Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the report of the Economics References Committee's inquiry into the governance and operation of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which was formally tabled in this place this week; although it was actually released in July. Due to the unusual order of business this week, I didn't get a chance to properly speak to it, so I would like to do it the justice of making comments on it here this evening.

The inquiry was established via a motion by my Greens predecessor Senator Larissa Waters and the Labor Party. By the fact she is my predecessor and I am now here, there has been some variety of Greens senators involved at various stages of this inquiry at different times, but the continuity of our attention to the core issues remained the same. I would like to commend the report to the Senate.

I know there is a disagreeing and disagreeable minority report from the coalition senators, but I feel the Labor senators on the inquiry, including the chair, did a good job, and there are invaluable recommendations. I won't go through them all, but I certainly indicate my support for them. Some of them focused on the themes of greater involvement of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, including a representative on the NAIF itself; more transparency including around potential conflicts of interest; more presence of the organisation actually in northern Australia—including potentially having a staff person in Darwin—and also directing more investment directly to tourism.

There were some changes made by this government to the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility whilst the inquiry was proceeding, and that was welcome. It did enable, at least in theory—we'll see how it works in practice—some more capacity for somewhat smaller scale operation proposals to be put forward. It's no secret and no surprise that one of the focal points of the inquiry was around the potential use of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility to assist in starting up of the Adani Carmichael coalmine. Again, it is no secret that the Greens very strongly oppose the use of taxpayer resources, federal or state, not just for that coalmine but for any thermal coalmine in Queensland or across any part of the Galilee Basin.

I do draw the Senate's attention to a separate sole recommendation of mine that the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act be amended to require the NAIF to consider the Australian government's policy commitment to the Paris Agreement—we know from the National Energy Guarantee that the government's commitment to that is actually not genuine but, nonetheless, it's a commitment that they have officially made, so it's appropriate for it to be reflected in legislation—and that the NAIF consider the impact of any potential proposal on the government, whether it would be more likely the government's policy commitment to the Paris Agreement would be breached; consider the climate impacts of a project; and specifically prohibit this fund from being used to finance infrastructure that would facilitate the extraction, refinement, transportation or burning of thermal coal.

It's no surprise the Labor senators didn't support any such recommendation like that, because, of course, the Queensland Labor government refuses to withdraw support not only for the Adani Carmichael coalmine but for any. It also still supports, at least in words, ongoing proposals for other significant coalmines in the Galilee Basin, and indeed, is still calling for tenders for exploration for other new coal deposits in Queensland. That is wider than just the scope of this report, but it is an indication of the core problem with the state Labor government that does still need to be addressed if Labor in general want to claim they are serious about meeting the Paris Agreement targets.

Nonetheless, as I said, the Greens also welcome the other recommendations in the report, particularly in trying to ensure there is more capacity for the infrastructure facility to assist tourism projects in and across northern Australia. The evidence provided to the committee from some of the Northern Territory environment organisations as part of its Darwin hearing—which I attended via phone—gave some really good examples of the sorts of projects which would generate jobs, be sustainable environmentally and in terms of the community structures of the Territory, and have ongoing economic benefits. Those are the sorts of things that would be an appropriate use of public resources to assist in that type of economic development in northern Australia.

I want to put it on the record that, whilst the Greens clearly have a disagreement with other parties in this place about the use of public resources to develop new coalmines in Queensland, northern Australia or anywhere else in the country, that should not be misrepresented to suggest we do not support infrastructure development in the north. We certainly do. Indeed, we have released policies in the past with regard to that. When I speak to a later report I'll talk more about some of the proposals that are being put forward by councils in northern Australia and Northern Queensland as the sorts of things that can be supported, whether it's through direct government funding of infrastructure facilities or it's through the type of arrangement that the NAIF operates. I do want to make it absolutely clear that there is an important role, which I think can be expanded, for both state and federal governments to do better to resource northern Australia. My own interest is, of course, in Northern Queensland. It needs to be the right type of infrastructure, and part of the way that we increase our chances of doing that is by having more transparency and better rules around how these sorts of infrastructures are funded in the future.