|
senate vote 2019-07-24#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-08-29 15:55:56
|
Title
Bills — Future Drought Fund Bill 2019, Future Drought Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019; in Committee- Future Drought Fund Bill 2019 and another - in Committee - Source of funding
Description
<p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1), (2), (3), (5) and (6) on sheet 8702 together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 1 to 4), omit the paragraph beginning "The balance of the Building Australia Fund".</p>- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-24.51.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [Janet Rice](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/janet_rice) (Greens), which means they failed.
- Senator Rice [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2019-07-24.51.1):
- > *These Greens amendments remove the source of the funding for this drought fund from the Building Australia Fund. We are deeply concerned about the proposition that the money to be used for tackling drought should come from the Building Australia Fund. It makes no sense whatsoever that money that we should be spending on essential transport infrastructure gets ripped out when that's where the money needs to go. We know that it is farcical. We do not need to be ripping money out of transport infrastructure to be able to pay for drought relief.*
- ### Amendments text
- > *(1) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 1 to 4), omit the paragraph beginning "The balance of the Building Australia Fund".*
- >
- > *(2) Clause 5, page 5 (lines 4 to 10), omit the definitions of Building Australia Fund and Building Australia Fund Special Account.*
- >
- > *(3) Clause 9, page 10 (lines 7 to 10), omit the paragraph beginning "The balance of the Building Australia Fund".*
- >
- > *(5) Clause 17, page 16 (line 33), omit "; or", substitute ".".*
- >
- > *(6) Clause 17, page 16 (lines 34 to 36), omit subparagraph (f) (iii).*
<p class="italic">(2) Clause 5, page 5 (lines 4 to 10), omit the definitions of <i>Building Australia Fund</i> and <i>Building Australia Fund Special Account</i>.</p><p class="italic">(3) Clause 9, page 10 (lines 7 to 10), omit the paragraph beginning "The balance of the Building Australia Fund".</p><p class="italic">(5) Clause 17, page 16 (line 33), omit "; or", substitute ".".</p><p class="italic">(6) Clause 17, page 16 (lines 34 to 36), omit subparagraph (f) (iii).</p><p>These Greens amendments remove the source of the funding for this drought fund from the Building Australia Fund. We are deeply concerned about the proposition that the money to be used for tackling drought should come from the Building Australia Fund. It makes no sense whatsoever that money that we should be spending on essential transport infrastructure gets ripped out when that's where the money needs to go. We know that it is farcical. We do not need to be ripping money out of transport infrastructure to be able to pay for drought relief. We note that this has been the Labor Party's main objection to this bill, and so I am really looking forward to having the Labor Party supporting these amendments. I'm surprised they didn't move amendments themselves to do this.</p><p>We've got a situation where you don't need to rip money out of transport infrastructure in order to fund drought works. There are plenty of other places the government could get money from. The government could get money from consolidated revenue. Of course, we have given the very sensible suggestion that maybe we should be getting the money for tackling drought from the big fossil fuel companies that are doing their best to worsen the drought. In particular, my second reading amendment to this bill proposes we use this as an opportunity to fix up the most rorted tax that operates in Australia—in fact, doesn't operate in Australia—the petroleum resource rent tax, which has failed to bring in any money out of digging up the oil and gas. Basically we are giving our oil and gas away to the huge fossil fuel companies. Our suggestion was: how about let's at least take a very small amount, 10 per cent, of their profits, a flat floor, so that at least 10 per cent of the profits of the oil and gas companies in their mining and export of oil and gas could actually fund the works that are needed to tackle the consequences of the mining of that oil and gas, to tackle dealing with drought as a result of our climate crisis?</p><p>The Greens have done the numbers, and they show that if you just had that as a 10 per cent floor, a 10 per cent Commonwealth royalty, it would raise $4.9 billion over the next two years. The government would have its fund funded in two years and, of course, the royalties could keep on building so that, by the end of a decade, there would be a decent amount of money that could be invested in the works that are going to be needed to deal with the ongoing drought and the consequences of climate change, because they are going to cost a lot.</p><p>We have governments that don't want to do anything to mitigate climate change. We know the costs of those droughts, the costs of not having enough water, the costs of sea level rise are going to keep on rising and rising and rising. So here's an opportunity to actually acknowledge that and here's an opportunity to then say, 'Well, if you're getting the money from that source, you don't need to get it from the Building Australia Fund.'</p><p>I've heard the government's argument: 'The Building Australia Fund hasn't been drawn upon in the last five years, so therefore you don't need the money.' That's because the government hasn't wanted to take the money from the Building Australia Fund because there are some conditions attached to the moneys in that fund. They have got to be spent on projects that have the tick from Infrastructure Australia, so there actually has to be some accountability. Where is the government saying, 'We are spending $100m on infrastructure'? There is plenty of money being spent on the government's own pet projects that serve their own vested interests rather than having the accountability that is required by having projects that have been through a proper assessment as per Infrastructure Australia.</p><p>I think this is a very sensible suite of amendments. We don't need to take the money away from the much-needed transport infrastructure in our cities and our regions when we could get the money from a much more appropriate source. So I really do look forward to getting the support right across the chamber, particularly from the Labor Party. I mean, they didn't vote with us on the very sensible accountability measures that we just voted on. I'm disappointed that that was the case—but not surprised—because they were measures that would have put in place a few more checks and balances as to how this money is to be spent. They are the sorts of things I would have thought Labor would have been very supportive of and supported the Greens on to make sure that this drought fund doesn't end up being just a slush fund for the National Party. But, no, for their own reasons, the Labor Party decided they weren't going to support those very sensible amendments and voted against them. I really hope that that's not the case with this set of amendments.</p><p>As I said, these are amendments that the Labor Party should have moved themselves, given their professed concern about taking money out of our transport infrastructure. I think it is a very sensible suite of amendments that would mean that we wouldn't need to fund drought by ripping money out of essential transport infrastructure. We could fund it, instead, by getting royalties from oil and gas companies.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>The government opposes these amendments. But, in opposing, let me just say: I'm getting increasingly confused by what the Greens stand for. I mean, the other day we had former Greens leader Bob Brown fighting against renewable wind energy, having previously opposed renewable hydro energy, and now we've got Senator Rice from the Greens political party fighting for more money for roads. I mean, what happened to the Greens? If you keep going, you might end up coming to our side and voting for income tax cuts at some point in the future! The truth is that the government has significantly boosted federal funding for infrastructure, just in the last budget, from $75 billion to $100 billion. So our pipeline of infrastructure investment over the medium term has increased by $25 billion—just in our last budget.</p><p>For the reasons that we indicated during the second reading summing up, we don't support these amendments. In relation to the issue of the PRRT and the royalties that Senator Rice raised, she knows that the Senate has already voted overwhelmingly to reject that proposition—and it is not really captured in this amendment anyway.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>Senator Cormann, the Greens initiated the Senate inquiry into the PRRT nearly three years ago. It was chaired by previous Labor senator Chris Ketter and championed by previous Labor senator Sam Dastyari. The inquiry went for about 15 months, and we took substantial evidence on what was wrong with the PRRT. In fact, on the last day of our hearings in Perth, the Callaghan review, which was the government's own review into the PRRT, was literally released the minute our hearing opened in Perth. Of course, we hadn't had time to scrutinise it, nor had many of our witnesses—</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>On a point of order: this is a bill to deal with the establishment of the Future Drought Fund. Nothing in this bill, in any way, shape or form, is connected to the PRRT or any Senate inquiries in the past related to the PRRT. His contribution is completely irrelevant and out of order.</p><p>The CHAIR: I do remind all senators, and Senator Whish-Wilson, that questions or comments need to be relevant to the bill, so I'll listen to your contribution, Senator Whish-Wilson.</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>I know you will listen to my contribution. I'll make it very clear that I have a second reading amendment exactly on this subject. This goes directly to how we should be funding any future spend on drought in our rural and regional communities in Australia.</p><p>The Greens put forward a simple proposition that polluters should pay and that big fossil fuel companies—big oil and gas companies—should pay. These are the same companies that want to chase profits, feed more greed and go offshore in the Great Australian Bight and open up new areas for oil and gas at a time we desperately need to transition to clean energy. These are the same companies that pay little tax in this country. It is a very, very good idea, which I absolutely think will pass the pub test in any rural and regional part of this country, that the big polluters should actually be paying for the droughts that they are helping to create. So it is directly relevant to the discussion here today.</p><p>If I can go back to the final hearing we had in Perth, we had there some of the biggest fossil fuel companies, some of the biggest polluters on the planet, some of whom, such as Chevron, pay no corporate income tax or PRRT tax. The minute we opened our inquiry in Perth, the government released its Callaghan review, which was its flaccid attempt to change the PRRT. They know—and, Senator Cormann, you know—that that petroleum resource rent tax regime has not delivered for the Australian people. It was set up at a time way before the development of oil and gas and the value-added processing we have seen with massive projects like Gorgon off the North West Shelf. It is not fit for purpose. It is nearly 35 years old. You knew it needed to be changed, and you implemented a review which essentially recommended that the government change it, and what have you done? You've fiddled around the edges. You've changed some of the compounding rates around companies being able to take tax deductions on exploration expenditure and on operating expenditure. You've fiddled around with some of those compounding rates, but, nevertheless, the amount of money that has been dodged by some of the biggest and wealthiest oil and gas companies—some of the dirtiest polluters on the planet, as Senator Di Natale outlined today—was nearly $350 billion.</p><p>The CHAIR: Senator Whish-Wilson, further on the point of order, I am struggling here. I'm looking at your second reading amendment which you referred me to, which talks about the Bureau of Meteorology.</p><p>It was Senator Rice's amendment. My apologies, Chair.</p><p>The CHAIR: I beg your pardon. Continue on, but we will look at Senator Rice's amendment. Thank you.</p><p>Perhaps I could ask Hansard to change my earlier contribution.</p><p>The CHAIR: They will, because they've heard your explanation.</p><p>Nevertheless, while we're on it, let's talk about my second reading amendment, because that was acknowledging that climate change is contributing to the biggest and worst drought since temperature records began in this country, which is happening right now. We acknowledge the suffering that rural communities are currently going through. We want acknowledged in this chamber and by this government that climate change is the driver of this record drought and the record misery that our rural communities are going through, and we want a government that actually acts on the underlying causes of that climate change.</p><p>If I could get back to Senator Rice's second reading amendment, which is on how we pay for this, it's a critical part of the bill. How we appropriate in legislation and new laws to spend billions of dollars of taxpayers' money on a critical area like mitigating the effects of drought and adapting rural and regional areas to drought is essentially at the heart of this bill. We've raised concerns about giving that money to the National Party when they've so completely rorted and stuffed up a number of public programs in rural and regional areas, and we've raised concerns about how that's going to be funded. It's a simple principle that polluters should pay. These big oil and gas companies pay nothing in tax at the moment. It is not fair. It would pass no pub test in this country.</p><p>This is a very good amendment that I recommend to senators and to this chamber: that we actually fix the PRRT and take this opportunity now to put a floor on the tax rate that means polluters have to pay money now—not indefinitely defer it into the future but pay Australians now, pay farmers who are suffering now and pay for the pollution that they are creating and the climate catastrophe that they have helped create.</p> <p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>I know we can't ask, but, given that we've got this proposal to remove the Building Australia Fund as the source of the funds for this drought fund, and given the Labor Party's position on it, I'm surprised that we're not hearing from the Labor Party as to whether they support or do not support this Greens amendment.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|