Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A After section 7

Insert:

7AA Climate change considerations

(1) The Facility must not provide a grant of financial assistance unless doing so is consistent with:

(a) the Climate Change Act 2022; and

(b) the objective of reducing Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050.

(2) The Facility must not provide a grant of financial assistance to any gas facility.

(3) In subsection (2), gas facility includes a pipeline.

7AB First Nations consultation

In deciding whether to provide a grant of financial assistance, the Facility must consult with First Nations Australians.

As I indicated in my second reading speech, whilst I very much support the purpose of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment Bill 2026 and its extension and it is essential that northern Australia have access to finance beneficial finance capacity to do a very important projects, it is nevertheless important that any spending that we do in such significant spending be consistent with all of our legislations and commitments, in particular commitments from the Albanese government. The amendments circulated seek to make clear the prohibition of the funding of fossil fuel facilities, including gas, via the NAIF.

Let's be really clear. Prohibiting the funding of fossil fuel facilities, including gas pipelines, through the NAIF is important. Why? Because taxpayer backed finance should not be socialising the risk of projects that worsen the climate crisis while privatising the returns, because we know that the gas industry are highly profitable sectors, they are making superprofits. They do not need beneficial financing assistance or public funding when it comes to infrastructure investment, especially when they do not then share the windfalls with the Australian people.

I've had this battle before. In 2021 my amendment expressly sought to stop the NAIF funding fossil fuel based infrastructure, including natural gas infrastructure. The principle was right then, and it is right now. We also know this is not abstract. The NAIF has previously supported gas link projects, including the Hudson Creek Power Station, a 12-megawatt gas power plant backed by a $37 million NAIF loan, and hybrid solar gas projects in the Pilbara. So, when the government says, 'Trust us,' the answer is, 'The record does not justify blind trust.' If a project is commercially sound with such advanced and mature industries as the gas industry, let it stand on its own balance sheet and obtain its own finance without dipping in to the public purse. If it requires public subsidy to proceed, parliament is entitled—indeed obliged—to ask whether that subsidy is in the public interest. In 2026 subsidising new fossil fuel infrastructure, in particular gas and gas pipelines, is not in the public interest.

My other amendment is to ensure that the NAIF funding is consistent with commitment to net zero by 2050 and the Climate Change Act 2022. The second amendment will require those funding decisions to be consistent with those legislated climate frameworks. The Climate Change Act 2022 puts into law Australia's targets of 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 and net zero by 2050. These are essential commitments to make sure we protect and preserve the Australian way of life and the safety of so many Australians. If a project locks in emissions, delays transition or creates infrastructure that depends on decades of fossil fuel use, then parliament should not pretend that this is neutral. If the NAIF is to run to 2036, it must be anchored to the legal and economic reality of Australia's net zero transition. These are all mature technologies that make superprofits; they do not need further subsidies by the government.

Thirdly, my amendment seeks to make consultation with First Nations Australians during funding decision-making processes mandatory. This amendment requires mandatory consultation with First Nations Australians during funding decision-making. The NAIF currently requires only an Indigenous engagement strategy as part of mandatory eligibility criteria. What's been reported to me is that too often that is a tick-a-box exercise; it is not genuine community consultation. Whilst it's good that there is something, it is not enough. The current framework is better than nothing, but it's not the standard that this parliament should settle for. I would argue for the government to have a very clear requirement for consultation with First Nations Australians, whose lands too often are the ones impacted by the very projects that are seeking funding under the NAIF. This is the bare minimum that should be done by this government.

I commend these amendments to the House to improve the NAIF and make sure it is robust funding into the future that serves all Australians and is consistent with our public interest.

See this speech in context