1, and I've asked it three times now. I will go back and remind you that the deal with the Greens was only done yesterday. So can you confirm not that Minister Husic is a good fellow, because I'm sure he is, but whether he has in fact consulted with industry since that time—since the deal was announced—or potentially whether industry was consulted before the deal was announced? If it was consulted, either before the deal was announced or since the deal was announced, who in industry did the minister consult? Was it a peak body? Was it an individual manufacturer? Was it somebody that would qualify for this fund? Who is it that the minister has spoken to since this deal was done?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister frequently talks to stakeholders in this industry and gets their views. For instance, only today I was talking about the Minerals Council about their views on a range of pieces of legislation.

I think you're conflating two different pieces of legislation here, with respect, Senator Hume. This is not a piece of legislation about the safeguards. We'll move to that later on this evening, after we've passed this legislation. We're here talking about the National Reconstruction Fund, and I personally think that your questions ought to be directed to that fund and not conflate it with another issue.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much for that patronising response. Yes, you're correct. There was a deal done with the Greens on the safeguard mechanism, and that will have an effect on energy prices. There is no doubt about that, and I am asking you whether that effect on energy prices—which will not put downward pressure, as you continue to insist, but will in fact put upward pressure on energy prices—will have an effect on the National Reconstruction Fund, on the manufacturers that are going to potentially participate in the National Reconstruction Fund and potentially on those who may be eligible for this fund. Has the minister spoken to any of the manufacturers or peak bodies about whether higher energy prices resulting from the deal that your government has done with the Greens are going to affect their eligibility for the National Reconstruction Fund?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The deal that we have done with the Greens to decarbonise our economy and set up the safeguards for the future move to zero emissions by 2050 is going to put downward pressure. We're talking about moving to the cheapest form of energy, which is renewable energy. That's solar energy. You had a policy that you took to the last election of zero emissions by 2050. We've started the process—

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order, Chair.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Do you have a point of order, Senator Hume?

I've asked this committee four times whether the minister has spoken to anybody in industry about whether higher energy prices caused by the deal that your government has done with the Greens is going to affect their eligibility for this fund.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hume, you've asked about energy. You've asked about deals with the Greens. I can't direct the minister on how to answer, but I draw him to your question.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think I can be any clearer, with all due respect, Senator Hume. The agreement with the Greens in respect of safeguards is going to have downward pressure. We're talking about decarbonising our economy. We're talking about a switch to a cheaper form of energy. You don't have to agree with that proposition, and I can see Senator Hollie Hume—

Opposition senators: Hollie Hughes.

Hollie Hughes. I simply don't agree with your proposition.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Resume your seat, Minister. Yes, Senator McKenzie?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order: we have limited time in committee tonight to look at $15 billion worth of taxpayer funding. Can you—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator McKenzie, what's your point of order?

On relevance, please draw the minister to the question. If he doesn't have the answer, it's okay. He can sit down.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator McKenzie. It is a wide-ranging discussion and I have drawn the minister to the question. The minister has the call.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chair. Look, I can't be any clearer: I don't accept the proposition that the arrangement with the Greens pushes up electricity prices. The whole point of the agreement is to put downward pressure on electricity prices. But this is not—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tedious repetition!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could say the same about your questions, with due respect, Senator McKenzie. I can't give you the answer that you want because I don't accept the proposition that you're asking me about.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has he spoken to anybody? That's all it is.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Look, the minister frequently speaks with stakeholders in this area. He's a bloke who goes out of his way to consult in a way that your government, when you were in office for nine or 10 years, never ever did. This is a bloke who consults, who listens and who brings that knowledge to the cabinet table.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the earlier substantial number of questions around the board and the appointment of the board. In that vein, I would like to foreshadow that the Greens will be supporting the Jacqui Lambie Network amendment on sheet 1886, which expands the board membership from six to eight members. Given the range of fields set out in clause 19, we feel that the board will require an expansion in the number of people on the board. This will make it far more likely that the board will be comprised of members who have a greater depth of expertise, credibility and standing in their respective fields.

In that vein also, we will be supporting Senator Pocock's amendment on sheet 1909, which reduces the term of the board appointments from five to four years and brings forward the independent review from five to three years. We think that reducing the term of board appointments from five to four years does create the right balance between consistency and flexibility. We also think that bringing forward the independent review from five years to 2026 provides the opportunity to ensure that the fund is operating, as intended, reasonably soon after it becomes fully operational.

Also, in relation to the board, the Greens will be opposing the Jacqui Lambie Network amendment on sheet 1885. This is the amendment that requires the board to submit a strategic direction overview to the minister every five years and gives the minister the capacity to reject or not approve the strategic direction of the NRF. The Greens think that in making it a requirement that the minister approve the strategic plan given to them by the board actually gives undue influence to the government of the day over the NRF and we think that it's important that the board can maintain a level of independence from the government. Hence, we won't be supporting that amendment.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I thank Senator Allman-Payne for her clarity in respect of those amendments and indicate that the government will be supporting, as you are, the Lambie amendment to increase the number of members of the board from six to eight.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1895, standing in my name, together:

(1) Amendment (2), after paragraph 17(3A)(c), insert:

(ca) Australia's international obligations and commitments under the following:

(i) the Convention on Biological Diversity, done at Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992, as in force for Australia from time to time;

(ii) the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted by the Conference of the Parties to that Convention at Montreal on 19 December 2022, as amended from time to time;

(iii) any subsequent global biodiversity framework to which Australia is a party, as amended from time to time; and

(2) Amendment (2), at the end of subclause 17(3A), add:

Note 1: The Convention on Biological Diversity is in Australian Treaty Series 1993 No. 32 ([1993] ATS 32) and could in 2023 be viewed in the Australian Treaties Library on the AustLII website (https://www.austlii.edu.au).

Note 2: The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Frameworkcould in 2023 be viewed on the website of the Convention on Biological Diversity (https://www.cbd.int).

This amendment seeks to ensure that in performing its functions the independent board of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation must have regard to Australia's international obligations and commitments. This amendment simply seeks to make explicit that the board will consider our international commitments under the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and any subsequent global biodiversity frameworks in which Australia is a party.

Shamefully, biodiversity loss is something that Australia has been grappling with for decades. We go to conventions, we sign up to non-binding agreements, then we come back home and we don't take the steps necessary to actually look after our incredible biodiversity. As a megadiverse country, this is something that we should be putting in every new body that we set up. There should be a regard to Australia's biodiversity and the impacts that any activities will have. We've got a shameful record. We have a government that is committed to no new extinctions. I believe it's a commitment that is welcomed by Australians, but that's going to take real work from all of us to actually deliver on that.

I commend this amendment. I believe it really is in line with what the government have promised the Australian people that they will do. I would urge the Senate to support it and to begin to better look after this incredible continent that we get to call home.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for his contribution. Protecting biodiversity is extremely important to the Albanese government. Australia's history is full, as he said, of too much disrespect for and destruction of the biodiversity of this great country. We must, and we will do, better. However, the best place for these issues to be dealt with is in the EPBC Act, and that's why the government will be opposing this amendment.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I quote from the IMF's staff report on the report of Australia's article IV consultation around the inflationary risks that currently exist in Australia from the IMF point of view. It says that implementation of below-the-line 'activity through newly created investment vehicles (National Reconstruction Fund, Rewiring the Nation, and Housing Australia Future Fund) should … be phased judiciously, and, more broadly, a proliferation of such vehicles should be avoided'. Do you agree with that statement?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Hume for her question. Much of the current inflationary pressure is caused by global factors, including the supply chain restraints and, of course, the terrible war between Russia and Ukraine. Investments of the corporation will build capability, resilience and productivity in Australian manufacturing, improving the supply side of the economy and helping to place downward pressure on inflation, so I think we would suggest the opposite of what you were suggesting. Further, corporation investments will be phased over time and avoid adding to the current demand pressure.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, perhaps you might want to correct the record. Are you suggesting that the government disagrees with the IMF on what the inflationary risks for Australia in fact are and this fund is in fact creating an increased inflationary risk for Australia? Do you disagree with the IMF?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll repeat what I said a moment ago. We believe that, in the way in which we've drafted and designed this particular fund, it will put downward pressure on inflation and of course do all the other terrific things that we say it will do, which is to create well-paid jobs in industry and start rebuilding this country.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, if you are disagreeing with the IMF, can I then ask: is it your contention that you or your government are more qualified to assess Australia's fiscal position than the IMF?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's our contention that, after the nine years of neglect of Australian jobs where you sat back and essentially pushed companies like Holden out of this country, we're going to start rebuilding this country. We're going to start making things again in this country and we're going to do it in a non-inflationary way. All of the things that you failed to do in your nine years of neglect in government, we intend to repair. We intend to start that process of rebuilding and creating good, well-paid jobs in this country.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I confirm then, Minister, you believe that the IMF is wrong?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that this bill is not going to add to inflation, and, on the contrary, is going to start rebuilding the Australian economy. We're going to start making things in this country—things like Senator Pocock would have been familiar with in Elizabeth in South Australia, where we used to make terrific Holden cars. We lost all that under your government. We're going to start rebuilding this country, and we're going to start rebuilding it with good, well-paid, innovative jobs.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, in relation to the amendments that were moved by Mr Bandt in the House, has the department asked for modelling from the department as to the impact that these amendments will have on industry?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Cash for her question. The NRF is first and foremost a manufacturing fund. It is designed to grow our capacity and our capabilities to ensure Australia can once again be a country that makes things. It was never intended to fund the extraction of minerals in any form. It was never intended to log timber in any form, so, when the Greens asked us to confirm that by including it in the legislation, we were happy to put it in.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the department briefed the minister on the impact these amendments would have on the forestry industry—and I do note that Senator Duniam is in the chamber—in particular in Tasmania?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I answered that question in my previous response.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the minister please elaborate on prohibited investments and how far reaching these would be down particular supply chains?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said previously, the fund won't fund extraction or logging.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, could I ask you to elaborate on what prohibited investments are? Perhaps we'll tackle that part of the question first. Take me through what prohibited investments are, and once we've established that we can then go on to the impact, potentially, on supply chains.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only repeat what I've said earlier, now on the third occasion. It won't fund extraction and it won't fund logging.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill doesn't include grants to individuals or companies as a means of financial accommodation. In terms of the policy rationale for this, on what basis was this ruled out?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Cash for her question. The corporation will be a commercial entity, generating a positive rate of return over time. Returns on investments will be available for future investment by the corporation, ensuring that the corporation can continue to provide targeted, transformative finance. Providing grants would erode the corporation's capital value over time and would undermine the corporation's ability to deliver returns.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What consideration has been given to the fact that the NRF will operate alongside the CEFC and the EFA?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry—I just got slightly distracted by my colleague. Would you mind repeating that question?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What consideration has been given to the fact that the National Reconstruction Fund will operate alongside the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Export Finance Association?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Cash. There are a number of existing investment vehicles across government, each with distinctive functions and powers tailored to the delivery of specific policy outcomes, and you've just mentioned a number of them. The corporation, guided by the investment mandate, will work closely with other investment bodies, including the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, to avoid unnecessary duplication.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the three NRF priority areas—renewable and low-emissions technologies, value add in resources, and defence capability—that will actually overlap with the existing CEFC or, for example, the EFA funds or facilities. How is that going to be addressed in practice?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a manufacturing fund. As I referred to in the previous answer I gave you, the aim is to avoid duplication. Those other funds that you were referring to won't operate in this space, and this fund won't operate in their space.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said that that is the aim, but I need to understand: how is it going to be addressed in practice when the fund is set up?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That will be part of the job of the board, I guess, to establish the guidelines to do that and for the people who are going to be working in this space to ensure that what I've just said, which is no unnecessary duplication, is in fact carried out. Again, I have great confidence that that will in fact be the case.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Now we've established it's going to be the job of the board, as you said, to establish the guidelines. When will the board commence establishing the guidelines?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When they're appointed.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just in terms of the fund itself, will it provide an investment brokering service for proponents and other investors to complement and leverage the NRF funding?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To answer that question I think we need a little bit more information, particularly about what you mean by investment brokerage.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How about we start at the other end, then. What is the process for withdrawing NRF funding from a proponent? In what circumstances can the NRF funding be withdrawn?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be a commercial transaction, and, obviously, being a commercial transaction, there would be terms in that agreement that would determine how that issue might be dealt with.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the proponents themselves, will the NRF assist proponents through other regulatory processes—for example, if they are in a medical or resources priority area such as the TGA approvals or EPA approvals?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the NRF and what it purports to support, we have transformation and diversification in Australian industry. When we talk about transformation and diversification, what range of metrics will be used when measuring transformation and diversification in terms of the achievements?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

RELL (—) (): These will all be matters for the board to determine upon its appointment.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to return to some questions on forestry, if I may. In relation to the general inclusion of forestry, what level of consultation occurred with the industry to include what has been included in this program?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister consulted very widely in the lead-up to this legislation coming forward, and he made sure that he consulted with all of the people that needed to be consulted with before the legislation was introduced.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Specifically, was the forestry industry consulted on the provisions that are being brought forward in this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister consulted broadly and widely to ensure that the bill reflected what industry wanted, and the bill that you have before you today does reflect all of those matters.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only infer from that that there wasn't a direct consultation. You're saying 'broadly', but it's not clear to me whether there was actually a conversation between, for example, AFPA, the VFPA or the TFPA and the government around what's in and what's out here. We've already had a bit of a discussion about the prohibited investments and the Australian Greens press release that I read into Hansard the other day. I know it was touched on before as this amazing level of cooperation that we're seeing between Labor and the Greens, which is alarming for industries like forestry and more generally, but—

An honourable senator: It's a power-sharing government.

It's a power-sharing government, yes, but I would be interested to explore these prohibited investments criteria. The three areas that have been outlined are the extraction of coal or natural gas, the construction of pipeline infrastructure and the logging of native forests—I think I heard you say earlier that that was never the intention of the government. Was it added in later as an internal amendment, after a consultation draft or something?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The NRF is first and foremost a manufacturing fund. It is designed to grow our capacity and our capability to ensure that Australia can once again be a country that makes things. It was never intended to fund the extraction of minerals or the logging of timber in any form, so, when the Greens asked us to confirm that by including it in the legislation, we were happy to put it in.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was never the intention—it's now in legislation. If I look at the legislation, in section 63—I've already listed those three areas there—in subsection 4 it says:

native forest does not include a plantation.

plantation means an intensively managed stand of trees that is created by the regular placement of seedlings or seed.

Subsection 3 expressly prohibits financing of native forest logging. Is plantation logging covered? Is that something you can seek funding for under this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The word I've used is 'logging', and I think it's fair to say that that includes the sorts of logging that you're precisely asking questions about. I don't think I can be any clearer that it's not the intention of the fund to fund logging.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd ask the minister why the bill only specifically references the logging of native forest and not plantations as well. If the government's intent is to—and you're being clear in your contributions here. Why the legislation, unless it was just something to appease certain people one government shares power with? I don't see why you'd exclude that if it is something for which financing can't be approved.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This was the amendment that the Greens asked for, but it was never intended that the legislation provide for logging in any form.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, despite the legislation prescribing only prohibited investment as financing of logging of native forests, the government is now indicating that it is also prohibiting investments in logging of plantation? If the minister can confirm that that is the case, when was industry consulted on that particular development?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This was all about value-adding manufacturing in this country—the sort of value adding that your government failed to do but that this government is intent on doing. We intend to proceed to rebuild manufacturing in this country, and we're going to be doing it by the use of this fund.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had a specific question. When was industry advised that logging of plantation forestry is also a prohibited investment, given that we are now being told that that is indeed the government's position?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have now indicated on numerous occasions that Minister Husic consulted widely before bringing this bill to the parliament. As I said, I don't think there's been a minister who has been so consultative with all the various groups that needed to be consulted about the legislation. I think what you see before you today is a reflection of a bill that matches the needs of this country to start manufacturing again, to start rebuilding the manufacturing sector that was so badly treated by the former government. I've mentioned what happened to Holden in South Australia and the disgraceful way in which the former government chased that company out of this country.

This is a bill designed to reverse the nine years of neglect. It's designed to rebuild manufacturing in this country, and it's been done in opposition but now more particularly in government as a result of extensive discussion with all the stakeholders who needed to be consulted before this legislation was presented to parliament.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the committee now report progress.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question before the chair is that progress be reported.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We currently have before the chair the motion moved by Senator David Pocock, which is an amendment to the government amendment originally moved on sheet UC140.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We've established the fact that there was no consultation with the industry because there was no confirmation that specifically occurred. I think we've also established the fact that there was no advice to industry that plantation logging was excluded, even though it's not expressly listed in the legislation, which is disturbing. I want to come to the line of questioning that Senator Cash was going down with regard to the supply chain. The logging of timber, native and plantation, is prohibited, according to the government. Can I ask about the value-add, and we'll start with native forestry? Could you please step me through what applications might be supported or funded under this program for value-add for native forest timber?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Duniam for his question. The priority areas declaration will be a disallowable legislative instrument made jointly by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Science. The government has previously announced the seven areas of the economy that will be the basis of the first declaration to be made soon after the bill receives Royal Assent. The details of each area are still being considered, taking into account the comprehensive consultation conducted by the government in late 2022 and early 2023. Given that the government has not yet made a final decision on the drafting of the declaration, it is not possible to rule in or out particular projects or technologies.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We don't know what will be supported, other than this general nebulous concept that there will be value-adding job-creating projects supported. Are there any other programs within government that would support the forestry industry in the same way that this program is envisaged to do?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Duniam for his question. The government is delivering a record $300 million in measures to the forestry sector that will support the expansion of the plantation estate, modernise our timber manufacturing and build forestry workforce skills. These measures include $112.9 million for the Accelerate Adoption of Wood Processing Innovation Program fund—that has had strong interest, I might add, with 84 applications received by the 28-February-2023 deadline; $86.2 million over five years from 2022-23 for the Support Plantation Establishment Program, which is fully subscribed and will support the establishment of at least 36,000 hectares of new plantations; $100 million for the Australia-wide National Institute for Forest Products Innovation; and $10 million for the Forestry Workforce Training Program. We're also taking steps to remove the water rule, which will provide further incentives for plantation and farm forestry participation in the Emissions Reduction Fund.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have two questions flowing on from that. Firstly, I presume that anything the forestry industry is eligible to apply for under the programs you've just mentioned, particularly the forest and wood innovation grant programs, would preclude them from applying under this program. Could I have confirmation of that? Additionally, Labor made a commitment prior to the election that it would reserve $500 million for agriculture, forestry and fisheries out of the National Reconstruction Fund. How was that figure arrived at?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It wouldn't necessarily prohibit an application under this fund. What was your second question there?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A commitment was made by the then opposition, now government, that $500 million out of the NRF would be reserved for agriculture, fishing forestry. I'm wondering how you arrived at that dollar figure, given the lack of clarity around consultation and the sorts of projects that would be eligible.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reject the suggestion that there was a lack of consultation. I think I've made it very clear that Minister Husic has been one of the great communicators of this country and this government, and he extensively consults and discusses with the manufacturing industry in this country. As to your specific question, that was a commitment that we made in the lead-up to the last election. We've honoured all of our election commitments. We are bringing them to the parliament. It's just a pity that the opposition has decided not to engage and progress what the Australian people voted for, namely an Albanese Labor government. It's a pity those opposite have decided not to try and progress what we took to the Australian people and not to have sensible input to improve the legislation where they think it is deficient, as the Greens have done. They've come forward and said, 'Look,' as Senator Pocock has done. He's looked at the legislation and said, 'Look.' Yes, he's giving me a big smile there—happy fellow!

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A little wave as well.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we'll give him a wave. There we go—a little wave. So the opportunity is still there, if you really seriously want to be a party of government ever again. I know Saturday's result—I was looking at you all today and yesterday, at the sad faces when you'd started to think about wall-to-wall Labor governments, state and federal, and no prospect of resurrection for the party. For the born-to-rule party to be in a situation like that—

But there's still a chance, Senator McKenzie. There's still a chance if there are some people on the other side who can push the issue of engaging with the government about our policies and if you have ideas that you think can improve this fund and do what we want to do, which is to revitalise manufacturing in this country. Recognise that the last nine years were wasted years in this respect. Recognise that you've now got an opportunity to make up for those nine wasted years. Make a contribution by supporting the proposition that we start building things in this country again. Do it constructively. Take the opportunity. If you're that interested in the forestry industry in Tasmania, come and discuss with us how you think any of our policies—and I've listed a whole host of them before, for very significant investment in the forestry industry—can be improved. Come and talk to us about it. Our door is always open. We like Tasmania. We love going down there. Talk about forestry products! I went to the Wooden Boat Festival a few weeks ago, and it was a terrific event. There were record numbers at that event. So come and talk to us. If you've got suggestions, start engaging. This negativity, this idea that you sit back there and say no to everything, is not going to endear you to the Australian people.

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

IAM (—) (): That was highly unusual, I have to say—quite the ramble around the backyard there on those issues. There are a couple of things. One is that you can't improve the unimprovable, this bill, which is why we have arrived at the position we've arrived at. The alarming pattern that seems to be emerging here is that the Australian Labor Party go to their natural bedfellows, the Australian Greens, and do deals, as they do.

One thing I want to point out, colleagues, as I ask a question shortly about the prohibited investment list, was something that struck me as passing strange. Here we are on one day dealing with two bits of legislation. One is the one before us now, about revitalising the economy and creating manufacturing jobs—well-paid ones that are highly skilled et cetera, to refer to the minister's comments. Then, on the other hand, we have a bill coming up which is going to tax the life out of manufacturing in this country. So the government says: 'Oh, we're going to help you get jobs. We're going to bring industry here. We're going to restart manufacturing, but we're going to tax the life out of it.' How does it work? What's going on with this inconsistent, incoherent government policy?

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

What could possibly go wrong?

Jonathon Duniam (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a great question, Senator Scarr, and I'm sure you'll be able to ask the minister in a moment what could possibly go wrong. But I want to ask my final question, because I know other colleagues have questions too. The final question I have is with regard to the prohibited investments list. We stumbled upon one thing which is also prohibited, and that is plantation logging. Are there any other sectors of the economy, any other minerals to be extracted or any other types of investments that are prohibited that are not expressly listed in the legislation? If so, I think it would be a great time to tell the Australian community what they are, because I don't want them finding out after applications open and suddenly they can't apply. I think you need to be upfront with Australia.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Duniam for his question. I've already answered that question. I think I've answered it two or three times. Please refer to my previous answers.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, with respect to the deal that Labor has done with the Greens this week, 84 per cent of the 215 facilities that will be penalised under this deal are located in rural and regional Australia. Can you outline for me how this fund will assist them to deal with the sustainability issues as a result of your deal with the Greens on the safeguard mechanism?

(Quorum formed)

Minister, given the deal that you've done with the Greens to severely impact 215 facilities across the nation, 84 per cent of which are located in rural and regional communities—not just providing national product and benefit but underpinning the social and economic wealth of these regions—I want to understand how this fund will now be used, and if it is envisaged to be used, to sustain those companies and facilities that are going to be severely impacted by the safeguard mechanism deal that you've done with the Greens, and how will that interact? Will there be specific weighting to those businesses that have been severely impacted?

How are you going to ensure the sustainability of the existing manufacturing facilities in rural and regional communities, given the deal you've done with the Greens will see higher energy and electricity prices in this country? You've said it all afternoon, but 'downward pressure' with a hand movement doesn't make it happen. The laws of physics still apply. The laws of economics still apply, and what all serious economic commentators are saying about the deal that you've done with the Greens is that it will see an increase in energy prices. Your own head of the AWU, the fantastic young Daniel, absolutely states it is critical to maintain employment in advanced manufacturing in this country whilst we move towards a more low-emissions environment.

I want to understand the interaction and how the NRF is envisaged to change as a result of the deal that you've done, and the consequential impact on rural and regional advanced manufacturers.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator McKenzie for her question. One thing we certainly do agree on tonight is what a terrific fellow Mr Daniel Walton is and what a very fine organisation the Australian Workers Union is.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They support nuclear too, Don!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, let's deal with one issue at a time. Mr Walton runs a fantastic union and is always focused on one thing in my experience, and that is creating good, well-paid jobs for his members. I'm sure that he will continue to do that as we rebuild manufacturing in this country.

Two things about your contribution, Senator McKenzie—you're conflating two things. We're dealing here with a piece of legislation that is going to see, for the first time in nine years, the rebuilding of manufacturing in this country. Perhaps I shouldn't repeat it again and again and again, but I will. I sat and watched in this parliament what you did to car manufacturing in South Australia at the Holden factory at Elizabeth. It was shameful. You hounded that company out of this country and you did the same in Victoria with Ford and Toyota. Let me tell you, there were plenty of workers who lived at Elizabeth—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Every country in the world subsidises their car industry, I might add. Every country in the world subsidises their car industry. You can't look at one industry.

What I was going to say to you, Senator McKenzie—and it will come as a shock—is that lots of those people who worked at Holden at Elizabeth actually lived in the country. They lived in the places like Kapunda, like Clare, like Freeling, like Balaklava. They might have been working in an outer Adelaide suburb, but they in fact were living in the country. They benefited from manufacturing. This fund will benefit people in regional Australia.

Can I say this: the corporation will strategically invest in higher value adding projects in priority areas. A number of these priorities have a strong regional presence, such as the value-add in resources, the value-add in agriculture, defence and renewables. It's anticipated that this will drive scale and growth, creating higher value jobs in regions. Investments, including the targeting of emerging opportunities, will help regional areas diversify their economies and workforce opportunities.

I saw over the period of the last two or three years what your government did to rural industries. Let's have a look at what you did to the barley industry, as a result of the bans by China. Let's have a look at what you did to the wine industry over that period of time. The Nationals claim—of course, the Nationals are not in government anywhere in the country, as far as can I tell. Is that right?

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not even in Tasmania.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not even in Tasmania! At least the Liberals are in government down there. But you're not in government anywhere. Can I put forward this proposition? One of the reasons you're not in government anywhere in the country is because you've abandoned the people that you claim to represent. I've seen you abandon the barley growers. I've seen—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brockman, a point of order.

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

With all due respect to the minister, and I accept these are wideranging debates, but the minister is showing contempt for the chamber by not answering the question and not talking about the bill. It cannot go on.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie's question was quite wideranging, but I would ask, Minister, that you come to the point.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This legislation does exactly the opposite of what you say it does. It does create those high-paying jobs. You're conflating the issue of the safeguards mechanism. Particularly, I reject your proposition that that's going to push energy prices higher. The idea that we move to a decarbonised economy was one which even the Nationals signed up to at the last election. Maybe you're crab walking away from that issue, but you signed up to net zero by 2050. What the safeguards legislation—and we're going to get to that later in the night—does is start moving us to a renewable superpower. We're going to create hydrogen. We're going to—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Point of order. As much as I appreciate the minister's capacity to waffle on and remind me of Uncle Arthur, who I used to view in my youth, this is a serious issue. Minister, you might think that—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it a point of order on relevance?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're right. Can he get to the point?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is in committee. You can take the call in about three minutes, so you can make your statement then.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If he doesn't know the answer, can he just sit down and let me ask my next question?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's not a point of order either. Senator Ciccone.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just on the point of order. Under the Senate rules, personal reflections are very disorderly. Regarding the remarks that she made about Senator Farrell, I would ask Senator McKenzie to withdraw those remarks about Uncle Arthur.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I unequivocally withdraw if I caused any harm to the minister.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for taking up the invitation. Minister, do you have anything to add, or shall I give the call to Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your assistance, Chair. Minister, you say that we're seeking to conflate two issues but there is no way—you are seeking to bring before the Senate a $15 billion loan facility for advanced manufacturing and consequentially don't want to talk about the sustainability of advanced manufacturing, which relies on affordable energy. All sides of parliament have agreed on a net zero position. It's about making sure that you don't destroy whole communities, industries and regions on your way through. That's all. The deal with the Greens has shown certain communities and certain industries will be significantly impacted. You can't crab walk away from that. You can't pretend that what one ministry does in government won't impact on another piece of legislation. My question remains—

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Preamble.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got 15 minutes, 'Senator Preamble'.

Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You can waste your time.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is called the committee stage, in case you didn't remember. This is where the opposition and crossbench senators get to have a say and get to ask the government questions about the impact of the legislation they're bringing before the chamber. They don't get to do it in the other place; they get to do it here. It's called democracy. My own Premier, Daniel Andrews, is not a fan of democracy—Senator Ciccone, you would have to agree with me on that.

The government have shown their complete disregard for the democratic principles of our system in the way their ministers treat OPDs, the way their front bench disregards genuine questions from the opposition and the crossbench and the way you're treating the committee stage for this particular bill. There have been genuine questions that community, industry, regions and the opposition itself want answered, and you've just made a mockery. There was a wonderful window of about maybe seven minutes, Senator Cash, where the minister was relevant to the question and giving detailed answers according to the Public Service ripping out their bits of paper and making sure he had his talking points in front of him.

I am very happy to put on the record the opposition's absolute offence at the way this minister and this government have treated the Senate. It is indicative of what we've seen in the last 10 months. My question remains: how many regional communities will benefit? Is there a weighting in the assessment for this money that will be provided to rural and regional communities or regional capitals? How will they be identified? How will that be weighted in the assessment of projects that this fund will seek to deliver on?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only repeat what I've already said. The corporation will strategically invest in high value adding projects in priority areas. A number of these priorities have a strong regional presence, such as value-add in resources and value-add in agriculture, defence and renewables, many of which are in country Australia. It's anticipated this will drive scale and growth, creating higher-value jobs in the regions.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Targeted to which regions, Minister?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

FARRELL (—) (): Australian regions.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Honestly—Australian regions! Well I would hope you wouldn't be investing in overseas regions with these dollars. Can we narrow it down, Minister, because the last time the Labor Party was in government your own Regional Growth Fund funded major projects in capital cities. When the Labor Party says 'regions' I would like to have some confidence that it means that the third of Australians that actually don't live in capital cities in this country will benefit from the Labor Party's bill.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm one of those people who lives in regional Australia.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm fighting for you, Don.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Good on you. With friends like you I don't need enemies, with due respect, Senator. The corporation will make investments across all Australian states and territories. We expect that the corporation's investments in priority areas such as the value-add in resources and value-add in agriculture, defence and renewables will have a strong regional impact. Growth in the sectors will help regional areas diversify their economies and workforce opportunities.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sounds like the preamble to the Regional Accelerator Fund, the $2 billion that was in the March budget that you axed. With respect to a question you answered from Senator Duniam on the water rule around forestry, what research has been done by the department on the impact of removing that rule in the Murray-Darling Basin?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I struggle to see the relevance of the question to this particular bill. If you could explain to me how your question relates to this bill, I'll attempt to answer it.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was referring to a response that you gave Senator Duniam about the forestry industry. You spoke about removing the water rule under the EPBC Act regarding farmland under plantation. My question is: has there been any research? You made a statement here that you're going to do that and this is a fund that's going to be investing in forestry processing, I'm assuming. I want to understand the impact of the removal of the water rule on the Murray-Darling Basin. Over two million people live in the basin, and they are very, very concerned about the Labor Party's water policy thus far. I think it is beholden on the minister to tell the chamber what research has been done about the impact of this decision.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I still fail to see the relevance to this particular bill of that question. However, since you have raised the issue, we have a fine Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and I'm happy to arrange a briefing for you in respect of these issues as they relate to the Murray-Darling.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following on from the questions earlier about the level of consultation with stakeholders and industry, has Dan Walton or the AWU specifically been consulted on the impact of the deal with the Greens for the safeguard mechanism and its impact on advanced manufacturing and electricity prices?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, you are conflating a bill that we are dealing with—

You ask me the questions and then you constantly interject to stop me answering the question. What's the point of asking me the questions if you want to give the answer yourselves? You're conflating two issues. Later on tonight you'll have all night, Senator McKenzie, to ask questions about the other piece of legislation. We are dealing with the National Reconstruction Fund bill at the moment. As I said earlier today, Minister Husic is a wonderful communicator and a wonderful consulter. I'd be amazed if he didn't consult with industry, all stakeholders and unions who might have an interest in this area, and business organisations. Earlier today I was reading out statements of support for our changes by the Business Council, AIG, ACCI. They're all on board. As I said earlier, it's a bit of a pity that the coalition can't get on board and start productively engaging with the government about the important revitalisation of the production industry. If I know Minister Husic, he will have widely consulted with all of the relevant stakeholders who would have an interest in this issue, and, unlike you, the opposition, all those organisations would have engaged, I'm sure, and given advice, offered suggestions—positive suggestions—that would have made this bill in its construction even better than it was when we produced it as a policy in the lead-up to the last election.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's understood that you've said the fund will support developing the capabilities in train- and shipbuilding supply chains. Can the minister provide a guarantee to the Senate that the government's deal with the Greens will not place restrictions on investments in relation to the manufacture of trains, carriages, train parts and associated manufacturing supporting the rail supply chain where those investments may also end up supporting gas, coal and resource industries?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've put a whole lot of—

Yes. You step it out. I think that would be easier, rather than me giving you the wrong answer in respect of one particular product.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, so we have trains, carriages and shipbuilding. It is my understanding that this fund will be assisting in supporting those types of industries. Is that correct?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If any of those areas you've just mentioned meet the priority area of the fund then there's an opportunity to fund those areas.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If any of those products, then, are used in the production—the supply chain—for the coal, gas or resource industry, will that lead to them not being able to be supported by this fund?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's all about the manufacturing of those products, not where those products might ultimately end up. So, as I said before, if they meet the priorities of the fund and seek funding and receive it, it'll be on the basis that they meet the criteria set out in the legislation.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to be clear, the NRF will support the manufacture of goods that will end up supporting and underpinning our gas, coal and resource industries. Were the Greens aware of this when they signed the deal on the safeguard mechanism?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

enator FARRELL (—) (): That wasn't a question to me. That was a question to the Greens, as I understood it.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

McKENZIE (—) (): It's actually a question to you, Minister, because the Greens have signed up to the safeguard mechanism on the understanding that this fund will not back the coal, gas or resource industry when in fact, if it's building the trains, if it's building the railway lines and if it's building the ships that are carrying our gas, that are carrying our coal and that are carrying our resources, it is absolutely underpinning and supporting our fabulous resource industries. Is this a case of the Labor Party absolutely duping Adam Bandt? Has Albo actually got it over Adam—pulled a swifty? Minister, has the Prime Minister successfully pulled a swifty against the Greens on this measure?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

L (—) (): What you see is what you get with Prime Minister Albanese, in my experience. You can have great faith, Senator McKenzie, that the Prime Minister is a straight dealer in respect of all his dealings, whether with the Greens, with Senator David Pocock, with Senator Hanson or with any of the crossbenchers, or even you. I can give you a good example of that—last week, when the opportunity arose to deal with the Voice referendum machinery legislation.

(Quorum formed)

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you just made a reference that it's a pity the Liberal Party aren't on board with this fund to get industry and manufacturing going in Australia. I have been speaking about this since 1996, since my first main speech in parliament. I am not associated with the coalition, but I have doubts about this legislation. Are you really upfront with the Australian people? Are you being truthful about where the funds will go?

I didn't like your answer earlier about who's going to be appointed to the board, whether it's going to be union representatives. Will the union reps then appoint only moneys going to organisations that are unionised? I have a big problem with that. I also have a big problem with the fact that under part 6 section 75(1) it states:

The Board must formulate written policies to be complied with by 16 Corporation bodies in relation to the following matters.

The government amendment then states it must be added, in the case of the corporation, 'the impact of investments of the corporation on First Nations Australians'. Please explain that one to me.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Hanson for her question. The Albanese government recognises the importance of putting First Nations people at the heart of decision-making on issues that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. I think that has been clear from everyone on this side, including the Prime Minister.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it absolutely disgraceful that you have advocated for a referendum, for the people of Australia, to decide whether this will happen. You are putting the cart before the horse. You are putting this in legislation: that people must be consulted, if they're First Nations people, on legislation that the people of Australia have not approved. That is exactly what you have done. This is only the start of it. You are holding the people of Australia in contempt by what you've put in this legislation. Is that the case? Please answer this. By putting this in the legislation, do you hold the people in contempt? Because you are not prepared to wait till what they say in a referendum that you've already overridden the people of Australia by putting this in legislation that you will consult with them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Pratt, we're getting along so nicely.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

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

Minister, I first want to clarify your answer to Senator McKenzie's question. If I understand you correctly, this fund can give a grant or an equity share investment or a loan to an Australian manufacturer that's making every component in an LNG train.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the project meets the priority areas of the funding and the organisation ultimately make the decision to fund, then they can fund whatever they like, so long as it meets the criteria of the legislation.

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

What about in the other direction? What if the entity involved in the manufacturing is, for example, a shipbuilder that is building a ship fuelled by LNG?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to my previous answer. The answer is the same.

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

OCKMAN () (): Minister, we've only got about 40 minutes till the Greens-Labor guillotine falls on this bill, which is a disgrace—left-lubber guillotine. What heads of power under the Constitution is this bill invoking?

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

Section 51 somewhere, hopefully.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will be one of the numbers under section 51, but we're absolutely satisfied that this legislation is constitutional, unlike some of the legislation that the coalition have been bringing to the parliament in the last few days. We believe this is completely compliant with the Australian Constitution.

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

or BROCKMAN () (): I think I would like a more specific answer than that, Minister. While your advisers are getting that information—and I would like precise details please—what advice did you receive on the constitutionality of this bill?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That the legislation is constitutional.

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

You can't name the head of power. Who did you receive the advice from and when?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The legislation is constitutional.

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

Under what head of power?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The legislation is constitutional, and we don't provide legal advice, as is well known to the opposition.

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

Firstly, the government provides legal advice when it wants to, as you well know, and we can show you examples of that. You've finally got your piece of paper, Minister. Can you now answer the question—under what head of power?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The legislation is constitutional.

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

What advice did you seek to allow you to state that claim? It is simply not good enough to say that a piece of legislation is constitutional because you drafted it. Under what power are you making this legislation, and what advice did you receive that it was constitutional?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We would not bring a piece of legislation to this place if it was not constitutional.

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

Did you seek any advice, apart from having this drafted by your department?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ator FARRELL (—) (): This legislation is constitutional, and we wouldn't have brought this legislation to the parliament unless it was constitutional.

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

Minister, did you seek advice as to whether the Williams case has any implications for the legislation?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not familiar with the Williams case.

This is going to surprise you, Senator Scarr, but I in fact did a pass Constitutional Law 1 and Constitutional Law 2.

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

Who gave you their lecture notes?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I had the good fortune of being lectured by a fellow called John Bradman, whose father was Don Bradman, and he was a very smart guy. I'm satisfied that my tutelage under him was good tutelage, and I'm very satisfied to say that this legislation is constitutional. We wouldn't be bringing this to the parliament unless it was constitutional.

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

I think it's fair to say that you haven't filled this chamber with confidence in your statement of the constitutionality of this bill. It is such a broad spending power that you are giving to an instrumentality of the Commonwealth government, under legislation that can spend money. It can invest in equity shares, make loans and give out grants, and it can do so across a broad sector of the economy. Minister, what controls are in place to ensure that this entity does not, for example, make all of its investment in one state or territory?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think you have misrepresented the legislation. It can't provide grants. In that respect, I think you have incorrectly interpreted the legislation.

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

Then I'll reframe it to say just equity and loans. What would stop this organisation from spending all of its funds in one Commonwealth jurisdiction—in one state or territory?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rest assured that the people that we're going to put in charge of the board and the people who will be working in this fund will have all of the skills to ensure that the money is properly spent. This won't be like a sports rorts exercise, where you simply handed out to your mates in order to try and win elections. This is about rebuilding manufacturing in this country, manufacturing that was devastated by the previous government's lack of interest in building things in Australia. We want to start building things in this country again. We don't want to see the sorts of events in Elizabeth and South Australia where you wiped out overnight one of the great companies of Australia, Holden, and lost all those jobs and all of the add-on jobs that were benefited by Holden. We don't want to see that again. The whole purpose of this legislation is to ensure that we fairly distribute funds right across Australia, including regional Australia, including Western Australia, so that we can start making things again in this country, start rebuilding the manufacturing industry, which has been so badly affected by the neglect of your government.

This is a big project. This is all about starting to build things in Australia, which we haven't been doing over the previous nine years of neglect from your government. We are serious about creating good, well-paying jobs in the regions in each of the states and territories, and I've got the greatest confidence that, under Minister Husic, that's exactly what we're going to do.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Brockman, I think there's one question, and then I'm going to Senator Allman-Payne.

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

I'm almost finished, Chair. Minister, will this organisation be covered by the Commonwealth Investment Framework?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Brockman. It's a corporate Commonwealth entity.

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

That wasn't my question. Will equity investments made by this organisation be covered by the Commonwealth Investment Framework?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've answered your question.

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

That's a very straightforward question I asked the chamber again. I ask the minister again through the chamber, and I ask the minister to be respectful of the chamber. That is a straightforward question which deserves an answer, and it was not answered in your first response.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've answered the question.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Noting the significant number of questions to the minister around prohibited investments, I would like to put on the record that, given we are currently in a climate and biodiversity crisis where we absolutely must do everything we can to stay within 1.5 degrees of warming and stop the massive biodiversity loss that we are currently experiencing, the Greens are very pleased that we've secured amendments to ensure that the fund cannot fund coal and gas and native forest logging.

In that vein, I would like to add that the Greens also think that nuclear technology is a dead end. We've gutted our industry and manufacturing base. It's been hollowed out. And, without direction, the coalition have been reduced to cynical attempts—

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you going to watch Oliver Stone's documentary?

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Temporary Chair. The coalition have been reduced to cynical attempts at grabbing a headline rather than actually engaging with workers and the future of industry in this country. Just the other day, Senator Canavan and the members for Capricornia and Flynn got together and declared that Gladstone should be home to the $368 billion nuclear submarines. It is breathtakingly out of touch to think that the future of Gladstone is in a hypothetical nuclear submarine in the distant future rather than the very real opportunity we have right now to transition and build a strong manufacturing base. The Greens will be supporting the amendment that makes nuclear technology a prohibited investment.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I find appalling about the minister's answer is that this is about having industries and manufacturing go ahead, yet we put stipulations on: no coal, no gas, no forestry and no nuclear. Well, what the hell are we doing, then, in our country to create industries in manufacturing? What are we going to do about our nuclear medicine? We have medicines in Australia that are connected with nuclear, so what are you going to do about that? That's been going for a long time in Lucas Heights. You are signing up to the Greens. You really need to answer these questions about where you are headed with nuclear in this country. Are they the tail wagging the dog?

There is a question I'd like to ask. Before, Minister, I asked you about the people on this list. Who will be on this list? You said the department has a list. Well, I'm asking you: if I got former senator Patrick to get me the list from the department under FOI, would he be given the list? Are you going to present the list? If I make an FOI request on it, will you give me the list that the department or the minister has of the people on the list?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, former senator Patrick is no longer here. But, if he wants to prepare an FOI request for Treasury, we will comply with all of the legal obligations that are relevant to freedom of information documentation. I notice that Senator Pocock has been trying to get the call for a number of occasions.

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

Senator Scarr's been trying to get the call too. I want to ask some questions, firstly, in relation to the very important points which Senator Hanson has been raising about who is going to be appointed to the board, or who can be appointed to the board, of this fund, which is going to be responsible for managing investments of up to—

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And for five years.

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

Correct—for five years. And it will be managing investments of up to A$15 billion. Minister, you keep referring to what you call a skills matrix for the board, which is contained in proposed section 19(2) of the bill. Can you tell me: given all the matters that are covered in proposed subsubsections (a) to (k), why is it necessary to have proposed subsubsection (l), which says 'any other field that the ministers consider appropriate', which, as I read it, really gives the ministers a right to appoint anyone they want to the board, regardless of what their experience is, as long as they subjectively consider it to be relevant?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Scarr for his question. The structure is there. The structure speaks for itself. There is a skills matrix. We originally started with the proposition of six board members. Following consultation with those people who have been prepared to negotiate about this, we're going to increase that number to eight. So you've got eight people that you need to match with that skills matrix, as I explained earlier. The department will look at the requirements under that skills matrix. They'll come forward with a set of names of people who they believe meet those criteria. I have the greatest confidence that in that process we're going to get some of the best people in this country, who will be able to establish this board and give advice about how the fund should be best spent in the spirit of the legislation. Having prepared those names, the department is going to then forward those names to the minister. There are no surprises about this. This is how boards—

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I explained my skills in respect of constitutional law.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pretty poor skills!

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Fair crack of the whip, Senator McGrath! I did pass. I did get a degree. Give me a little bit of credit here, Senator McGrath. There is a process. There are no real surprises about this process. I am surprised that you're so focused on how the board is selected when there are so many other things that you could've asked questions about.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We could go all night.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we're not going to go all night—at least not on this particular bill. On the other bill we'll go all night. There's a stock-standard process here about how you might find the best people who are going to start the job of rebuilding manufacturing in this country—the manufacturing that you let slide over the previous nine years of your government—and we're going to start building things in this country again. When that list of people is submitted to the minister, he will, I imagine, very carefully and very calmly make the selection of the best people to represent all of the skills that are going to be required to get the best value out of this fund. As I say, there's nothing complicated about this. There's nothing unusual about this. This is how boards get selected all the time, whether they're boards that your government established or boards that we've established.

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

Minister, you talk about all fields of expertise required under the skills matrix being represented, but isn't it the case that, under your proposed clause 19(2), the government could, for example, choose to appoint, say, three of the six board members who have industrial relations experience and are union members? There's no need, in fact, to make sure each of the skills is represented on the board—isn't that correct?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm sure that when the board is ultimately appointed it will reflect all of the skills that are necessary to make this fund a great success.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of questions. First, about the priority areas: can the minister advise how the NRF will build domestic manufacturing capability in disaster resilience? How does it fit in with the proposed priority areas, and is there scope to include anything more explicitly on disaster resilience in priority areas? Then, on the supply chain: what capacity does the NRF have to address blockages and shortfalls in the supply chains, especially in building and construction, with regard to things like plantation timber trusses and triple-glazed glass?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for his question and the constructive way in which he's engaged with this very important project. It's a lesson for the coalition as to how one advances an interest in these matters.

The NRF may be able to build domestic manufacturing capability in disaster resilience where the project falls within a priority area of the economy, as defined by the priority areas declaration, and aligns with other criteria as set out in the bill and investment mandate. The government previously announced the seven areas of the economy that will be the basis of the first declaration to be made soon after the bill receives royal assent. The detail of each area is still being considered, taking into account the comprehensive consultation conducted by the government in late 2022 and early 2023. Given the government has not yet made a final decision on the drafting of the declaration, it is not possible for me to rule particular projects or technologies in or out.

As to the second question that you asked, it's expected that, through investments in priority areas, the corporation will build strategic industry capability and help to address supply chain vulnerabilities. Reflecting how critical this issue is, the government will move an amendment to clause 17 of the bill, which will require the board to have regard to the desirability of enhancing Australia's resilience against supply chain vulnerabilities, along with other important outcomes.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, stakeholders from industry in one of Australia's largest trade unions, the AWU, have called on the government to allow the NRF to invest in gas projects—namely, carbon capture utilisation and storage, or CCUS. The union submission to the National Reconstruction Fund consultation—which I'll quote, as it has come from your union mates—further commits:

These technology needs should be directly reflected in funding decisions under the NRF.

As one example, the effective funding available for carbon capture and storage was cut by the 2022-23 Federal Budget update in October 2022. While the AWU recognises the need to target CCS funding to industries that are in most need, it is important to acknowledge that some industries do not have the option of electrification. For example, some industries use fossil fuel energy for process heat, or their emissions are a direct result of their process, such as in the case of cement production.

Minister, does the Albanese government believe that there should be investment of CCUS technologies in Australia? Yes or no?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hughes, you referred rather extensively to submissions that the Australian Workers Union made to the inquiry into this proposed piece of legislation. I'm not sure if you were in the Senate earlier when Senator McKenzie was singing the praises of Mr Walton, but I can only reiterate what a fine individual he is, leading that organisation, and what a terrific organisation they are.

Unlike the opposition, they've engaged in this whole process of working out how the fund will best work and the sorts of priority areas. The bill that you've got before you today reflects those wide-ranging consultation processes that took place. I answered a question from Senator David Pocock a moment ago in which I talked about the broad, wide-ranging consultation process that went on to create this bill. Please rest assured that all of the issues that people have raised have gone into consideration. What we now reflect on here is the totality of all of that discussion with the stakeholders.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, we'll try again. Can you confirm, Minister, if CCUS investment is expressly prohibited from the NRF?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've answered the question.

Hollie Hughes (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was not an answer to the question. We'll keep trying. Can you confirm—we will assume it, since you are not answering the question directly—that prohibition on CCUS investments is a direct result of the deal that Minister Husic has undertaken with the Australian Greens. Working on from that, confirming that that prohibition is because of the deal with the Greens. As you just commended Mr Walton, he has been particularly vocal about Green activists blacklisting CCUS and blue hydrogen and risking Australian jobs and significant investments. Do you accept this assessment? Why is it a prohibited investment in the NRF? If you don't accept the investment—I'm giving you two options here; you either accept it or you don't—has the Albanese government caved in to the Greens at the expense of potentially thousands of blue-collar jobs in the oil and gas industry?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only reiterate your favourable comments about Mr Walton and his very fine organisation, the Australian Workers Union—one of the great trade unions in this country, dedicated to lifting the wages and conditions of its members in often very difficult industries.

We have taken into account all of the submissions from all of the relevant stakeholders and interested parties in the design of this legislation, and this legislation reflects the totality of all of those discussions. Hopefully, sometime tonight this bill will pass the Senate and, in the next day or two, will become law when it goes back to the House of Representatives. This bill reflects the totality of all of those discussions and negotiations, and when it goes through it will present the Australian people with a great opportunity to start rebuilding in this country.

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

Minister, I've served on the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation during the course of the previous parliament and during the course of this parliament. As you should be aware, the scrutiny committee has concerns with respect to any instruments which are not subject to disallowance. I note the crucial role that the so-called investment mandate plays under proposed section 71 of this bill, dealing with matters such as matters of risk and return, the allocation of investments of the corporation between various priority areas et cetera. I also note, with a great deal of concern, that in giving a direction the minister may have regard not only to the object of the act but also to any other matters the minister considers relevant. I'm not sure what that could, in fact, cover outside of the object of the act. Given that the scrutiny of delegated legislation committee has made clear, and this chamber has made clear, that there must be exceptional circumstances which apply to a statutory instrument, such as the investment mandate, not being subject to a disallowance process, could you, firstly, please advise us what those exceptional circumstances are?

Secondly, I have read the explanatory memorandum, which purports to give reasons for the investment mandate not being subject to disallowance processes, which it should be, no matter which government it is. From reading that explanatory memorandum, it's clear to me that there is nothing that would prevent on any ground, including the ground of commercial certainty, that investment mandate having been prepared, or promptly being prepared, and a period of disallowance being allowed prior to the National Reconstruction Fund actually making investment decisions, so that this chamber would have an opportunity to apply its disallowance processes to that statutory instrument prior to any investments being made. In that way, there is absolutely no rational reason I can think of that commercial certainty or operational certainty would be compromised. If I'm wrong in my analysis, could the minister please explain to me why it is that there are exceptional circumstances which apply in this case that would make it commercially impossible for the investment mandate to be considered by this chamber, especially considering that we're at the start of this fund—assuming the legislation goes through—and that investment mandate could be considered prior to the National Reconstruction Fund actually making an investment?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Scarr. You've obviously thought deeply about the legislation, and I give you credit for doing that. Had the coalition decided that it was going to engage constructively in discussions about the legislation, I'm sure we would have happily engaged—as I did last week on the referendum machinery legislation, where I engaged constructively with the sensible members of your coalition—to try and get an outcome. You had the option, Senator Scarr, of doing that this time. I think if you'd been in control of these negotiations then we might have found that we had a positive contribution to this debate from the other side, but you've chosen not to do that. You've chosen to be an obstructionist, and, of course, that's meant that in order to get our legislation through we've had to go to discussions with the Greens, Senator David Pocock and other groups. Of course, the legislative scheme set up by the NRF bill provides that the investment mandate will be issued by the government, taking into account the views of the corporation board. The investment mandate—

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

But not with the disallowance—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You asked me a question. I sat quietly.

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

With respect, Senator Scarr, I sat quietly and listened to the totality of your question. You've asked me a question. I'm trying to answer it as directly as I can. You might recall I complimented you for the interest that you've taken in this matter. I think that if your other colleagues start doing the work that you've done then we might get some better outcomes in terms of discussion about important changes to legislation in this country.

The investment mandate in any submissions made by the board of the corporation to the government will be tabled in parliament. It's important to note that the investment mandate does not create any powers for the NRF; rather, it's a direction from the government about how the NRF performs its investment functions and exercises its investment powers. This model is an established operational model that is consistent with and, in our view, has worked well for similar Commonwealth specialist investment vehicles such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation, all of which are guided by non-disallowable investment mandates.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, can you please confirm that the board of the NRF will be required to give regard to climate related risks and nature related risks when making investment decisions and, as TCFD and TNFD progress, and if that becomes implemented in Australia, that the board may give regard to climate related financial disclosure and nature related financial disclosure frameworks when assessing those risks?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pocock for his question and his desire to support the government in starting to build things in Australia again. Clause 75 of the NRF bill requires the corporation to develop a suite of investment policies, including in relation to risk management. Consideration of climate risk represents best investment and governance practice, and the government expects the NRF will consider these issues as part of developing its risk-management policy.

In respect to your second question: protecting the environment is a priority for this government. We will be moving an amendment to clause 17, requiring the board to have regard to Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and supporting decarbonisation when performing their functions. We are also moving a further amendment to clause 75 requiring the corporation to consider labour, environmental, social and governance matters in performance of its investment functions. We expect issues like this will be considered by the board.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a topic I raised in my speech on the second reading. I raised the dire situation of the last urea fertiliser plant closing in Australia this year. I note that, in reference to this bill, the minister for agriculture has mentioned a couple of times that somehow this could be a solution for this issue. The minister might be aware that the Senex Atlas project includes a proposal to build a urea plant at Dalby, in western Queensland, giving us access to that incredibly strategic sovereign capability. However, that project also involves the development of gas fields in western Queensland, because to make urea you need to have a feedstock of gas. They plan to extract 48 terajoules of gas a day. Minister, given the government's support for a Greens amendment that would prohibit investments that 'directly finance the extraction of coal or natural gas', would a urea fertiliser plant proposal that is combined with the development of gasfields associated with it qualify for funding under the National Reconstruction Fund following the government's agreement to these Greens amendments?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Canavan for his question. The areas of the economy that the NRF can invest in will be set out in the priority areas declaration.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, as I mentioned, the minister for agriculture has been saying that the fund could invest in a urea fertiliser plant. He said that very thing at Senate estimates back in February. Is the minister for agriculture misleading the Senate, then? Or do you have some further information to add here? The contribution from the minister for agriculture was very political in nature, pressuring members of parliament in Queensland, saying, 'Hey, you should support this, because we could get a fertiliser plant out of the National Reconstruction Fund.' Are you saying here that that's not the case? In particular, I draw your attention back to the Greens amendment. What is the effect of the Greens amendment that you have supported? Will that knock out a proposal to build a fertiliser plant that involves the development of gas resources?

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might start my contribution by saying what a terrific agriculture minister Minister Watt is, and of course he's absolutely full bottle on all the things that relate to agriculture that flow from this new fund. But I can only repeat, in the answer to your specific questions, that the areas of the economy that the NRF can invest in will be set out in the priority areas declaration.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all respect to the minister, my question didn't go to the priority areas. My question went to an amendment that's in the legislation. So, obviously these priority areas post any bill can't use the funds from this bill in a way that would be inconsistent with the legislation. The legislation as amended through the agreement between the Labor Party and the Greens prohibits, as I mentioned, the financing of something that directly involves the extraction of coal or gas. I'll just repeat again, and maybe this is a good education for the minister—I'm not sure how much he's aware of this—that about half of our nation's agriculture comes from the use of urea. Urea is effectively a developed process from natural gas, through the Haber-Bosch process. You need natural gas to create urea. If we're going to have a sovereign capability to produce urea in the future, there'll need to be the associated production of gas. Will this fund help us solve this major issue which we'll be confronting, in just a matter of months, where we rely almost exclusively, and for half of our agriculture we'll be reliant, on the importation of a fertiliser from overseas? It's a shocking development in a nation that's prided itself for its history, at least since the days of the early settlers, on being able to feed itself. Well, in a few months time we won't be able to do that. Your own minister for agriculture has been holding out that this somehow is a solution to this. Can you please address this issue before we vote on it? Will the Greens amendment knock out the development of a urea fertiliser plant being funded by this fund?

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you have 30 seconds.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

enator FARRELL (—) (): Thank you, Chair. Well, Senator Canavan, I know a damn sight more about the agricultural industry than you will ever know, and I find your comments completely patronising and, to be honest with you, quite insulting.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, just answer the question.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Trade and Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I have answered the question. You don't like my answer. You never do like my answers, but I know a damn sight more about agriculture in—

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. Please take your seat. It being 8 pm, according to the resolution that was agreed earlier, I will now put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. The question before the chair is that the amendments to government amendment (2) on sheet UC140, moved by Senator David Pocock on sheet 1895, be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that government amendments on sheet UC140 be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendments—

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:

(a) notes that:

(i) the success of the National Reconstruction Fund Corporation's work will depend in large part on the existence of a sustainable pipeline of eligible projects at a stage suitable for funding through the Corporation, and

(ii) the work of the Corporation will reach across multiple portfolio areas and have a long-term, transformative impact on Australia's economy and industrial base; and

(b) calls on the Government to:

(i) commit to exploring additional policy mechanisms to provide Australian startups access to finance as they navigate the path to commercialisation, and

(ii) establish an office for the Corporation in the Australian Capital Territory to foster collaborative engagement with other key government bodies and private corporations and access to a skilled local workforce".

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with the remaining sheet of government amendments. The question is that the government amendments on sheet SK150 be agreed to.

Government's circulated amendments—

(1) Clause 75, page 46 (after line 20), after paragraph (1)(a), insert:

(aa) in the case of the Corporation—the impact of investments of the Corporation on First Nations Australians;

(2) Clause 75, page 46 (after line 30), after paragraph (1)(d), insert:

(da) in the case of a designated subsidiary of the Corporation—the impact of investments of the designated subsidiary on First Nations Australians;

Question agreed to.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The question is that the amendments on sheet—Senator Cash?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the amendments, I would ask the amendments on sheet 1866 be put separately to the amendments on sheet 1897 revised 2 and sheet 1919.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For clarity, you want sheet 1866 separated from the other two.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct, yes.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that One Nation amendments on sheet 1866 be agreed to.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendment s

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (line 9), at the end of subclause (3), add:

; or (d) directly finance any activities for which a complying investment under the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Act 2012 could be made.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I now intend to put the question for the remaining amendments circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation.

Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1987 REVISED 2

(1) Subclause 63(3), page 39 (line 5), omit "An investment", substitute "Subject to subsection (3A), an investment".

(2) Clause 63, page 39 (after line 9), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) However, paragraph (3)(a) and (b) do not prohibit an investment of a Corporation body which directly finances:

(a) the construction of pipeline infrastructure for the transportation of natural gas from the point of extraction to storage facilities in Australia; and

(b) the extraction of natural gas that supports Australian industry and the Australian domestic gas market.

SHEET 1919

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (after line 29), after paragraph (l) of the definition of constitutionally-supported activities, insert:

; (m) activities with respect to copyrights, patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks (within the meaning of paragraph 51(xviii) of the Constitution).

(2) Clause 6, page 10 (lines 26 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:

6 Priority areas of the Australian economy

(1) The commercialisation, lawful propriety protection and development of Australian developed intellectual property by an Australian individual or entity is a priority area of the Australian economy for the purposes of this Act.

(2) In addition, the Ministers may, by legislative instrument, declare that each area of the Australian economy specified in the declaration is a priority area of the Australian economy for the purposes of this Act.

(3) Clause 71, page 44 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) The Ministers must give the Board a direction requiring that a low-risk investment policy is to be applied to an investment of a Corporation body for purposes relating to, or activities supporting, the priority area of the Australian economy mentioned in subsection 6(1).

The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 1897 revised 2 and sheet 1919 be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the opposition.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1872

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (lines 4 to 13), subclauses (3) and (4) to be opposed.

The question before the chair is that subclauses 63(3) and (4) stand as printed.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the opposition's amendments on sheets 1821, 1824, 1825, 1829 and 1841 be agreed to.

Opposition's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1821

(1) Clause 6, page 10 (lines 26 to 30), omit the clause, substitute:

6 Priority areas of the Australian economy

(1) Each of the following areas of the Australian economy is a priority area of the Australian economy to enhance sovereign manufacturing capability for the purposes of this Act:

(a) resources technology and critical minerals processing;

(b) food, fibre and beverage;

(c) medical products;

(d) recycling and clean energy;

(e) defence;

(f) space.

(2) In addition, the Ministers may, by legislative instrument, declare that each area of the Australian economy specified in the declaration is a priority area of the Australian economy for the purposes of this Act.

SHEET 1824

(1) Clause 71, page 44 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:

(4) A direction under subsection (1) does not come into effect until it has been approved by resolution of each House of the Parliament.

SHEET 1825

(1) Heading to clause 82, page 50 (line 10), omit the heading, substitute:

82 Publicati on and tabling of investment reports

(2) Clause 82, page 50 (before line 11), before subclause (1), insert:

Publication of investment reports by the Corporation

(3) Clause 82, page 51 (after line 9), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) The Corporation must, within one month after the end of each quarter, give a copy of the report for that quarter to the Minister.

(4) Clause 82, page 51 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add:

Tabling of investment reports by the Minister

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of each report given to the Minister under subsection (1A) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament no later than the 3 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister.

SHEET 1829

(1) Clause 91, page 56 (line 29), omit "review is completed", substitute "report is given to the nominated Minister".

(2) Clause 91, page 57 (lines 2 and 3), omit "5 years", substitute "1 year".

(3) Clause 91, page 57 (line 6), omit "5 years", substitute "1 year".

(4) Clause 91, page 57 (lines 8 to 10), omit subclause (7), substitute:

(7) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (6), a review is completed when the report of the review is tabled in each House of the Parliament under subsection (4).

SHEET 1841

(1) Clause 82, page 50 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (1)(a), add:

and (iv) the name of the constitutional corporation;

(2) Clause 82, page 50 (line 28), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add:

and (iv) the name of the entity or individual;

(3) Clause 82, page 51 (line 2), at the end of paragraph (1)(c), add:

and (iv) the name of the entity;

(4) Clause 82, page 51 (line 6), at the end of paragraph (1)(d), add:

and (iii) the State or Territory to which the financial accommodation was provided;

The question is that the amendments on sheets 1821, 1824, 1825, 1829 and 1841 be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the Jacqui Lambie Network.

Jacqui Lambie Network's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1884

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (after line 9), at the end of subclause (3), add:

Note: Subsection (3) does not prevent a Corporation body from financing a constitutional corporation that engages in the activities mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c) unless the investment would directly fund these activities.

SHEET 1885

(1) Clause 71, page 43 (after line 11), after paragraph (2)(a), insert:

(aa) the Strategic Direction of the Corporation bodies (if one is in effect); and

(2) Page 46 (after line 13), after clause 74 insert:

74A Strategic Direction

(1) The Board must, every 5 years, prepare a Strategic Direction to be complied with by the Corporation bodies in relation to the Investment Mandate.

(2) The Board must ensure that the Strategic Direction:

(a) is consistent with the Investment Mandate; and

(b) includes priority areas for investment by Corporation bodies; and

(c) is suitable to operate for a period of 5 years.

(3) The Board must submit the first Strategic Direction to the nominated Minister within 60 days after the first direction under subsection 71(1) is given to the Board.

(4) The Board must, before the end of the period to which a Strategic Direction relates, prepare a Strategic Direction for the 5-year period immediately following the current period and submit it to the nominated Minister.

(5) The nominated Minister must, within 14 days after each Strategic Direction or revised Strategic Direction is submitted, decide to either:

(a) approve the Strategic Direction; or

(b) request an amendment to the Strategic Direction.

(6) If the nominated Minister requests an amendment to a Strategic Direction or revised Strategic Direction, the Board must implement the amendment as soon as practicable and resubmit the Strategic Direction to the nominated Minister in accordance with subsection (5).

(7) If the nominated Minister does not approve, or request an amendment to, the Strategic Direction or a revised Strategic Direction within 14 days, then at the end of that period the nominated Minister is taken to have approved the Strategic Direction.

(8) A Strategic Direction comes into effect at the start of the day after the day the nominated Minister approves the Strategic Direction and ceases to have effect on the earlier of:

(a) the end of the day the nominated Minister approves another Strategic Direction; and

(b) the end of the day after the end of the period of 5 years after the Strategic Direction comes into effect.

Variation of the Strategic Direction

(9) If there is a change in the Investment Mandate, the Board must review the Strategic Direction and may revise the Strategic Direction.

(10) A revised Strategic Direction must be submitted as soon as practicable to the nominated Minister for decision in accordance with subsection (5).

Performance of investment functions

(11) A Corporation body must not perform an investment function mentioned in section 63 unless a Strategic Direction is in effect.

(12) A Corporation body must comply with the Strategic Direction.

(13) A failure to comply with the Strategic Direction does not affect the validity of any transaction.

Tabli ng and publishing

(14) The nominated Minister must cause a copy of each Strategic Direction to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Strategic Direction is approved.

(15) The Board must cause each Strategic Direction to be published on the Corporation's website as soon as practicable after the Strategic Direction is approved.

SHEET 1886

(1) Clause 18, page 16 (line 5), omit paragraph (b), substitute:

(b) at least 6, and no more than 8, other members.

(2) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 24), after paragraph 19(2)(k), insert:

(ka) the commercialisation of innovative research;

(3) Clause 19, page 16 (after line 25), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) In appointing members, the Ministers must ensure that the Board members collectively have an appropriate balance of experience or expertise, professional credibility and significant standing in the fields mentioned in subsection (2).

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I request that the amendments on sheets 1884 and 1885 be put separately.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to the request by Senator Cash, I intend to put two questions. The first question is that the amendment on sheet 1884 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

I'll now put the second question: that the amendments on sheet 1885 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The next question is that the amendments on sheet 1886 be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock.

Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1840 REVISED

(1) Clause 82, page 50 (line 20), at the end of paragraph (1)(a), add:

and (iv) the name of the constitutional corporation;

(2) Clause 82, page 50 (line 28), at the end of paragraph (1)(b), add:

and (iv) the name of the entity or individual;

(3) Clause 82, page 51 (line 2), at the end of paragraph (1)(c), add:

and (iv) the name of the entity;

(4) Clause 82, page 51 (line 6), at the end of paragraph (1)(d), add:

and (iii) the State or Territory to which the financial accommodation was provided;

SHEET 1909

(1) Clause 21, page 17 (lines 6 and 7), omit "5 years", substitute "4 years".

(2) Clause 91, page 57 (lines 2 and 3), omit "within 5 years after the commencement of this section", substitute "by 31 December 2026".

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I request that the amendments on sheet 1840 revised and sheet 1909 be separated.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 1840 revised be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that the amendments on sheet 1909, as circulated by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that the amendments on sheets 1863, 1875 and 1876 be agreed to.

Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments—

SHEET 1863

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (lines 5 to 9), after "directly" (wherever occurring), insert "or indirectly".

(2) Clause 63, page 39 (before line 11), before the definition of native forest, insert:

indirectly, in relation to the finance of certain activity, includes directly financing other activity that is in the same supply chain as the first-mentioned activity.

SHEET 1875

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (line 9), at the end of subclause (3), add:

; or (d) finance the development or use of nuclear technology; or

(e) finance the construction or operation of a radioactive waste management facility.

(2) Clause 63, page 39 (after line 11), after the definition of native forest, insert:

nuclear technology does not include nuclear medicine technology produced other than through the use of nuclear reactors.

SHEET 1876

(1) Clause 63, page 39 (line 9), at the end of subclause (3), add:

; or (d) finance the development or use of nuclear technology; or

(e) finance the construction or operation of a radioactive waste management facility.

(2) Clause 63, page 39 (after line 11), after the definition of native forest, insert:

nuclear tec hnology does not include nuclear medicine technology produced other than through the use of nuclear reactors.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to have a division on the government amendments on sheet SK150.

Leave not granted.

by leave—I ask that my name and the names of Senator Hanson and Senator Babet be recorded as being opposed to the amendment.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.