Senate debates

Monday, 2 May 2016

Bills

Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Bill 2016, Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2016; Second Reading

11:25 am

Photo of Larissa WatersLarissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thanks very much, Mr Deputy President. As I was saying, there are 15 banks, both international and domestic, that have said that they will not touch the Adani coalmine. They will not put a dollar of their money behind this project. They know that it is an economic loser. They know that the community does not like the fact that there might be the largest coalmine in the Southern Hemisphere opened up while we are in a climate emergency that has seen 93 per cent of reefs in the Great Barrier Reef bleached. They know that this is a deeply unpopular and unbankable project. In fact, the Queensland Treasury themselves described this very project as unbankable not a year ago. Yet we see this project is now potentially in line for funding under the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility that this government is setting up—unfortunately with the support of the opposition.

We have amendments that would say, 'Rule out funding coal and nuclear from this fund,' and we desperately need support for those amendments. We are in a climate emergency. Our reef is suffering. We already have enough extreme weather events. The Tasmanian World Heritage wilderness area has faced more bushfires than it has ever had before. We are seriously changing the shape of this planet. Yet we have a proposal for $5 billion worth of free money to the coal industry and other associated large infrastructure to worsen climate change. You could not think of a worse proposal right now. So, when it comes to the committee stage, we will be moving an amendment that rules out this fund giving taxpayer dollars to coal and nuclear projects.

We have a vast amount of clean energy options. Northern Australia could be a wonderful location for those clean energy options. That is the sort of clean infrastructure that we support for the north—that will actually work; that will actually generate jobs; that will help us protect the worst effects of climate change from wreaking more havoc on the reef. That is the sort of positive infrastructure plan that we would support. So I am desperately hoping to get support of that amendment. But, again, unfortunately, we know that, with the vast amount of donations that flows to both sides of politics from the coal and fossil fuels sector, sadly I think they have this amendment sown up as well.

As I say, it was with great disappointment that Queensland state government Treasurer Curtis Pitt was reported to have discussed the Adani mine being funded from the Northern Australia infrastructure fund. He reportedly discussed that with then Treasurer, Mr Joe Hockey. Mr Hockey at the time hinted then that that fund could indeed finance the Adani mine; that whether it is the mine, whether it is the railway, whether it is the port—whether it is all of those things—that fund could be something that Adani could desperately try to get some funding from because nobody else in the private sector wants to touch it.

Minister Frydenberg then also hinted that that particular project could receive taxpayer dollars under the Northern Australia infrastructure fund. He came under sustained pressured, including from us and from many people in the community, about what an atrocious idea that was. He then attempted to back away and was a little bit 'prevaricatey'—if I can use that word—in a way that does not fill me with confidence about whether Adani will in fact be able to apply for free taxpayer money under this fund.

I do not trust the words of this government when it comes to coal. I know that they are great champions for the coal industry, despite the fact that coal is in structural decline, as many global economists now acknowledge, and despite the fact that the coal industry sacked 16,000 of its workers in the last couple of years. We need a transition plan and clean energy is part of the solution to long-term employment in those regions. That is the sort of initiative and funding that we would like to see taxpayer support going to, not free money to the coal industry to keep trashing the reef and the climate on which all life relies.

So it is deeply shameful that we have a fund here that may well see that mine get some money—because, otherwise, it will not go ahead. No-one wants to fund it. It is a climate disaster. It is an economic loser. It is not going to get off the ground, except if this government gives it taxpayer money. This is going to be a real test for the government and, indeed, for the opposition. Are they going to let the Adani mega-coalmine go ahead, to further trash the reef when it is in its worst coral bleaching event in its history? As I say, we have already seen approvals issued by both levels of government and both sides of politics for that project. It would be an absolute insult to any thinking Australian and to the world's climate for taxpayer money to go to prop up that project.

Many times in this place when we talk about coal you have the government saying that they are actually only opening up these coalmines because they want to help out poor Indians. If you can believe anything they say, given that this is the government that slashed the foreign aid budget to its lowest amount, apparently they ignorant of the fact that much of rural India does not have an electricity grid and that Australian coal would be one of the most expensive options for energy in that region. One of the cheapest options would be local renewable energy—that does not worsen air pollution, that certainly does not worsen climate change and that is more affordable. So, if this government are genuine about caring for poor and disadvantaged Indians—I do not think they are, but if they were—they would be investing in renewable energy. Instead, this is just the latest premise for them to be continued spruikers for the coal industry. That is why we have called for a ban on new coalmines, a ban on coal seam gas and a ban on fracking.

It is really clear that we have clean energy alternatives. As people probably have heard, we announced our plan for 90 per cent renewable energy by 2030 in the form of Renew Australia. That is where the innovation, the employment creation and the safeguard of our climate lies. That is what the reef needs. It is what our economy needs. It is what the rest of the world is already doing. It is moving in that direction, and Australia is frantically trying to say, 'Oh, no, buy our coal. Quick; we'll give you some handouts to prop it up.' It is a last century industry. This century belongs to clean energy, and it is about time that the science and the common sense of that filtered through to this place in the parliament where we make these most important decisions. That is why we will be moving an amendment to rule out fossil fuel projects and nuclear projects from receiving funding under this fund, and I beg both parties to support that amendment.

We will also be moving an amendment to call for a proper independent cost-benefit analysis of any project that wants to avail itself of these low-interest loans using taxpayer dollars to get off the ground. Sadly, our environmental laws are very weak—and I say that as an environmental lawyer that practised in the area for some years before entering this place—and there is no requirement for an independent cost-benefit analysis. There should be. This amendment would say that, if you want to get low-interest loans, essentially free taxpayer money, then you need to get an independent cost-benefit analysis done—and it should not just simply be a cost-benefit analysis on the economics; look at the social impacts; look at the environmental impacts; look at the cultural impacts; look at the climate impacts. Let's get an independent analysis of whether this project is the right thing for government money to be supporting. That is a parameter that should be applied in all of our environmental laws. But instead we see the government intent on diminishing our environmental laws rather than strengthening them.

That brings me to my next amendment. We want to make sure that any project that is seeking support under this fund is not able to be approved with state government approval only. People may recall that, over the last four years, both sides of government have proposed washing the federal government's hands of environmental approval responsibilities and just leaving that up to state governments—as if the Franklin Dam never happened, as if we never had proposals that needed the federal government to step in and say, 'Guys, this is internationally significant; don't let the state governments just sacrifice environmental values for short-term potential economic gain.'

We fought that proposal for many years. What we are calling for in this fund is: given that the state governments are likely to be the proponents for many of these projects, let us make sure that they cannot also give themselves approval for their own projects. Surely, even on those on that side of the chamber can understand that having the fox in charge of the henhouse will not lead to positive outcomes. We will be moving an amendment that makes sure that there can be no delegation of approval powers for projects that seek funding under this fund.

For the record, of course we oppose that hand-off of approval powers for all projects. We have had many debates in this chamber on that issue. I can assure anyone listening that we Greens will continue to fight for strong environmental laws with a very central role for the federal government—and to actually improve the protection that our natural environment is given under those laws rather than simply to stop the attacks and the attempts at weakening them which have happened in the last few years.

Our final amendment goes to the fact that all of these projects, if they want to receive public support, should be consistent with the principles of ecologically sustainable development. That should not be a concept unfamiliar to people in this place. It has been on our law books for decades in some jurisdictions. Perhaps it might seem a quaint notion to the coal backers over here, but ecologically sustainable development is a thing. It has been a thing globally for decades. If a project wants public money, it should, at the very least, be consistent with ecologically sustainable principles.

That is what we will be moving when it comes to the committee stage. I want to assure anyone listening that, should those amendments pass, this could in fact be a positive fund. If we saw some genuine investment in clean energy; in some support to strengthen communities, to assist them with that small-scale horticulture and agriculture which is currently underway; in helping to get the NBN properly rolled out and invest in communications—there are many positive infrastructure proposals that the North could benefit from that will not trash the natural values of that area, that will help those local communities and that will help the economy. That is the sort of positive investment that we would like to see. But, unfortunately, all we see so far is proposals for dams, mines and railways to get more of this toxic stuff out to worsen the world's climate and to further cook the reef.

With that said, I echo the comments of my colleague Senator Rachel Siewert, who spoke beautifully about the values of northern Australia. We Greens will not be supporting this fund unless those amendments are made to rule out it being a slush fund for dirty energy; to rule out it getting a free ride through environmental laws; to rule out the state governments simply being able to tick it off without federal scrutiny; and to rule out a lack of independent cost benefit analysis so that a proper cost benefit analysis is done. If those parameters are able to be applied to this fund, it could be a good outcome. I strongly recommend those amendments to the chamber.

Comments

No comments