Susan McDonald (Queensland, National Party, Shadow Minister for Resources and Northern Australia) | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move the amendments on sheet 3901 as foreshadowed in my speech:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 and 5), omit the item, substitute:

1 Section 8

Repeal the section.

(2) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (line 1), omit "Reviews", substitute "Periodic reviews".

(3) Schedule 1, item 13, page 5 (lines 2 to 12), omit subsections 43(1) and (2), substitute:

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of this Act to commence as soon as practicable after:

(a) 30 June 2031; and

(b) each fifth anniversary of 30 June 2031.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 3901 be agreed to.

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

I move the Greens' amendment on sheet 3685:

(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 5), after item 1, insert:

1A At the end of Part 2

Add:

8A Prohibited financial assistance

(1) Financial assistance must not be provided under this Act if it would:

(a) directly finance the extraction of coal or natural gas; or

(b) directly finance the construction of pipeline infrastructure primarily for the extraction of natural gas; or

(c) directly finance the logging of native forests.

(2) In this section:

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.

I will speak briefly. The Greens are not going to support this bill unless this amendment is successful, because we are of the view that public money should not be spent on coal and gas—on fossil fuels—and on native forest logging.

Last year I went to the Great Northern Conference, and, at that conference, I heard from a vet who lives in Tennant Creek. She talked about the year that they'd experienced, a couple of years ago, where they had the number of hot days that they will continue to experience if the global temperature rises by more than 1.5 degrees. She talked about the impact that that warming had had on that community. That term—where they had day after day after day of extreme heat—became known as 'fight term' in the local school, because kids couldn't get cool, tempers flared and they had fight after fight after fight. The consequence of that, at the end of the year, was that there was a mass exodus of teachers from that community. In addition to the teachers leaving, other people then left because they were partners of those teachers. So they lost other critical workers in their town. The following year, they had temperatures that were high, and, again, it massively decimated their community. That community has not recovered from a summer of temperatures consistently warmer as a consequence of global heating. Yet we have a bill here that seeks to continue to fund the very types of projects that are contributing to that heating. The northern parts of Australia should not be treated as a sacrifice zone on the altar of coal and gas corporations' profits. Continuing to open up and invest in coal and gas and oil projects in northern Australia is condemning the people of northern Australia to an unliveable future. That is the science. Those are the facts.

The Greens are pleased that we have worked with the government on other pieces of legislation to exclude public money going to coal, oil and gas, and native forest logging. That needs to happen in the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility as well. So the Greens are putting forward this amendment to give the Labor government, the government that says that they believe in climate change and climate action, the government that says they believe we need to move to a renewable energy future, the opportunity to make sure that public money through this facility does not continue to go to coal, oil and gas companies.

The people of Tennant Creek already know what it's like to live in an unliveable future due to climate change. The people across the north deserve to have a liveable future, not to be treated as a sacrifice zone. So I implore the government. If you genuinely believe that climate change needs to be actioned, if you genuinely believe that we shouldn't leave the people of the north out on a limb, sacrificed on the altar of coal, oil and gas corporations, I implore you to support this Greens amendment.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll just speak briefly to the amendment to put the government's position on the record. The government will be opposing this amendment. In 2024 the government updated the NAIF's investment mandate to ensure that potential projects align with one or more of the following policy principles: sustainable and resilient economic development and alleviation of economic or social disadvantage in northern Australia; working with jurisdictions to deliver key infrastructure in northern Australia; sustainability, climate change and circular economy principles and solutions in northern Australia; realising the Critical Minerals Strategy; and materially improving the lives of Indigenous people and communities. What that means is that we have seen an increase in investment by NAIF in a range of sectors and in a range of projects, with more investment in housing, more investment in renewable energy and more investment in critical minerals.

This bill actually strengthens the NAIF board's accountability to this investment mandate, which is really important. It requires the board to notify responsible ministers if the NAIF fails to comply with the investment mandate. It also enables responsible ministers to direct the board to take corrective action. The Minister for Northern Australia continues to retain a veto power over investment decisions. In 2022 the minister provided NAIF with the government's statement of exceptions, and it included 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 priority in northern Australia. That's why the government won't be supporting this amendment. We recognise the role that NAIF is playing in that transition.

Just one of those projects that I want to talk to is the Alpha HPA First Project in Gladstone. The NAIF is providing a loan to Alpha HPA First Project to ensure the investment will lead to the production of over 10,000 tonnes of high-purity aluminium and a range of related products. This will support the high-technology manufacturing sector such as LED lighting, lithium batteries and semiconductors. These are all things that are needed in the transition, which is making sure that people in northern Australia, particularly in Gladstone, have good, secure jobs in industries that are either advanced manufacturing, renewable energy or transitioning from the economy that we have right now in regional Australia. People in northern Australia and particularly the Gladstone region deserve good, secure jobs, and these types of projects are supporting those types of jobs as we transition our economy.

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

Thank you for mentioning the Alpha HPA project. It is a fantastic project in Gladstone, a community that recognises that we do need to transition to renewable energy—and that's why Gladstone Regional Council was one of the first councils in the country to have a transition road map—but I'm struggling to follow the logic. If I heard you correctly, you talked about the investment mandate and said that it has to take into account sustainability and climate change, and then the example that you gave of a project that's being funded is a non-fossil-fuel project. Is it your position that the Greens amendment is inconsistent then with the mandate for the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility? Otherwise, I fail to see what the government's reasoning is for not excluding fossil fuel and native forest logging projects.

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

I've provided you the government's position. We're not supporting your amendment, and we maintain that the mandate is a very important direction to the NAIF board on the projects we would like to see them fund.

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

Is it the government's position that the mandate already excludes then the funding of fossil fuel and native forest logging projects, given what the mandate contains?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

No, we're not supporting your amendment, and the mandate, as I set out, lists a number of different sectors. Of course, the NAIF mandate is a direction to the board. We have seen an increase in those types of projects. We're very proud of the investment that the NAIF is making in northern Australia. But I've been clear. We don't support your amendment.

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

I'd like some final clarity. I understand the government's position is that you're not supporting the amendment. My question is: is it the view then that fossil fuel projects could be funded—coal, oil and gas projects and native forest logging—under the current mandate?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

In good faith, I want to answer your question to put it on the record. NAIF investments are proponent led and sector agnostic, and the senator knows that. That's the way that the NAIF has been set up and will continue, hopefully, to work over the next 10 years, and that's why we don't support the Greens' amendment. I know that they've brought amendments like that forward in other legislation. The NAIF does not control which sector's potential project proponents arise, and the sector-agnostic approach allows the NAIF to drive broad economic and social development across north Australia. Of course, the investment mandate requires that, to be eligible for NAIF financing, a project must align with at least one of the five policy priority areas.

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

Minister, as Special Envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, does the government accept that if the NAIF continues to be able to invest in coal, oil and gas projects that it's putting the health of the Great Barrier Reef and the jobs that rely on it at risk?

Nita Green (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Tourism) | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll respond to that, given the personal nature of the accusation. I'm actually not the special envoy for the reef anymore. I'm the Assistant Minister for Northern Australia. I'm very proud of the work that this government has done to protect the Great Barrier Reef, including our landmark changes in the EPBC reform that will protect the reef for generations to come. Our government is committed to net zero emissions by 2050, and the NAIF has a key role in contributing to this policy in northern Australia. The government takes a different view than the Greens political party about how we will reach that 2050 goal. But, of course, it's incredibly important that the NAIF continues to deliver economic development in northern Australia while we protect these special places.

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

My apologies to the minister; I neglected to note that that role had changed.

I just want to put on the record that I, too, have travelled around northern Australia. I've been into the territory in Far North Queensland, and it is certainly not the case that communities are not concerned about the impact of global heating on the north. I say to the government that it would appear, from the answers to questions, that the NAIF investment mandate does not preclude the funding of coal, oil and gas projects and native forest logging. If the government are serious about protecting communities in the north so that they have a vibrant and healthy future, I implore them to support the Greens' amendment.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 3685 be agreed to.

Slade Brockman (WA, Deputy-President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill stand as printed.