Milton Dick

The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Ryan moving the following motion:

That the House:

(1) notes the Minister for the Environment yesterday approved Gina Reinhart's Atlas gas project until 2080, which will destroy koala habitat, exacerbate the climate crisis and ignores the IEA's warning that no new coal, oil and gas projects can be built in order to reach net zero by 2050;

(2) condemns the fact that since the Government came to office, 9 gas projects and 5 coal projects have been approved while ten oil and gas fields covering 46,758 square kilometres of ocean have been released by the Resources Minister; and

(3) insists that the Atlas approval decision be overturned.

Just this morning here in Parliament House, I attended an important forum held by ACOSS introducing their blueprint framework for fair, fast and inclusive climate change action. Climate change is threatening our communities, the natural environment and the economy. In short, runaway climate change is threatening everyone and everything everywhere. This is an urgent crisis that needs to be dealt with now, and yet this government is actively exacerbating it. As Cassandra Goldie said this morning, climate change disproportionately impacts people and communities experiencing disadvantage, particularly when the transition to a clean economy is slow, inequitable and non-inclusive, which it is. That's notwithstanding the superficially concerned and fine words at the ACOSS forum this morning from the Assistant Minister for Climate Change and Energy.

Stage 3 of Senex's Atlas project was yesterday approved by the environment minister. This Gina Rinehart-backed project will construct 151 coal seam gas wells in Central Queensland. It'll clear at least 360 hectares of koala habitat. This project will reportedly drain 6½ million litres of groundwater every day. That's catastrophic in this area, which has some of the most productive farmland in this nation. Farmland is literally sinking already because of these coal seam gas wells, as we know, and we know this well. Up to 700 water bores in Queensland are also affected by CSG drilling.

It's time for some truths in this narrative, and I want to put them on record here. This gas is not being used to shore up the energy grid. That's a blatant lie. The biggest domestic use of gas in Australia is by the gas industry themselves, who use it for their own operations. The vast majority of Australian gas—around 80 per cent—is being exported overseas to countries like Japan and Korea. Australians see next to no royalties or tax from it. And then—get this—Japan gets such a good deal on Australian gas that they're onselling it to other countries. They can do that because Japanese domestic LNG demand is actually falling. They're exporting more than they're importing. Then you've got this absurd situation where Japan is now a competitor with Australia in the overseas gas market, except it's with our gas. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Australians are getting taken for a ride by the gas industry. Indeed, they are being gaslit, and there are backers in both major parties. The government just loves this project so much they even gave it an exemption from their energy price caps. The urgency of this motion is clear: we're in a climate crisis, and this government is addicted to approving new coal and gas. The gas industry in particular has a stranglehold over the government. We saw this with the release of their gas strategy a few weeks ago, which locks in new gas past 2050. This government has just released a budget containing tens of billions in fossil fuel subsidies, including $1.5 billion in funding for the Middle Arm project, which is a gas export hub. That's $1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars to assist gas companies—who, again, pay almost no tax or royalties—to assist them to export Australian gas, which other countries are then onselling for a profit. Taxpayer money is going to benefit gas companies and is making the climate crisis worse.

Gas, of course, produces fugitive methane emissions that are 80 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. It's not a safe fuel. Fugitive emissions are also, of course, very hard to keep track of, because they're gas. We really have no way to predict the effect, and we're expected to believe that gas is somehow a cleaner energy source. That's another untruth that this government is actively peddling. The climate crisis is as urgent as ever. The government knows it. The government know that every fossil fuel project they approve makes climate change worse, and yet they go ahead with it. They know it means more natural disasters, including floods and bushfires. Globally, the number of extreme wildfires has doubled since 2003.

We in Queensland know that floods are happening more frequently, but underreported are also the effects of climate induced heatwaves. Places like Western Sydney will swelter through twice as many days above 35 degrees by 2050. That is just unsustainable. It's uninhabitable. The government's own data predicts over a thousand deaths each year in Australia's major cities—Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth—by 2050. That's not a thousand deaths cumulatively; that's each year.

Disadvantaged people and elderly people are most vulnerable to the effects of heatwaves, and that's according to the government's own data. This goes to what ACOSS is begging for, and was begging for this morning, in this urgent emergency. ACOSS is at the front line of trying to help those who are worst affected by climate change. ACOSS says—these are their seven principles—please reduce emissions quickly; please promote good health and wellbeing; please promote human rights, fairness and equity; please promote inclusion and representation; please uphold First Nations rights to sovereignty and self-determination; please, we beg of you, government, ensure a fair employment transition; and please, we beg of you, promote ecological sustainability and nature repair.

The government knows that this is a problem. They know all of this and yet they still approve more coal and gas. Make it make sense.

Ian Goodenough

Is there a seconder?

Stephen Bates

There is a seconder. I second the motion. Our federal environment minister has just approved a Gina Rinehart backed, huge coal-seam-gas project in my home state. This project, the Senex Atlas stage 3 project, will clear 360 hectares of endangered koala habitat in inland Queensland for fracking. This project is expected to require the drainage of a whopping 6½ million litres of groundwater as the coal seams are depressurised every day. Let's not forget that the depressurisation of coal seams across Queensland's Western Downs is causing some of Australia's best farmland to sink. Lock the Gate said it best:

"Minister Plibersek is happy to pose for photos with cute and cuddly koalas one day and then approve the clearing of hundreds of hectares of koala habitat for new Gina Rinehart-backed coal seam gas developments the next … "

Queensland communities are already incredibly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, yet we have the Labor government approving yet another polluting fossil fuel gas project, further exacerbating the climate crisis.

The overwhelming majority of Queensland's gas extraction is exported overseas, and the biggest domestic user of gas in Queensland is the gas industry itself. There would be no need for this project if the federal and state governments were managing existing gas fields in the national interest. This project is going to result in 151 coal seam gas wells and a 300 million litre CSG brine storage requirement. This is only going to make the boom-and-bust cycle of short-sighted gas development worse in the Queensland town of Miles. So here we go again: yet another fossil fuel approval from this Labor government. It's not the first, and it's abundantly clear it's not going to be the last.

How long can the Labor and Liberal parties continue to ignore the most basic of scientific facts. Approving new fossil fuel projects is bad for the environment, the climate and the future of our planet. April was the warmest month on record—the 11th month in a row of record global temperatures—and sea surface temperatures have been at a record high for over a year. The world's top scientists now believe that we're going to blow past the 1.5 degree target set by the Paris climate agreement, and here we have the Labor government willingly approving new fossil fuel projects, despite those warnings.

You don't have to look too far to see to why this is happening, though. We all know it, so we're going to say the quiet part out loud. Over the last decade, the fossil fuel industry has donated $13.7 million to the Labor and Liberal parties. You might be asking: why both? It's because it guarantees that this dirty industry has influence and power regardless of whether Labor or the Liberals win the election—and what a return on investment they get. This last budget continued to hand over billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuels at the expense of communities right across the country. Coal and gas say, 'Jump', and this government simply responds with, 'How high?' It is abundantly clear that you cannot trust either the LNP or Labor when it comes to protecting our environment. The LNP still don't really believe that climate change is even real; and then we have the Labor Party, which has the gall to tell us that they think it's real while they continue to approve new coal and gas wells. It's actually insulting!

This latest approval of 151 coal seam gas wells is the latest in a long, long line of this government ignoring science and ignoring every single person in this country asking for climate action, and it must be overturned.

Adam Bandt

This is astounding! Usually, when we have a motion condemning the government, someone from the government comes and speaks in defence of what they've done. But, no, the government can't even come in here and bring itself to justify why it has just approved 151 new gas wells in the middle of a climate crisis. There's a reason that the government cannot bring themselves to come in here: they are utterly ashamed. Labor are utterly ashamed, and they should be. The environment minister has just approved a climate-destroying gas project to run until 2080. They told us we were meant to be at zero emissions at 2050, and Labor are approving coal and gas mines to run out to 2080.

When is the environment minister coming in here as this parliament moves to condemn her? The environment minister cannot even bring herself to come into the chamber and justify this climate-wrecking decision. I thought we had got rid of Scott Morrison and his gas led recovery, but what's becoming crystal clear by the day is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to tell Labor and Liberal apart on coal and gas. Labor pretends to care about the climate crisis and then they come into this place, with the power they've got, and approve new coal and gas mines running out to 2080. And they can't even bring themselves to come into the chamber to justify it. They should be ashamed, and they cannot hide from the Australian people their climate-destroying approval of coal and gas mines to run out to 2080.

This must be overturned—this must be overturned! If we're to give our kids any chance of a safer climate, we must stop approving new coal and gas mines. You cannot put the fire out while you're putting petrol on it. The first step to tackling a problem should be to stop making the problem worse. At a bare minimum, Labor should stop approving new coal and gas mines. This is a contemptible decision that the government can't even bring itself to defend. This motion should be passed and this terrible decision should be overturned.

Long debate text truncated.

Bob Katter

I return to what I was saying previously. The minister is saying, 'We'll cut the costs.' You want to know what you're doing in this place. On the face of it, you say that, instead of having to go to the pharmacy twice in 60 days, now you just go in once. So this halves the income for a pharmacist. As I said previously—there's no doubt in my mind. I say: hold on a minute; if you halve the income for pharmacists, a lot of them are going to go broke. Where are you going with this? I don't notice any pharmacists in my area running around in Mercedes-Benz motor cars and going on trips overseas. What are you going to do—just wipe them out?

I've always said: in politics, follow the money trail if you see something that you don't understand, and say, 'What's going on here?' So, if you're going to halve the income for pharmacists—some of the most highly respected people in our society—who's going to benefit from that? Is the consumer going to benefit? To some degree, yes. But it's a very small degree to which the consumer is going to benefit. Who benefits? Well, if there are a whole lot of the owner-operator pharmacies going broke then of course it's the big two who benefit—here we go again! It's Woolworths and Coles. And now we've got the two giants, Terry White and—the second company is eluding me at the present moment. Those two companies are on 42 per cent of the market now.

There is no doubt that this move will give them another 12 or 14 per cent, and that's what's speculated inside the industry. Their percentage will now go into the mid-50s; from there, it will pay them to pay big money and go to over 60 per cent; and from there it's like Woolworths and Coles and they can charge anything they like. They've got no competition. So what appears, on the face of it, to be moronic stupidity that will wipe out one in four pharmacists in Australia—of course, in the small towns, forget about your pharmacy, it'll be gone!

The thing that always intrigues me about politicians in Australia today that is so fundamentally different from the politicians 40 years ago—40 years ago they cared about people. I remember saying to the much maligned Bjelke-Petersen, 'I have a portfolio that is manned by whitefellas, and it's a blackfella portfolio.' He said, 'What do you want to do?' I said, 'Obviously, I want to change it over to blackfellas, of course.' He said, 'Bob, we don't sack.' I said: 'No, it's a policy of nonreplacement. Within three years, we'll just about achieve that goal.' He again said, 'But, Bob, we don't sack.' We cared about people; we didn't want to go around sacking people.

We lost government in 1990, and within five years the ALP had sacked 12,000 railwaymen and 2½ thousand electricity workers. We had to go to computerisation, so there should have been a reduction in employment. We employed 22,000 in 1979, and 10 years later we were employing 21,000 in 1989. When the ALP came in, they were employing 7,000. So here we have it again. Don't you care about people, and don't you understand that these pharmacists are going to be destroyed?

I just want to say a few words on what a great group of people pharmacists are. Trent Twomey, head of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, was head of Advance Cairns. He and I were instrumental in getting the Gordonvale CBD road made into a two-lane divided highway, which is very safe and very quick for people to get to work or move out of Cairns. He played a very real role in getting the alternative route, and I must say the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, played a very key role as well in the alternative route that cuts the round trip from the huge fruit and vegetable growing area of Far North Queensland to Melbourne by 1,800 kilometres. It's a wonderful breakthrough in saving our fruit and vegetable growers both for tropical fruit and vegetables coming out of Far North Queensland and for temperate fruit and vegetables coming out of Victoria. Trent Twomey played a key role in that. He's the head of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, but in that case he was with Advance Cairns.

Michael Collins, in my own hometown of Charters Towers, put in a lot of money—I can't divulge how much, but it was an awful lot of money—to get the North Queensland Cowboys rugby league team going, which has been a great and exciting thing for the people of North Queensland.

Madam Deputy Speaker Chesters, I don't mind people ignoring me, but I do object when they're talking to each other across the chamber, which I think is exceptionally rude and bad mannered. My parents brought me up to not speak while other people are speaking, but obviously their parents didn't bring them up that way. So I'd ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to please stop them from talking across the chamber while I'm trying to talk. Thank you.

I used the case of Michael Collins, who is so typical of pharmacists. He put real money in to get the Cowboys going, which is a wonderful thing for North Queensland. He got rugby league going in Charters Towers. He was one of five or six of us that met and got rugby league going in our own town, where three or four teams are now playing. He did a hell of a lot to rescue the schools in Charters Towers when they got into trouble—the huge boarding schools that provide a wonderful service to people of the outback, where they can go away to boarding school. He was the commentator for the country music festival and the race club. These people contribute to our community. Why would you hit these people? Why would you halve their incomes? What's the benefit to the Australian people? Infinitesimal. But what is the value to the two giants in the pharmacy industry? Colossal.

I will repeat what I said earlier today. The spokesman, the assistant minister for health in the Senate, let the cat out of the bag. As I said: follow the money trail. She said—and I must say it was quite a stupid comment and quite damaging to her party, for those that picked it up—'We haven't been able to speak to the Pharmacy Guild, but we have spoken to Chemist Warehouse.' Yeah, I bet you did! You spoke to Chemist Warehouse because this will enable them and their other competitor to move into a Woolworths-Coles position in the Australian economy. For some reason, the governments of Australia and the politicians in this place have no understanding of economics. Obviously, if you have a free market system, you'll say, 'Oh, a free and open market system will deliver you cheaper prices.' No, it won't; it will deliver you an oligopoly. This is what it's done in almost every area of concern that we have in Australia.

I will again refer to Woolworths and Coles. We have a potato grower that ploughs the field. Then he has to till the field. Then he has to plant the potato. Then he has to irrigate the potato. Then he has to fertilise the potato and keep the pests and diseases out—a lot of work. Then he has to pull it out of the ground, put it on a truck and take it to town. In the town, Woolworths and Coles take the potato out and put it on the shelf. He gets 45c per kilogram, and they get $4.20 per kilogram! And that's what's going to happen here. There's not the slightest doubt in my mind that once they get what the ALP is delivering to them, an oligopolistic marketplace, they will charge what they like. So, in the short term, you can say, 'Competition will reduce the price' Yeah. But in the long term you will have an oligopoly and you'll know what pricing is about.

I want to say one other thing about pharmacists. They are the first line. I myself had an interesting case. I had a little pimple thing on the side of my face that was itchy, and I raced down to the pharmacy, which was still open at nearly 10 o'clock at night, and I said: 'I just want something because it's a bit itchy. It's just a little pimple.' And the pharmacist said: 'No, I think that's shingles. That's very serious indeed.' At five to 10, the doctor was still in, so I raced down to the doctor, and she said: 'It's shingles. In 24 hours you might die.' (Time expired)

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

In accordance with standing order 133(b), I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved on the second reading of the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed.

Milton Dick

The question before the House is that this bill be now read a second time.

Long debate text truncated.

Steve Georganas

I'll continue on from where I left off last night, when I managed to get a couple of minutes in on this very important bill. As I was saying last night, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 is very important because it lays the groundwork for changes to make the NDIS better and more secure and to support people with disabilities in a way that gives them even more dignity in their everyday lives.

When you look at the NDIS, it's right up there with the great Labor reforms in our history. It's right up there with Medicare. It's right up there with the Chifley government's national taxation system and the pension system. This was certainly groundbreaking back during the Rudd-Gillard era. I recall very well that, in my own electorate, back in 2007, we had a disability forum. The then member for Maribyrnong, who was the minister for disability services, came along and said to me, 'I'm going to test something out in this room.' And he spoke to a room of approximately 150 people in my electorate who were from the disability sector—people with disabilities, parents who had children with disabilities and a whole range of people. He spoke about an insurance scheme, and I recall very well that it went down very well with everyone in that room. From there, the seed was planted for an NDIS. Of course, it took a few years through the minister, who then was Jenny Macklin. I was very proud to be here on the day the NDIS was passed unanimously through this House.

This bill builds on those important steps. As I said last night, we know that in March earlier this year we introduced legislation to the parliament to enable this important and necessary change to the NDIS. The government, by proposing this bill, is delivering on a commitment to build a strong and sustainable NDIS. We're doing this not just through words but by providing a further $468.7 million to get the NDIS back on track. These measures build on the $213.7 million to fight fraud, for example, and to co-design the NDIS reforms with people with disability announced earlier this year. The budget that was announced a few weeks ago will drive the implementation of key recommendations from the independent review of the NDIS, including reforms to the scheme transparency, participant supports, sustainability and services delivery, to get the NDIS back on track. This Albanese Labor government is committed to involve people with disability in the reforms, to improve outcomes for people with disability and to ensure the scheme is here forever and a day to support future generations of Australians with disabilities.

The NDIS is on the same pedestal, as I said earlier, as our remarkable Medicare. People with disabilities and their families know that they can trust this government to continue to protect the scheme, to make it stronger and to get the NDIS back on track. This government is committed to improving the outcomes for the NDIS participants and ensuring every single dollar goes to those who need it the most. The Albanese government will continue to work closely with the disability sector to consider the recommendations of the independent NDIS review and transition towards a disability support ecosystem capable of supporting all Australians with disability now and into the future. We've already said that we want to make it stronger and we've already begun to take that initiative and the initial, immediate steps in response to the historic review.

The investment will provide the architecture needed to bring together people with disability, government and other experts, to support those implementations and those important reforms. The key investments will include $45.5 million to establish an NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee, a clear pathway of $20 million to start consultation and design work to help people with disability navigate the services, and a fresh approach to pricing, which is very important, with $5.3 million to undertake that work to reform the NDIS pricing arrangements to help to ensure that the NDIS participants get the best deal and a fair deal and increase the transparency of how prices are set. These are all important steps. For example, the architecture to implement the reform will strengthen the governance. For co-design in fighting fraud there is $213.8 million of recently announced funding to fight fraud—to fight the things that we saw on the front page of today's Australian, and to co-design and reform this NDIS so that people with disability get the most out of it.

This government is transforming the capability of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission to protect people with disabilities from abuse, violence and neglect, and to detect and prevent fraud. Over the next four years, starting from financial year 2024-25, the Australian government will be investing more than $160.7 million through the DART program to ensure the NDIS commission has the critical technology and the systems required to gather the intelligence and collect and analyse data to better protect the NDIS participants. It will reduce the regulatory burden on the NDIS providers and improve cybersecurity.

This investment will ensure the NDIS commission can focus its activities to better protect those people with disabilities from harm and provide for more effective data sharing between the NDIS commission and the NDIA, as well as other government agencies, to help protect those participants by reducing misuse of the system.

The government and the minister are absolutely committed. That's why they've committed $45.5 million to establish the NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee, and this is a key recommendation of the independent NDIS review. We know that the NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee will provide independent and transparent advice to government on what works for participants. The committee will also provide advice on the evidence base for therapeutic support access through the NDIS, improving outcomes and ensuring better value for participants.

We know key findings from the independent NDIS review highlighted the challenges people with disability, their families and their carers face when navigating this labyrinth to find and access vital supports and services within the current disability ecosystem. The Albanese Labor government is also investing $20 million to begin breaking down these barriers through commencing consultation and design of a new navigation service model for the disability community regardless of their eligibility to access the NDIS. The government will continue to work closely with people with disabilities and the broader disability sector to ensure that the proposed navigational model is fit for purpose and able to meet the diverse needs of the disability community both inside and outside of the NDIS.

Over the last 10 years, the NDIS has made an incredible difference to people's lives. It's made a very significant contribution to Australians living with a disability and their families and those who care for them. This includes many constituents who have approached my office with issues in this space. I'm sure all of us in this House, on both sides, get queries from constituents that are having issues with the NDIS or in the disability sector. One of those constituents of mine that we have assisted recently is Jane, whose occasional therapist contacted me to raise concerns for Jane's wellbeing should she not receive NDIS support. At the time, Jane was in the Royal Adelaide public hospital and was not able to be released. They would not release her until she had some ongoing care at home. Jane is chair bound and suffers from severe lymphoedema, severe arthritis and complex PTSD. At the time, I was advised that Jane had previously applied for the NDIS but was refused for various reasons. I then took it upon myself to make representations on behalf of Jane and to assist Jane out of deep concern for her wellbeing, as her carer was telling us about. The thing is that she couldn't go home without the care, so therefore she was stuck in a bed in a public hospital. It's also worth noting that a situation like this contributes to the congestion in our hospitals. People are in hospital beds because they can't access the support to go home. But I was pleased that, after approaching Minister Shorten's office, he took a keen interest in Jane's case and asked for it to be reviewed. The review resulted in Jane receiving NDIS support and returning home with the support she needed. Her quality of life has improved immensely since then. This is by no means an isolated case. In my office we regularly assist constituents to access NDIS support for themselves and for their family members.

This is why this Albanese Labor government is investing $5.3 million in 2024 and 2025 to undertake the preliminary work on possible NDIS pricing function reforms to strengthen transparency, predictability and alignment, which will then in turn offer those people with disabilities a better service. This government will continue to work very closely with the disability sector to consider the recommendations of the independent NDIS review and transition towards a disability support ecosystem capable of supporting all Australians with disabilities now and into the future.

The NDIS Implementation Advisory Committee will oversee and advise on all of the initial period of implementation and will have representatives from the wide disability sector and government and other experts with relevant experience. The committee will report to the Disability Reform Ministerial Council every six months. I was proud, 10 years ago, when the bill was passed in this place to form the NDIS. I'm still proud of the ongoing work. I know that only a Labor government can be trusted to get the NDIS back on track. (Time expired)

Long debate text truncated.

Milton Dick

The question is that the bill be read a second time.

Zali Steggall

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (18) on sheet 2, as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 24), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(2) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 11), after the definition of national security information, insert:

net zero emissions economy means an Australian economy where:

(a) Australia's absolute greenhouse gas emissions have been significantly reduced to zero or to a residual level consistent with global efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5℃ above industrial levels in accordance with Articles 2 and 4 of the Paris Agreement; and

(b) any residual Australian greenhouse gas emissions are neutralised by, and continue to be neutralised after, the net zero target date.

net zero target date means the target date set out in paragraph 10(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2022 for Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions to reduce to zero.

(3) Clause 6, page 10 (after line 23), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) An employer is also a closing employer if:

(a) the employer:

(i) is a constitutional corporation; and

(ii) owns (whether alone or jointly) or operates (whether alone or jointly) one or more parts of a facility that is a designated large facility for the purposes of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 for a financial year;

whether or not the employer employs employees to perform work at the facility; or

(b) the employer is a constitutional corporation that owns (whether alone or jointly) or operates (whether alone or jointly) one or more parts of a business specified in a determination under subsection (2B).

(2B) The Minister may, on recommendation by the Authority, determine in writing one or more classes of businesses for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(b).

(2C) The Minister must cause a copy of the determination (including as varied) to be published on the Authority's website.

(2D) A determination under subsection (2B) is not a legislative instrument.

(2E) The Authority may, by notifiable instrument, make recommendations for the purposes of subsection (2B).

(4) Clause 6, page 11 (after line 19), after subclause (4), insert:

(4A) An employer is also a dependent employer if the employer (the relevant employer):

(a) is a constitutional corporation; and

(b) has a commercial relationship with:

(i) a closing employer within the meaning of subsection (2A); or

(ii) an associated entity of such a closing employer; and

(c) will, or will be likely to, cease a substantial part of the operations carried on by the relevant employer at the facility or business concerned, or in the same geographic area in which the facility or business concerned is located, as a direct result of the eventual closure of that facility or business.

(5) Clause 7, page 12 (after line 26), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) A transition employee, of a closing employer within the meaning of subsection 6(2A), is an employee of the closing employer who is employed to perform work at the facility or business concerned.

(6) Clause 7, page 13 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add:

(5) A transition employee, of a dependent employer within the meaning of subsection 6(4A), is an employee of the dependent employer who is employed to perform work in the operations that will, or will be likely to, cease as mentioned in paragraph 6(4A)(c).

(7) Clause 9, page 13 (line 21), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business referred to in subsection 6(2A)".

(8) Clause 9, page 13 (line 26), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business referred to in subsection 6(2A)".

(9) Clause 16, page 17 (after line 15), after paragraph (1)(b), insert:

(ba) with the Climate Change Authority and in consultation with industry, communities and the public and private sector—to proactively plan, coordinate and advise on the phasing out of fossil fuels, including their exploration, extraction and export and their use in Australia;

(10) Clause 16, page 18 (lines 3 to 6), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In performing the Authority's functions, the Authority must have regard to the following principles:

(a) the principle of prioritising communities, regions, industries and workers that are or will be:

(i) concerned with manufacturing, installing or maintaining equipment, appliances, vehicles or devices that consume fossil fuels; or

(ii) otherwise significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy;

(b) the principles of:

(i) economic efficiency; and

(ii) environmental effectiveness; and

(iii) equity; and

(iv) the public interest; and

(v) the impact on households, businesses, workers and communities; and

(vi) an effective global response to climate change; and

(vii) consistency with Australia's foreign policy and trade objectives; and

(viii) complying with Articles 2, 4, 8 and 12 of the Paris Agreement; and

(ix) boosting economic, employment and social benefits, including for rural and regional Australia; and

(x) achieving the safeguard outcome in paragraph 3(2)(d) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007;

(c) any other principles that the Authority considers relevant.

This subsection has effect subject to subsections (4) and (5).

(11) Clause 21, page 23 (line 5), omit "5", substitute "7".

(12) Clause 23, page 24 (after line 26), after paragraph (3)(f), insert:

(fa) climate science;

(fb) engineering;

(13) Clause 54, page 40 (line 5), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(14) Clause 55, page 42 (line 29), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(15) Clause 56, page 43 (line 24), omit "or gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station, facility or business".

(16) Clause 56, page 45 (line 2), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

(17) Clause 57, page 47 (line 11), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

(18) Clause 57, page 47 (line 25), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

I'm actually disappointed that I need to move these amendments. When we look at the consideration in detail of this bill, where many on the crossbench have attempted to improve the effect and powers of the Net Zero Economy Authority, alleged, under this bill, it's clear that the government is still very limited and very blinkered with regard to which industries and which specific workers it's willing to help.

That's why I moved my amendments. They will amend the name of this bill to what it in fact is: the 'coal and gas-fired worker transition authority' bill. It's necessary for the government to be very clear and not to mislead people and communities as to the very limited extent of support that its bill offers. Coalmining communities, such as those in the Hunter and in other areas around Australia, that work in mines where the product is for export, might be mistaken in thinking that a just transition would be afforded to them under this bill. That's not the case, and that needs to be made clear. This House has not voted to accept amendments moved by many here that would provide a mechanism to do that or, at the very least, a mechanism to ensure it's possible within the powers of the authority to do it—or even that it would be within the terms of review, to broaden the scope and powers of the authority over time. Then it would be in keeping with the alleged name 'Net Zero Economy Authority'.

Instead, we have seen industries, especially those that we know will phase out as a result of the transition to a low-carbon economy, left out. We know that our economy is changing, that it needs to and that it needs to change fast. In fact, we need to put an end to coal and gas. We need no new coal and gas; we need to end those export industries and transition to others. The first step in that is recognising it. The year 2023 was the first where temperatures on land exceeded two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Joel Gergis' quarterly essay named 'Highway to Hell: Climate Change and Australia's Future' outlines a grim scientific account of what we are facing. Transition will, and must, occur, and we need to support our economy, communities and workers in doing so. The International Energy Agency forecasts that the world is decarbonising, that our trading partners are decarbonising and that the demand for our fossil fuels is going to change and decline, so we need to address this and assist those communities. It would be remiss only to pick, narrowly, a few winners—a few communities which deserve the power of the authority and not others. That's why, reluctantly, we need to ensure that this bill is only directed to those who it's actually empowered to assist. It will not impact many others in the fossil fuel industries who will be impacted by the transition to net zero.

We see a lot of greenwashing across a lot of industries,. The use of the term, 'net zero' is a nice phrase. It rings, and makes people reading it think that it's addressing a very specific thing. I know there's a very real reason why the government drafters used that term in the name of this authority, and that's why I've moved these amendments to change it. I think we need to be really clear that a net zero economy is much broader than just coal and gas workers in the fossil fuel energy industry. If we're genuinely going to say that it's a net zero economy, it must be much broader. That's why I have moved these amendments, to ensure that we don't leave anyone behind. I want to make sure that no-one is misled by the title of this bill; that it's in fact very clear and that communities know the importance of the terminology 'net zero'. There's a growing awareness about this, and they know that the use of the term is also associated with much greenwashing. We need to make sure that consistency and climate commitment are attached to the term.

In the absence of broadening the scope of the authority to provide work plans which address the other industries that will be impacted by the net zero transition, it's necessary to call a spade a spade and to say that the operating provisions of this act should be reflected in its name. This is why I have moved these amendments.

Patrick Gorman

The government does not accept the proposed amendments. Indeed, to accept them would be to mislead about the intent of this bill or the provisions within it. We have just spent almost two hours considering this bill in detail. I have stood here and outlined the broad powers that sit within the Net Zero Economy Authority. If we were to accept this change, which in my view talks down to workers in a range of essential industries for our economy, it would not reflect the bill that is in front of us. It would not reflect the ambitions that the government has for this authority and it would not reflect the expectations of this parliament, who I hope will soon vote for this bill. It would not reflect our ambitions for what that authority needs to go on and do.

I outlined the powers in section 16 and I outlined the hundreds of millions of dollars the government has put in the budget for this authority to do all of that work, so to simply try and divide Australians by saying, 'This is just for a small section of workers,' is completely wrong. The amendment would not reflect the bill as it is on the table right there, and I would urge the member for Warringah—who I know comes and does, as I seek to, raise the standard of political debate—that I don't think that this is an appropriate way to raise the standard of political debate. It narrows the title of the bill and it narrows the title of the authority in a way that actually doesn't reflect the work that it will do. I agree with the Member for Warringah when she says it's time to stand up for integrity and accountability and restore trust in Australian politics. This change would not do that.

I know that the Member for Warringah has done a lot of work when it comes to increasing accountability for those of us elected to parliament and when it comes to integrity in political advertising. In my view, it would be a lie in terms of what this authority does if we were to change it to this name. It's so much bigger in scope. The transformation is so much bigger than the simple title change that's proposed. The government doesn't support it and I don't think anyone in this parliament should.

Zali Steggall

I have a question for the assistant minister. If it is the intent of the government to generally have an authority that addresses an entire net zero economy transition—which means going broadly across a lot of areas—could the minister clarify why part 5, Energy Industry Jobs Plan, is limited in section 54 to only those relating to the closure of the whole or part of a coal-fired power station or gas-fired power station, and that is the only requirement to trigger the creation of an energy industry job plan?

Long debate text truncated.

Zali Steggall

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (18) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 24), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(2) Clause 5, page 8 (after line 11), after the definition of national security information, insert:

net zero emissions economy means an Australian economy where:

(a) Australia's absolute greenhouse gas emissions have been significantly reduced to zero or to a residual level consistent with global efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5℃ above industrial levels in accordance with Articles 2 and 4 of the Paris Agreement; and

(b) any residual Australian greenhouse gas emissions are neutralised by, and continue to be neutralised after, the net zero target date.

net zero target date means the target date set out in paragraph 10(1)(b) of the Climate Change Act 2022 for Australia's net greenhouse gas emissions to reduce to zero.

(3) Clause 6, page 10 (after line 23), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) An employer is also a closing employer if:

(a) the employer:

(i) is a constitutional corporation; and

(ii) owns (whether alone or jointly) or operates (whether alone or jointly) one or more parts of a facility that is a designated large facility for the purposes of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 for a financial year;

whether or not the employer employs employees to perform work at the facility; or

(b) the employer is a constitutional corporation that owns (whether alone or jointly) or operates (whether alone or jointly) one or more parts of a business specified in a determination under subsection (2B).

(2B) The Minister may, on recommendation by the Authority, determine in writing one or more classes of businesses for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(b).

(2C) The Minister must cause a copy of the determination (including as varied) to be published on the Authority's website.

(2D) A determination under subsection (2B) is not a legislative instrument.

(2E) The Authority may, by notifiable instrument, make recommendations for the purposes of subsection (2B).

(4) Clause 6, page 11 (after line 19), after subclause (4), insert:

(4A) An employer is also a dependent employer if the employer (the relevant employer):

(a) is a constitutional corporation; and

(b) has a commercial relationship with:

(i) a closing employer within the meaning of subsection (2A); or

(ii) an associated entity of such a closing employer; and

(c) will, or will be likely to, cease a substantial part of the operations carried on by the relevant employer at the facility or business concerned, or in the same geographic area in which the facility or business concerned is located, as a direct result of the eventual closure of that facility or business.

(5) Clause 7, page 12 (after line 26), after subclause (2), insert:

(2A) A transition employee, of a closing employer within the meaning of subsection 6(2A), is an employee of the closing employer who is employed to perform work at the facility or business concerned.

(6) Clause 7, page 13 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add:

(5) A transition employee, of a dependent employer within the meaning of subsection 6(4A), is an employee of the dependent employer who is employed to perform work in the operations that will, or will be likely to, cease as mentioned in paragraph 6(4A)(c).

(7) Clause 9, page 13 (line 21), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business referred to in subsection 6(2A)".

(8) Clause 9, page 13 (line 26), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business referred to in subsection 6(2A)".

(9) Clause 16, page 17 (after line 15), after paragraph (1)(b), insert:

(ba) with the Climate Change Authority and in consultation with industry, communities and the public and private sector—to proactively plan, coordinate and advise on the phasing out of fossil fuels, including their exploration, extraction and export and their use in Australia;

(10) Clause 16, page 18 (lines 3 to 6), omit subclause (2), substitute:

(2) In performing the Authority's functions, the Authority must have regard to the following principles:

(a) the principle of prioritising communities, regions, industries and workers that are or will be:

(i) concerned with manufacturing, installing or maintaining equipment, appliances, vehicles or devices that consume fossil fuels; or

(ii) otherwise significantly affected by Australia's transition to a net zero emissions economy;

(b) the principles of:

(i) economic efficiency; and

(ii) environmental effectiveness; and

(iii) equity; and

(iv) the public interest; and

(v) the impact on households, businesses, workers and communities; and

(vi) an effective global response to climate change; and

(vii) consistency with Australia's foreign policy and trade objectives; and

(viii) complying with Articles 2, 4, 8 and 12 of the Paris Agreement; and

(ix) boosting economic, employment and social benefits, including for rural and regional Australia; and

(x) achieving the safeguard outcome in paragraph 3(2)(d) of the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007;

(c) any other principles that the Authority considers relevant.

This subsection has effect subject to subsections (4) and (5).

(11) Clause 21, page 23 (line 5), omit "5", substitute "7".

(12) Clause 23, page 24 (after line 26), after paragraph (3)(f), insert:

(fa) climate science;

(fb) engineering;

(13) Clause 54, page 40 (line 5), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(14) Clause 55, page 42 (line 29), omit "or a gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station or other relevant facility or business".

(15) Clause 56, page 43 (line 24), omit "or gas-fired power station", substitute ", gas-fired power station, facility or business".

(16) Clause 56, page 45 (line 2), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

(17) Clause 57, page 47 (line 11), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

(18) Clause 57, page 47 (line 25), after "power station", insert ", facility or business".

These amendments, along with many that have been put forward by the crossbench, are seeking to improve this legislation. Earlier this week, I spoke on the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, and today these amendments are trying to address the issues there are with that bill. As the bill currently stands, it has a narrow and hypertargeted scope that fails to provide the authority with what is necessary to genuinely support a net zero economy transition. This bill restricts the type of employer or worker that is afforded that just transition to support under the act, specifically limited only to those transitioning from coal- and gas-fired power stations.

In stark contrast to the broad objects of this bill, the operating provisions for worker transition are incredibly limited. Time and time again, members of the Labor government came into this place, talking about no worker being left behind. With respect, that is simply not true. The title of this bill is a shameless attempt to greenwash the effect of this bill. For all the rhetoric about leaving no-one behind in the transition and framing this bill as the Net Zero Economy Authority, the government is leaving many workers and industries behind—and regions, as the member for Indi has pointed out through her amendments. It's limited to helping approximately 5,000 workers, ignoring at least 110,000 others from export coal, oil and gas industries and ignoring a further 100,000-plus workers if we considers the mechanics, gas fitters and other geographically dispersed but emissions-intensive industries that will be subject to transition and that could also be supported by this authority. Even members of the government, like the member for Newcastle, identified that the bill will neglect almost 90 per cent of coalmine workers in the Hunter. The Hunter Jobs Alliance highlights that, in that region alone, an additional 2,600 workers between now and 2030 will be affected by coalmine closures, yet they do not get the benefit of a jobs plan or the real powers for the authority in this bill. The bill should be broadened to include workers who are part of emissions-intensive industries. Examples include gas networks or gas supply and manufacturing businesses, and mechanics for fossil-fuel-powered vehicles. Or, at the very least, the bill should include a mechanism to broaden the scope of powers of the authority to include more workers.

It's not only for workers that this bill is too narrow. The bill currently outlines a Net Zero Economy Authority with wide, overarching objectives. It is critical that these functions are not just aspirational but that they are actually achievable and have teeth or powers associated. It's crucial that the authority is mandated to proactively plan, coordinate and advise on the phase-out of fossil fuels, including their exploration and extraction for export as well as domestic use—something the government seems to remain in denial about. It will acknowledge closure of fossil-fuel energy plants, but it will not acknowledge the likely and very real closure of fossil-fuel export industries.

Independence is also an essential to achieve the goals and for the public to have confidence in how we transform our economy. So the independent body and the board of this new authority must be independent and made up of people with the right mix of expertise and experience. In that respect, I note a number of amendments have been made by members on the crossbenches, again seeking to improve this legislation, but these have not been taken up by the government. At the moment, ironically and quite extraordinarily, this bill doesn't require a board member to have climate or engineering experience, and yet it is a body that's said to be delivering a net zero economy. Without even having that kind of experience, it's hard to imagine that this board will in fact be fit for purpose to meet the very broad and aspirational challenge that it has been set. I would ask the government to rethink the approach. It needs to consider amendments that will enhance the recruitment of board members, ensure their independence and avoid captain's picks.

Finally, we still have the issue that there is good greenwashing in the title of this bill by calling it the Net Zero Economy Authority. Ironically, 'net zero' is still not defined, and I've had discussions with the assistant minister in this respect. The difficulty we have is that there are a lot of other industries that come into play, particularly carbon capture and storage. So it is important to start defining net zero to ensure we don't have industries involved that are not really in the purview of this authority.

Long debate text truncated.