|
senate vote 2021-06-22#14
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-07-30 10:54:38
|
Title
Bills — Fuel Security Bill 2021, Fuel Security (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2021; in Committee- Fuel Security Bill 2021 - in Committee - Publication of FSSP information
Description
<p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I move my amendment No. 1 on sheet 1307:</p><p class="italic">(1) Page 69 (after line 8), after clause 80, insert:</p>- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-06-22.224.1) introduced by Victorian Senator [Janet Rice](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/janet_rice) (Greens), which means they failed.
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 46, page 37 (lines 23 to 27), omit the clause, substitute:*
- >
- > *46 Publication of information*
- >
- > *(1) The Minister must table in each House of the Parliament, as soon as practicable but no later than 15 sitting days after the end of each financial year, a statement relating to fuel security services payments made during that year.*
- >
- > *(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include the following information:*
- >
- >> *(a) the total amount of fuel security services payment paid for quarters ending in each financial year;*
- >>
- >> *(b) a list of each FSSP fuel for which a fuel security services payment was paid;*
- >>
- >> *(c) for each fuel security services payment paid:*
- >>
- >>> *(i) the FSSP fuel for which the payment was paid; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(ii) the amount of the fuel security services payment ; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(iii) the number of litres of FSSP fuel refined; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(iv) the number of cents paid per litre of FSSP fuel; and*
- >>>
- >>> *(v) the name of the person paid;*
- >>
- >> *(d) the total number of litres of each FSSP fuel for which a fuel security services payment was paid;*
- >>
- >> *(e) any other information required by the rules.*
- >
- > *(2) The Secretary must publish, on the Department's website, the Minister's statement under subsection (1).*
<p class="italic">80A National energy security strategy and plan</p><p class="italic">(1) The Minister must table in each House of the Parliament, on or before 30 June 2023, a national energy security strategy and plan.</p><p class="italic">(2) The <i>national energy security strategy and plan</i> must:</p><p class="italic">(a) outline how Australia's energy systems (including fuels) will be made more secure and resilient beyond 2027; and</p><p class="italic">(b) include all of the following matters:</p><p class="italic">  (i) the future of Australian refineries beyond 2027;</p><p class="italic">  (ii) how Australia will transition from fossil fuels to emerging energy sources;</p><p class="italic">  (iii) the retirement of fossil fuels;</p><p class="italic">  (iv) the development of alternative energy sources;</p><p class="italic">  (v) investment in alternative energy sources;</p><p class="italic">  (vi) any other investment required to implement the national energy security strategy and plan; and</p><p class="italic">(c) include an explanation of how such matters will be implemented.</p><p class="italic">(3) The Minister must publish, on the Department's website, the national energy security strategy and plan.</p><p>This is a very simple amendment but a very important one. What it does is require the minister, whoever is in government, to table in each house of parliament on or before 30 June 2023 a national energy security strategy and plan.</p><p>I don't want to cast this in any political light and I don't want to pre-empt any particular solution, but there are some minimum requirements of the plan. It ought to tell us what's going to happen in the future, beyond 2027, noting that is the date in the legislation when refineries may choose to not continue operating. So the question is: If that occurs, what are you going to do? Are you going to put in place another program to encourage them to be here? Senator Hanson has suggested we look at building our own refineries or at least owning our own refineries. This is not prescriptive about the solution. It just says that the government ought to be able to lay out what the plan is.</p><p>It would make sense, for example, if we are in a situation where we don't have a lot of fuel and there is vulnerability in supply chains, to examine how we shift away from those fuels to other fuels or other forms of energy, such as electricity—for example, electric vehicles. How do we switch to new fuels like hydrogen or ammonia? The plan calls on the government to lay out, if we're going to transition away from fossil fuels, how that will be done in a sensible fashion. It would look at things like how we shift from road to rail if that is a way of reducing dependency on fuel. How do we shift to, perhaps, coastal shipping if, indeed, that reduces our dependency on fuel?</p><p>So this amendment requires the government to lay out a plan. I think most Australians would say, 'That's a pretty sensible thing, having an energy security strategy and plan.' The Australian public would expect nothing less of the government of the day than that it be able to say, 'This is how we're going to solve our energy security problems,' and offer up perhaps some cost-benefit analysis associated with options that are put on the table. Again, this is not prescriptive about what the solutions are; it just requires the government to lay out solutions. I ask the Senate to support this very sensible amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Zed Seselja</p><p>The government won't be supporting this amendment, as there are already a range of initiatives that focus on new and emerging technologies. The proposed amendments are beyond the scope and objects of the bill, which focuses on liquid fuel security. The government will continue to work closely with the refineries throughout the commitment period, to understand their ongoing pressures now and post-2027. There is already an agreed two-year review point built into the agreement with refineries. The bill and its legislative rules already consider matters beyond the initial 30 June 2027 period and provide a mechanism for refineries to extend their commitment and receive funding support until 30 June 2030.</p><p>The government is currently developing and consulting on a future fuels strategy that will set out the government's direction and actions to enable the private sector to commercially deploy low-emissions road transport technologies at scale. The government has a suite of additional policies to encourage the development of alternative energy sources, including the Future Fuels Strategy, the National Hydrogen Strategy, the Energy Security Board's post-2025 market design paper, Australia's long-term emissions reduction strategy and the Technology Investment Roadmap, which focuses on new and emerging low-emissions technologies.</p> <p class="speaker">Jenny McAllister</p><p>I will place on record the opposition's voting position. Senator Patrick did me the courtesy of coming to speak to me about his proposal, and I thank the senator for doing so. As has just been made clear, the government will not accept this amendment here and, I gather, did not accept it in the other place. These bills are vital. As I said earlier, these initiatives are well overdue. I was part of the PJCIS committee process that examined fuel security. It came to the conclusion in early 2018 that arrangements were entirely inadequate and requested that the government undertake a review of the adequacy of our fuel supplies. But, for the sake of Australia's fuel security and the workers at our two remaining refineries, we will not support this amendment, so as to facilitate the passage of these bills.</p><p>It is unfortunate, I observe, that the government's incompetent management of its own legislative agenda means the Senate cannot amend legislation in the usual way, because the government has chosen to bring this right up against its own deadlines.</p> <p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>The Greens will be supporting this. The minister's response, saying that the issues in this amendment are beyond the scope of the bill, goes to the very nub of the problem, which is that you can have a bill that gives up to $2 billion to fossil fuel companies—a subsidy to fossil fuel companies—without considering the broader scope of fuel security, without having a plan, obviously without having an electric vehicle strategy, without having any plan as to how you are going to reduce your need, the demand for those fuels. It is just incompetent governance. Then for the Labor Party to say that they are not supporting this amendment, because it is going to delay the passage of this bill, is just a complete cop out. As I said earlier, the government had the ability through regulation to give payments from the time of the budget, so we could have properly considered and debated this very far-reaching and very expensive legislation. We could and we should be considering very sensible amendments to this legislation. For Labor not to be supporting them, just because they are dancing to the government's tune, is completely appalling. What is the point of having an opposition?</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I'm quite disappointed at what's happened here. I sat and listened to all the speeches in the second reading debate. I listened to Senator McAllister, Senator Ayres and Senator Sheldon, who all criticised the government for its lack of organisation over the last two or three parliaments in managing our fuel security. Yet, when I put on the table a proposition that says, 'Lay out a plan,' there is no support for that concept. Senator McAllister mentioned the request of the PJCIS to look at fuel security. There is a document sitting on the minister's desk—from the Liquid Fuel Security Review—that has not been made available. That is the sort of thing that happens with this government. It is completely opaque in respect of advice that it receives and in respect of planning. Minister, if you say that all of these things are already coming together in different places, then just stick it in the one document.</p><p>And to the Labor Party: I don't buy the fact that, as you say, this holds up the bill. Just to be really clear on how this works—because clearly the opposition doesn't understand it—if you support this amendment tonight, the bill will then get passed, it will go back to the House with an amendment and then the House can debate it. In fact, Labor could stand up in the House and say: 'Do you know what? There ought to be a plan.' That could be dealt with tomorrow, and it could be back in this chamber by tomorrow afternoon. So to suggest that this amendment would hold up the legislation beyond this sitting week is actually deceptive; it's misleading. That's not how it works. Everyone needs to understand that.</p><p>The Labor Party could support this amendment. They say that in principle they agree that a plan ought to be put on the table. They know how the government will work if there's no legal requirement to do so, yet they suggest that they're not going to support this because the government won't be able to deal with it in the House tomorrow. It's just crazy, and it is disappointing. In order to be a government, you have to be a strong opposition first, and you have to realise that. Senator McAllister has engaged politely with me on this. I've also engaged with Mr Bowen in the other place.</p><p>Do you know what? Labor has to learn to stand up every once in a while—stand up and do the right thing. Don't pretend that procedurally this puts the bill at risk. It doesn't. It simply takes some courage. Anthony Albanese in this instance has failed. I didn't speak to Mr Albanese, but one presumes that this was at least discussed with him. We need to get a backbone from the opposition. We need to get the opposition standing up, being strong, supporting good legislation. This is a disgrace.</p> <p class="speaker">Slade Brockman</p><p>The question is that the amendment on sheet 1307, moved by Senator Patrick, be agreed to.</p><p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>I move my amendment on sheet 1296:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 46, page 37 (lines 23 to 27), omit the clause, substitute:</p><p class="italic">46 Publication of information</p><p class="italic">(1) The Minister must table in each House of the Parliament, as soon as practicable but no later than 15 sitting days after the end of each financial year, a statement relating to fuel security services payments made during that year.</p><p class="italic">(2) Without limiting subsection (1), the statement must include the following information:</p><p class="italic">(a) the total amount of fuel security services payment paid for quarters ending in each financial year;</p><p class="italic">(b) a list of each FSSP fuel for which a fuel security services payment was paid;</p><p class="italic">(c) for each fuel security services payment paid:</p><p class="italic">(i) the FSSP fuel for which the payment was paid; and</p><p class="italic">(ii) the amount of the fuel security services payment ; and</p><p class="italic">(iii) the number of litres of FSSP fuel refined; and</p><p class="italic">(iv) the number of cents paid per litre of FSSP fuel; and</p><p class="italic">(v) the name of the person paid;</p><p class="italic">(d) the total number of litres of each FSSP fuel for which a fuel security services payment was paid;</p><p class="italic">(e) any other information required by the rules.</p><p class="italic">(2) The Secretary must publish, on the Department's website, the Minister's statement under subsection (1).</p><p>This is really the minimal—absolutely minimal—set of accountability measures. As we've been saying, potentially up to $2 billion of taxpayers' money is being given to the oil refineries. We've got zero answers from the minister tonight, and also when I've asked questions in estimates, about the expectation of how much is going to be expended. This amendment would give at least a bit of accountability after the fact—asking for the basic figures as to how much is being handed out to the oil refineries to be tabled in parliament: a list of the fuel security service payments, when it was paid, what it was paid for, the number of litres refined, the number of cents per litre, the name of the person paid, the total number of litres of each type of fuel, and any other information. It's just a bit of basic accountability so that at least, even after the fact, we can have this basic knowledge of what our money—our subsidy to fossil fuels—is being spent on.</p> <p class="speaker">Zed Seselja</p><p>The government won't be supporting this Greens amendment. Provisions in the bill are sufficient to inform the Australian public about the payments made to refineries. Aggregated payment information will be published on the department's website quarterly. The bill also allows for legislative rules to include further information about these payments should it be considered appropriate. The rules will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The government will be able to ensure that only appropriate information is recorded and published and that commercially confidential information is not disclosed. There is a risk that commercial information could be disclosed through this amendment. Disaggregated data at the level proposed would likely pose commercial-in-confidence issues. It would give information about the amounts of different fuel types produced by the refineries which is not otherwise publicly available. The Petroleum and Other Fuels Reporting Act, which also legally protects this information, would also require amendments, and this would potentially delay the bill's passage. It's the government's intention that, through the rules, only the aggregated amount paid quarterly to both refineries would be published. The refineries are also required to report publicly to the ASX, which would include reporting payments from the government. The refineries report to the ASX at least twice a year.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|