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

() (): I move:

That the bill be reconsidered in detail.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No problem. We just needed to get through that. I'll just explain to the House what's happening—what has occurred and what will happen now. Standing order 154 states:

Before the third reading of a bill is moved, a Member may move without notice that a bill be reconsidered in detail, in whole or in part, by the House.

That is what the member for Warringah has now done. I'll put that question.

Question agreed to.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to 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.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there a seconder for this amendment?

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Warringah for her participation in this debate and the amendments she's proposed. I will address the second amendment first. The NAIF Investment Mandate contains six mandatory criteria that proponents are required to meet to achieve NAIF finance. Supporting economic empowerment and meaningful engagement with First Nations Australians is a priority shared by the government, and the amendment which the member proposes that the NAIF must first consult First Nations Australians when considering financial assistance is already part of the operation of the NAIF. The NAIF has robust and mandatory mechanisms to achieve this.

Under the NAIF's governance framework, all proponents are required to develop and implement an Indigenous engagement strategy as a condition of financial assistance. The proposed amendment requires NAIF to consult First Nations Australians before providing financial assistance. In practice, NAIF's current requirements already go further than that, because engagement occurs by project proponents, where it can be most effective and specific. Project proponents must demonstrate alignment with community expectations and outcomes before NAIF will consider investment approval, and the Investment Mandate and statement of expectations already require it to support key government priorities, including materially improving the lives of First Nations peoples and communities in northern Australia.

While the government respects the intent behind the amendment, it will not be supporting changes that duplicate or complicate an already effective and well-established framework. The government will continue to ensure that NAIF maintains high standards of Indigenous engagement, supports opportunities for Indigenous economic development and works collaboratively with First Nations organisations, including traditional owners, local Indigenous businesses and land councils.

I'll reflect briefly on the small loans program of the NAIF. It is indeed designed with First Nations communities in mind to make sure they are enabled to get this concessional finance for important projects in their communities.

I return now to the first amendment. The government will be opposing that amendment. In 2024, the government updated the NAIF Investment Mandate to ensure that potential projects aligned with a number of policy priorities. The ones relevant here are sustainability, climate change and circular economy principles and solutions in northern Australia, and materially improving the lives of Indigenous peoples and communities. That refers to your second amendment. The bill strengthens the board's accountability to this investment mandate by requiring that the board notify the responsible ministers if the NAIF fails to comply with that mandate so we can take corrective action.

The statement of expectations, which I provided in December 2022, noted the government's priority to transition Australia's energy sector to net zero emissions by 2050 and that the NAIF has a key role in contributing to this in northern Australia. The NAIF has supported multiple renewable energy projects, as well as including critical minerals projects that are vital for renewable technologies and for national security. The Climate Change Act 2022 introduced changes to the NAIF Act to ensure alignment with Australia's national greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Energy projects are designed to support and strengthen the electricity system on the way to net zero, not as a long-term replacement for renewables but as a stabilising force during the all-important transition, which we support and have legislated. Investment in energy projects assists in supplying electricity to communities where there are shortfalls in renewable generation and prices spike in consequence of that. It's important that any energy transition provides for firming capacity to complement renewables. Grid stability is critical for all communities. Whilst renewable generation batteries and pumped hydro are progressively built right across the country, firming capacity and grid stability help to contain price spikes for households and industry and, of course, make sure people have lights in those communities. So we don't support the amendments, but I do thank the member for her thoughtfulness in this debate.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The last thing in the world we want in this country is for people in Sydney to be telling us what we should and shouldn't do on the land where we live. We live there because we love the land. That's why we live there, right? People who are living in Sydney obviously don't love the natural wonderland of Australia. I can't see how that is compatible with you living in Sydney.

Your stupidity and irresponsibility means it will be on my watch that the cassowaries of Australia vanish. I will be remembered in history as the member of parliament for the area where the cassowaries vanished. The reason they're vanishing is that there's an estimated three million pigs in national parks in North Queensland—which I think is exaggerated, but there's no doubt that you can't go into the national parks without seeing wild pigs—and the pigs have nothing to eat except the cassowary eggs. The pig numbers are exploding because there are no natural predators for the pigs in the jungles of North Queensland. I'm sitting here watching the cassowaries being wiped out because of the stupidity of so-called greenies in this place. That's the cassowaries.

The pigs also eat the turtle eggs, so the North Queensland turtle is also doomed. You protected the crocodiles. Well, there were little children of Bamaga—one was seen to be torn to pieces by a crocodile, and another little children two vanished at exactly the same spot. Maybe you like little children being torn to pieces by crocodiles, I don't know, but for your stupidity—the crocodile lays 60 eggs—

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just remind the honourable member that when you're making the reference 'your stupidity' you're referring to the chair. So I would just ask you to rephrase that to 'the honourable member', please. And I would ask you just to stay relevant to the amendment, if I could, honourable member for Kennedy.

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. With all due respect, Deputy Speaker Buchholz, I most certainly wouldn't accuse you of these shortcomings, but it is playing big on my mind that the cassowary is going to be no more. The cassowary bird is actually the crest for most of our local government areas in Far North Queensland.

Now with respect to crocodiles, I don't know whether these things are true, but people that know a lot more than I do and that live in these areas and know all about it are saying that crocodiles have eaten all the gropers. The gropers used to eat the starfish. The starfish numbers are now exploding on the reef and destroying the Great Barrier Reef. If you start fooling around with nature, you really want to know where it will end up. You've got to think. It's not simple; it's complicated.

There are 23,000 square kilometres of natural grasslands—Mitchell and Flinders grasses—in the natural grasslands in North Queensland that have vanished under the prickly acacia tree, which was brought in to provide stock feed. Actually it only has leaves on it for about three months of the year, but I'm not blaming the greenies or anyone for that one. That was the scientists' stupidity and ignorance.

We've got 23,000 square kilometres where all native flora and fauna has been destroyed by prickly acacia tree. We've got the jungles where the pigs have taken over, and there's nothing being done about the pigs. When I say that—they are setting traps. How would you set traps for three million pigs? Honestly! But, if you let in the hoon class—of which I was a member when I was a young bloke—with our dogs and our guns, we'll take out the pigs for you. And we won't shoot other things. There's an assumption that because we own a gun—but we're the people that love nature. That's why we've got a gun. We go out there in nature and we live with nature as we have done for 40,000 years. You don't come up here and tell that to my brother-cousins. I most certainly am related to a lot of First Australian families. I might have some in the family tree—I don't know. But you don't come here and tell us what we're going to do or not do after we've been doing it for 40,000 years. You come here and tell us that our kids are going to be eaten by crocodiles, when we used to take the crocodile eggs as part of our feed. But, there again, you took out the biggest predator of crocodiles—humans. They took the crocodile eggs. You also took out the dingoes, who took crocodile eggs, and goannas, because you brought in a bug, and then to get rid of the bug you had to bring in the toads. You started fooling around with nature, you don't know what you're doing, and the results have been absolutely catastrophic. (Time expired)

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Very briefly—thank you, Deputy Speaker—

Bob Katter (Kennedy, Katter's Australian Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got five minutes to address the issue of cassowaries.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, I will. I thank the member for Kennedy for his question, and I have seen the cassowaries of Queensland, up near Cairns. I've kayaked on the Copperlode Falls Dam at Lake Morris there. There are only a few there, I admit, and it is a treasured species—no doubt about it. On what you say about wild pigs, I've been to orchards in Far North Queensland, a great fruit-growing area, and spoken to farmers that have lost their dogs to these pigs, actually. It's terrible circumstances when your pets are taken by wild pigs. We appreciate the problem that is there.

But I would also acknowledge the member for Kennedy's passion for Northern Australia and in particular northern Queensland. Thank you for all that you have done in your vast experience here in the House. I think you well know the Prime Minister is well aware of that, as am I, and we've met to discuss many things. I would just comment, though, that I do think it is a good thing that MPs from across the country take an interest in Northern Australia and speak on this debate in this House. Whilst they might not see the day-to-day operation of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, knowing that it has supported nearly 37 extraordinarily community-changing projects right across the north—across the north-western Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland—is a very important thing. I'm really glad that there are members from inner-city Sydney or Perth or otherwise contributing to this debate; that is a good thing. I would note that there was only one Queensland LNP member that spoke on the NAIF bill earlier today, which I think is disappointing, given this is a very important piece of legislation for the progress of northern Queensland.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have a question for the minister about the investment mandate and return expectations for the NAIF and other SIVs. The NAIF plays a really important part in our decarbonisation journey, and I support it. I've heard some concerns from the clean energy industry about the risk appetite built into the investment mandate and that return expectations that are set near commercial levels can cause SIVs like the NAIF to compete with private capital for low-risk projects rather than catalysing investment in high-public-benefit, long-term decarbonisation projects. If public money is replacing private capital, then it's not a good use of public money, and SIVs should operate where there's market failure, not where markets could efficiently deliver the same result. My question is, how is the minister ensuring that public money will be used in the NAIF early enough to crowd in public private funds rather than replace them?

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Curtin for her question. It's true—public money must be used wisely. It's taxpayers' money. Earlier a comment was made about the NAIF being a method of subsidy. It's an enabler, but it is a concessional loan scheme. The idea and intent, and indeed what it does, is crowding in that money. It is an important principle that it shouldn't compete and seek to exclude any private capital. Private capital is really important in the projects that the NAIF seeks to enable. What we have found through working with the staff at the NAIF and its CEO and board is that they often redirect a lot of inquiries for projects to other providers of capital, and some of them may be Commonwealth specialist investment vehicles or just private capital groupings.

In renewables, the NAIF has supported about three different projects and a number of projects in critical minerals, and they are almost like an anchor that brings in that other piece of capital to make the whole thing work. It's an important part of how the NAIF works. So I do understand your concerns.

How we monitor that is through the NAIF reporting to the board. The board is a very competent board, and I acknowledge the chair of the board and the whole team for the work they do. They report regularly to me, and, of course, we monitor all the projects. All the projects come before us for us to have a look at, and we're well aware of the concern that we don't use public money unwisely and make sure that we do get in that private capital as well as this public capital. Thanks so much for your question.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Warringah be agreed to.

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

on indulgence—I want to clarify one figure I mentioned in my previous contribution. The NAIF has made 37 investment decisions and progressed 32 projects. Thank you.