Division Description Changes — Bills — Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023; in Committee — 28th Nov 2022

Change	Division
senate vote 2022-11-28#1 Edited by mackay staff on 2022-12-23 10:39:08	Title Bills — Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2022-2023, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023; in Committee Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2022-2023 and two others - in Committee - Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct Description ~~<p class="speaker">Dorinda Cox</p>~~ ~~<p>I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1770:</p>~~ The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2022-11-28.6.1) introduced by West Australian Senator [Dorinda Cox](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/dorinda_cox) (Greens), which means it failed. ### Amendment text > (1) Page 6 (after line 30), at the end of Part 2, add: > > 11A Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in the Northern Territory > > No amount appropriated by this Act is to be spent on equity investment for the development of the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in the Northern Territory, including common use marine infrastructure and regional logistic hubs, as described on page 163 of Budget Paper No. 2 2022-23, which was tabled in both Houses of the Parliament on 25 October 2022. ### What is the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct? According to [ABC News](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-26/nt-federal-budget-middle-arm-art-gallery/101575594), the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct is: > where the NT government has proposed an industrial precinct featuring petrochemicals, minerals processing and renewables-based hydrogen. > > The project, which is expected to include a jetty and other "common user marine infrastructure", was initially backed by the former Morrison government, which allocated the same funding over 10 years in its budget earlier this year. > > Labor has described the precinct as a "a pathway to a decarbonised economy", but environmentalists have been highly critical of its expected use of fracked gas. Though note a [more recent report](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-26/nt-petrochemicals-deleted-middle-arm-website-greenwashing/101700374) stated that: > The Northern Territory government has been accused of "greenwashing" after removing the term "petrochemicals" from its official documents about a new industrial hub on Darwin Harbour. > > The yet-to-be developed site at Middle Arm — which received a $1.5 billion funding commitment in the federal budget — was previously promoted by the NT as a site for "low emission petrochemicals, renewable hydrogen and minerals processing". > > But after environmentalists launched a campaign against the planned use of gas for some manufacturing at the site, Chief Minister Natasha Fyles said "mistruths" were being spread. > > "This is not a petrochemical plant," Ms Fyles said earlier this month. > > "This is a sustainable future project that is based on renewable energy into the future." > > Her comments were at odds with multiple online government documents which referred to petrochemicals as being among the mix of industries, including renewables and minerals, that could be developed at the precinct. > > But the term "petrochemicals" has now been scrubbed from many of those documents, while a new official website promoting the precinct features no references to the term. <p class="italic">(1) Page 6 (after line 30), at the end of Part 2, add:</p> ~~<p class="italic">11A Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in the Northern Territory</p>~~ <p class="italic">No amount appropriated by this Act is to be spent on equity investment for the development of the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in the Northern Territory, including common use marine infrastructure and regional logistic hubs, as described on page 163 of Budget Paper No. 2 2022-23, which was tabled in both Houses of the Parliament on 25 October 2022.</p> <p>This was a very clear opportunity for this government to do the right thing by Australians. As I said in my speech, this is their first budget—six months into their first term, after being in opposition for nearly a decade, listening to the coalition hand out money left, right and centre to their mates and to big business and fossil fuel companies to shore up their donations for every election, to make sure that that continued. The Australian public thought that at this last election they had an opportunity to put a government in place that would look after them, that would see public money going to public services for their benefit of Australians, not for public money to be propping up fossil fuel projects when the world is saying, 'Do not open up any more coal or gas projects.'</p> <p>This government are deaf to that. They are continuing not to listen to the science, not to listen to the experts, not to listen to anybody and to continue the legacy of those opposite, who gave out all the money to start with. They just came into government in May, sailed in and continued that legacy, continued to give out the public's money to these fossil fuel companies and then take the language off their websites so no-one will question that—greenwash the language to continue the dirty fossil fuel industry that is continuing to thrive when their own cabinet minister says that the gluttony of greed it what's driving the gas prices in this country; that is what's happening.</p> <p>So, we've got the good-cop bad-cop scenario happening over here at Labor. One cabinet minister says one thing and another says a different thing. They say, 'We want net zero.' Well, when? When are you going to transition this industry? When are you going to put renewable infrastructure in place? You have an opportunity to do that by not continuing to expand fossil fuel projects in this country, and Middle Arm is the prime example of that.</p> <p>We have an opportunity today to vote for the Australian people, who want to see their money used in the right way. They want to hold Labor to account. That's what we're doing here on the crossbench: making sure that those folks watching out there understand the amount of money that is being provided in this equity fund to Santos and other companies who had record profits in the first quarter of this year, and government is still giving them our money.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">James McGrath</p>~~ <p>The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. This is typical of the Australian Greens. In a budget delivered by Labor that shows that gas prices and energy prices will rise, the Greens want to reduce the supply of gas. The Greens talked about doing the right things by Australians. Well, the right thing to do to stand by Australians is to make sure they have affordable electricity in 2023 going onwards. Stopping the development of gas supply in this country will mean that electricity and power prices will go up. The Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct is a resource-rich area that can deliver additional energy and minerals through a new gas reserve as well as critical mineral reserves, including copper and lithium, which are necessary to build the batteries that will assist in the supply of renewable energy. It will also have optimal carbon dioxide emissions opportunities. That is what the project is about. This is a project that was pushed by the former coalition government. It is an idea that was pushed by the ministers and by the CLP in the Northern Territory. It is something that will benefit all of Australia.</p> <p>So, it is disappointing that the Greens are so detached from reality that they're attempting to torpedo a project that presents an opportunity to create jobs and will assist in securing Australia's energy supply into the future. We will not be supporting this amendment.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p>~~ <p>The government will provide $1.9 billion in planned equity to support the development of the Middle Arm precinct. We will do that together with regional logistics hubs along key transport lists. This is not a subsidy for fossil fuels; this is serious commitment to industrial infrastructure in that region.</p> <p>Now, the difference between us and the Greens political party on these questions is that what the government sets out to do is to reduce emissions, consistent with the targets that we've set—the targets that we took to the election, the targets that we have a mandate to introduce, the targets that were supported by the most sophisticated economic modelling done by an opposition party coming into government. Now, what we intend to do is, yes, to reduce emissions and, yes, to put downward pressure on the price of power, but the thing that's missing from the Greens party's position here—it's one of the key areas of difference—is, of course, that we intend to press on with the industrial diversification of the Australian economy. That means that more blue collared jobs in regional areas. That means more industrial diversification.</p> ~~<p class="italic">The CHAIR: Senator Cox, you can repechage when I give you the call.</p>~~ <p>That means more factories, more manufacturing. That means investing in the technologies and the industrial infrastructure that will mean we will have the capacity to export green hydrogen and have the capacity to feed into global supply chains.</p> <p>You can't have it both ways. What we intend to do is to invest in this kind of infrastructure that supports that kind of industrial development. Now, I know some people don't like industrial development. They don't like factories. They don't like manufacturing. But this government is determined to press on with this, and on that basis, but also on the basis that I outlined in the summing up speech at the end of the second reading debate, I urge the Senate to reject the amendment.</p> ~~<p class="italic">The CHAIR: Senator Cox, do you want the call?</p>~~ ~~<p class="speaker">Dorinda Cox</p>~~ ~~<p>It's not even worth it.</p>~~ <p class="italic">T he CHAIR: Does any other honourable senator wish to make a contribution? I'm intending to put the question, so, if any honourable senator wishes to make a contribution, please do so now. As no honourable senator has indicated that they wish to make a contribution, I will put the question. The question before the committee is that Australian Greens amendment (1) standing in the name of Senator Cox on sheet 1770 be agreed to.</p> ~~<p></p>~~ ~~<p></p>~~

~~Dorinda Cox~~
~~I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1770:~~
The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2022-11-28.6.1) introduced by West Australian Senator [Dorinda Cox](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/dorinda_cox) (Greens), which means it failed.
### Amendment text
> *(1) Page 6 (after line 30), at the end of Part 2, add:*
>
> *11A Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in the Northern Territory*
>
> *No amount appropriated by this Act is to be spent on equity investment for the development of the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in the Northern Territory, including common use marine infrastructure and regional logistic hubs, as described on page 163 of Budget Paper No. 2 2022-23, which was tabled in both Houses of the Parliament on 25 October 2022.*
### What is the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct?
According to [ABC News](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-26/nt-federal-budget-middle-arm-art-gallery/101575594), the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct is:
> *where the NT government has proposed an industrial precinct featuring petrochemicals, minerals processing and renewables-based hydrogen.*
>
> *The project, which is expected to include a jetty and other "common user marine infrastructure", was initially backed by the former Morrison government, which allocated the same funding over 10 years in its budget earlier this year.*
>
> *Labor has described the precinct as a "a pathway to a decarbonised economy", but environmentalists have been highly critical of its expected use of fracked gas.*
Though note a [more recent report](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-11-26/nt-petrochemicals-deleted-middle-arm-website-greenwashing/101700374) stated that:
> *The Northern Territory government has been accused of "greenwashing" after removing the term "petrochemicals" from its official documents about a new industrial hub on Darwin Harbour.*
>
> *The yet-to-be developed site at Middle Arm — which received a $1.5 billion funding commitment in the federal budget — was previously promoted by the NT as a site for "low emission petrochemicals, renewable hydrogen and minerals processing".*
>
> *But after environmentalists launched a campaign against the planned use of gas for some manufacturing at the site, Chief Minister Natasha Fyles said "mistruths" were being spread.*
>
> *"This is not a petrochemical plant," Ms Fyles said earlier this month.*
>
> *"This is a sustainable future project that is based on renewable energy into the future."*
>
> *Her comments were at odds with multiple online government documents which referred to petrochemicals as being among the mix of industries, including renewables and minerals, that could be developed at the precinct.*
>
> *But the term "petrochemicals" has now been scrubbed from many of those documents, while a new official website promoting the precinct features no references to the term.*
(1) Page 6 (after line 30), at the end of Part 2, add:
~~11A Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in the Northern Territory~~
No amount appropriated by this Act is to be spent on equity investment for the development of the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in the Northern Territory, including common use marine infrastructure and regional logistic hubs, as described on page 163 of Budget Paper No. 2 2022-23, which was tabled in both Houses of the Parliament on 25 October 2022.
This was a very clear opportunity for this government to do the right thing by Australians. As I said in my speech, this is their first budget—six months into their first term, after being in opposition for nearly a decade, listening to the coalition hand out money left, right and centre to their mates and to big business and fossil fuel companies to shore up their donations for every election, to make sure that that continued. The Australian public thought that at this last election they had an opportunity to put a government in place that would look after them, that would see public money going to public services for their benefit of Australians, not for public money to be propping up fossil fuel projects when the world is saying, 'Do not open up any more coal or gas projects.'
This government are deaf to that. They are continuing not to listen to the science, not to listen to the experts, not to listen to anybody and to continue the legacy of those opposite, who gave out all the money to start with. They just came into government in May, sailed in and continued that legacy, continued to give out the public's money to these fossil fuel companies and then take the language off their websites so no-one will question that—greenwash the language to continue the dirty fossil fuel industry that is continuing to thrive when their own cabinet minister says that the gluttony of greed it what's driving the gas prices in this country; that is what's happening.
So, we've got the good-cop bad-cop scenario happening over here at Labor. One cabinet minister says one thing and another says a different thing. They say, 'We want net zero.' Well, when? When are you going to transition this industry? When are you going to put renewable infrastructure in place? You have an opportunity to do that by not continuing to expand fossil fuel projects in this country, and Middle Arm is the prime example of that.
We have an opportunity today to vote for the Australian people, who want to see their money used in the right way. They want to hold Labor to account. That's what we're doing here on the crossbench: making sure that those folks watching out there understand the amount of money that is being provided in this equity fund to Santos and other companies who had record profits in the first quarter of this year, and government is still giving them our money.
~~James McGrath~~
The opposition will not be supporting this amendment. This is typical of the Australian Greens. In a budget delivered by Labor that shows that gas prices and energy prices will rise, the Greens want to reduce the supply of gas. The Greens talked about doing the right things by Australians. Well, the right thing to do to stand by Australians is to make sure they have affordable electricity in 2023 going onwards. Stopping the development of gas supply in this country will mean that electricity and power prices will go up. The Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct is a resource-rich area that can deliver additional energy and minerals through a new gas reserve as well as critical mineral reserves, including copper and lithium, which are necessary to build the batteries that will assist in the supply of renewable energy. It will also have optimal carbon dioxide emissions opportunities. That is what the project is about. This is a project that was pushed by the former coalition government. It is an idea that was pushed by the ministers and by the CLP in the Northern Territory. It is something that will benefit all of Australia.
So, it is disappointing that the Greens are so detached from reality that they're attempting to torpedo a project that presents an opportunity to create jobs and will assist in securing Australia's energy supply into the future. We will not be supporting this amendment.
~~Tim Ayres~~
The government will provide $1.9 billion in planned equity to support the development of the Middle Arm precinct. We will do that together with regional logistics hubs along key transport lists. This is not a subsidy for fossil fuels; this is serious commitment to industrial infrastructure in that region.
Now, the difference between us and the Greens political party on these questions is that what the government sets out to do is to reduce emissions, consistent with the targets that we've set—the targets that we took to the election, the targets that we have a mandate to introduce, the targets that were supported by the most sophisticated economic modelling done by an opposition party coming into government. Now, what we intend to do is, yes, to reduce emissions and, yes, to put downward pressure on the price of power, but the thing that's missing from the Greens party's position here—it's one of the key areas of difference—is, of course, that we intend to press on with the industrial diversification of the Australian economy. That means that more blue collared jobs in regional areas. That means more industrial diversification.
~~The CHAIR: Senator Cox, you can repechage when I give you the call.~~
That means more factories, more manufacturing. That means investing in the technologies and the industrial infrastructure that will mean we will have the capacity to export green hydrogen and have the capacity to feed into global supply chains.
You can't have it both ways. What we intend to do is to invest in this kind of infrastructure that supports that kind of industrial development. Now, I know some people don't like industrial development. They don't like factories. They don't like manufacturing. But this government is determined to press on with this, and on that basis, but also on the basis that I outlined in the summing up speech at the end of the second reading debate, I urge the Senate to reject the amendment.
~~The CHAIR: Senator Cox, do you want the call?~~
~~Dorinda Cox~~
~~It's not even worth it.~~
T he CHAIR: Does any other honourable senator wish to make a contribution? I'm intending to put the question, so, if any honourable senator wishes to make a contribution, please do so now. As no honourable senator has indicated that they wish to make a contribution, I will put the question. The question before the committee is that Australian Greens amendment (1) standing in the name of Senator Cox on sheet 1770 be agreed to.
~~~~
~~~~