Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Strategic Reserve) Bill 2026
Senator CANAVAN (Queensland—Leader of the Nationals) (19:18): Okay. Well, that's nice and clear—clear as day. Here we are.
The government now wants to subsidise the importation of fossil fuels, yet just four months ago it said, 'No, we don't need them.' This government's strategy when it comes to energy is clear as mud. One day, one minister is over at a climate conference saying that all of this stuff needs to go and we all need to transition away from it in a just way, whatever that means for the people who work in this industry.
A just transition sounds so corporate, as if you're being euthanased to sleep. A just transition—great! That's what the government's plan is.
You just heard it. You just heard the minister confirm he doesn't see a future for you if you work in the coal, oil or gas industries of this country. We now realise--unfortunately, we had to learn this lesson, and are learning this lesson, through the school of hard knocks—that we actually do need these people.
They do make our world go round. They do keep the lights on for us, and every now and again perhaps we should say thank you to those hardworking men and women. As I like to say, people in those industries have to shower after work.
Most of us would have had a shower before we came to work this morning. We leave this place still smelling pretty good, not really having raised a sweat today, unlike the people who work on offshore oil rigs, which is one of the most dangerous jobs on planet Earth and is very, very hard work in confined circumstances. They deserve all the pay they get.
They get paid well. They deserve it all, but they don't get thankyous very much—not from this place. They don't get any sort of gratitude from the modern Labor Party, and it's very sad.
As you just heard, the modern Labor Party does want to end their jobs and wants a just transition for them to—I don't know—some kind of barista or retail work. I think those men and women are pretty happy out on the rigs. The answer that the government has just provided does raise another question here.
Just last week, the government signed an Australia-EU free trade deal. The minister knows this deal very well, of course, being also the shadow trade minister. In that deal, the government signed— Senator Farrell: I am the trade minister.
Senator CANAVAN: Yes; you're also the investment minister and the tourism minister as well. I realise that, Minister. I hope the minister knows very well what he's signed.
The government released a text tonight, I think. I haven't had a chance to look at that. But the government did release a number of fact sheets last week, including one on environment and climate.
In that fact sheet, they mention that the government will cooperate with the European Union on ending what is called inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. It seems a little bit incongruous that just a week ago the government was cuddling up to the European Union, saying: 'We won't subsidise fossil fuel production anymore. We have no need for that.' Last week, when the European Union president was here, it was all about clean energy and this wonderful future of renewable energy that we keep getting promised that will sometime arrive.
But then, just a week later, the government is introducing emergency legislation to—guess what?—subsidise the importation of fossil fuels, not from here but from other countries. So what is it? Is the government Arthur or Martha when it comes to the production of fossil fuels?
Do they support the production of fossil fuels, or are they lining up with the European Union to say that we shouldn't support it at all? I'm struggling to work this out. I'm sure that those who do work hard in the oil and gas industries are struggling to understand whether they have the support of the government or not.
In one week, the government sign an international agreement saying: 'We're not going to support you. We're going to end support for you.' We just heard that they government are going to 'just transition' away from you. But then, the very next week, they're rushing in emergency legislation to do the exact opposite.
So the question for the minister now is this: does the minister remain committed to the agreement that was signed with the European Union to end fossil fuel subsidies? If so, how does that provide any certainty to those that would seek to use this legislation to bring in fossil fuels to the country? If you're committed to not supporting them, how can they trust you to support them with long-term contracts which reduce the risk to them in importing fossil fuels?
Senator Farrell: Yes, the government remains committed to everything that we have agreed to in the new European Union-Australia free trade agreement. Senator CANAVAN: Again, this provides zero clarity to people. The minister can't even explain the incongruity.
There's a clear inconsistency here with the government's approaches from one week to the next. They can't stay on an agenda here. I might return to some of the other specific changes that have been made in recent years here.
As I mentioned earlier in my speech on the second reading and, I think, earlier in the committee stage, we do know what the government, the Labor Party, did last summer. We're not silly. We didn't come down in the last shower.
Just last year, the government made a number of changes to this very piece of legislation we're amending tonight, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act. The government made changes to the statement of expectations of Export Finance Australia, which did severely restrict EFA from supporting fossil fuel production. Again, it seems a bit strange that just a year ago the government sought to prohibit, cancel or otherwise restrict investment in fossil fuels and then, just a year later, have to turn around and try to unwind the unwise amendments they made.
In particular, the government in its Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments) Bill did change this act, the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act, to insert what is known as section 23C. I'll just read out the title of this section the government put in, which is pretty plain. It says 'Approval required before providing services or products to finance certain coal, crude oil or natural gas activities'.
It goes on to say that finance cannot be provided under this part. I'll just read out one of these, which is quite broad. Under subsection (c), anything that directly finances 'investments for the sole purpose of the use of coal, crude oil or natural gas' is restricted.
We know from Senate estimates that this can include anything, even just supplying products to an oil industry. Somebody might produce valves or something. If they supplied to the oil industry, because often they're needing a lot of valves, they can't get finance from EFA anymore under the provision, at least under the commercial account.
What the government seems to be relying on here, from my understanding from the briefings they've given us—I should say thank you to the government for briefing us on this. As I said, we will facilitate this passage, but there's a broader important point to make about the long-term energy security of this country, whatever happens in the next few weeks. The government here has effectively restricted EFA—this is my understanding—from using what's called its commercial account to finance pretty much anything that involves the coal, oil or gas supply chain.
But it's relying now on the National Interest Account to potentially make these investments to scramble around and get whatever boats we can to come into the country because we no longer produce much oil ourselves anymore. My question here, Minister, is why aren't you—is my understanding right here that these new arrangements to fill the strategic reserve can only be made from the National Interest Account?
Secondly, does that National Interest Account require ministerial approval for every contract entered into? That's my reading of this act. It's a bit clumsy that the EFA has to go to the minister every time to seek approval.
It doesn't really have the flexibility here, in a fast-moving environment, to act quickly. Thirdly, why hasn't the government sought to simply take off the green handcuffs from EFA and remove section 23C, which has only been there for a year. That would at least allow it to use this commercial account, which, in my understanding, doesn't need ministerial approval every time.
We could more flexibly respond to this huge crisis. Our view here on this side is that we want to help you. We want the elected government of this country to have the unfettered ability to solve this crisis to secure liquid fuels for our country.
We don't want a minister of the Crown to have these green handcuffs placed on them that would otherwise in any way inhibit the ability to solve this crisis. As I say, we are trying to cooperate here. Again, I appreciate the briefings.
I will be moving an amendment later which would help you. It'd give you more power. We're looking to give you, the Labor government, more power because what we need now is quick action and quick decisions to keep this country moving.
Minister, is this only available in the National Interest Account, and have you consider removing this so you can just use everything in your power to get things done?