Kate Chaney
Curtin · Independent · Australia
“Digital platforms will have a legal responsibility to prevent harm, but the design of this commitment matters enormously, and I want to flag three things that the government must get right. First, there must be a single overarching duty.”
“The government gave stakeholders representing millions of Australians affected by gambling harm a single 45-minute consultation session on the exposure draft, with written submissions due the next day. Emeritus Professor Mike Daube, who took part in that session, described it afterwards as a charade.”
“A doctor who uses the phone, internet, fax, email or video conferencing to provide lawful VAD care risks prosecution and fines greater than $300,000. This means seriously ill patients must attend every consultation in person, travelling long distances while gravely unwell, often more than once, to make and confirm their request.”
“I rise to present a petition signed by more than 13,000 Australians. The petition has been considered by the Petitions Committee and found to be in order. It calls on this House to amend the Criminal Code Act so that it no longer applies to voluntary assisted dying, VAD.”
“She lived in one half of a single house divided into two separate dwellings. She got on well with the quiet single working man next door. This particular morning she was devastated and in shock. The man had hung himself in the shed where she found him, and left a note listing all the people he owed money to including the amounts.”
“No avenue to call up customer service at these companies and request this person be denied an account. Our nightmare never ends. There's nowhere to help us. The only option presented seems to dissolve the marriage and the family.”
The complete record
Every one of 846 lines we hold for Kate Chaney, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 17.
“I welcome the increased funding to be distributed from the Medical Research Future Fund. The research institutes in Curtin are world class, and I look forward to them receiving some of this additional funding we fought for to continue their great work. I cannot stand here and pretend that this budget is not without some failings. The most glaring missed opportunity is gas taxation. So many constituents have written to me about this. We export vast quantities of liquefied natural gas, and the Australian people receive a fraction of what they deserve for these publicly owned resources. Less than half a day of proper taxes on gas exports could have funded $10 million for food pantries desperate to keep Australians fed. That's the choice that this government has made, and it's the wrong one.”
“There's currently huge variability in how much tax our top earners pay, depending on how they structure their affairs. It isn't fair that trusts can pay significantly lower tax than working Australians. On housing more broadly, the $2 billion investment in enabling infrastructure to support 75,000 new homes is a step forward. The $59 million for community housing providers to address youth homelessness is something I specifically raised in this chamber, and I'm glad to see action here. On aged care, following my representations to the minister, the government will now fund a wider range of personal care services, including showering free of charge under the Support at Home program. That matters enormously to older Australians and their families in my electorate and across the country.”
“These are meaningful reforms that will help level the playing field for first home buyers, who've been competing with tax advantaged investors for too long. There are still some unintended consequences of this change that need to be addressed. We're facing a huge productivity challenge, and we need to ensure that changing the CGT discount doesn't reduce investment in new businesses and startups that are so vital to our productivity. I also welcome the reform to trust distributions, which will now attract a minimum tax rate of 30 per cent. The number of discretionary trusts in this country has doubled in 20 years. This change won't affect primary production income, but it will reduce the incentive to create complicated structures to avoid tax.”
“Yesterday the Treasurer handed down this government's annual budget, and I want to talk today about what it means for the people of Curtin and for Australia. Let me start with what I welcome. After four years of pushing for genuine tax reform, four years of being told it was political suicide to even raise the subject, we finally have action on capital gains tax and negative gearing. And I want to acknowledge every single constituent who wrote to me, who attended one of the three community events where we discussed this and who refused to let this issue be buried. The capital gains tax discount will move to an inflation adjusted indexation model so that only real gains are taxed. Negative gearing will be limited to new homes from July 2027, with grandfather provisions for existing investors.”
“My question is to the Treasurer. I support the capital gains tax reform for housing, but my community and I are concerned about its impact on the startup sector, which contributes significantly to productivity. The reforms announced could undermine investment in innovative, high-risk, early-stage businesses. I acknowledge your commitment to consult with stakeholders on this issue. Could you outline the consultation process and whether the government is considering a carve-out for early-stage businesses?”
“This is a question for the Attorney-General. It's coming up to a decade since the implementation of the robodebt scheme, but there's still no mandatory framework for the use of automated decision-making in government. There are now real community concerns about the use of automated decisions in aged care and the NDIS. You engaged in a community consultation on automated decision-making well over a year ago. When can we expect to see a legislated and mandatory framework for automated decision-making in government to prevent a repeat of robodebt?”
“But we need a clear framework for the use of automation to prevent a repeat of robodebt. This framework must be legislated and mandatory for government. It must include transparency requirements so Australians can understand automated decisions that affect them. It must include decision-level controls so that government gets the decisions right. And it must embed provisions for review and oversight so Australians can be confident that the government is following the rules for automated decision-making. This is how we get automated decision-making right. This is how we unlock government decisions that are fairer and faster.”
“After robodebt wrongly accused hundreds of thousands of Australians of being in debt, this government promised that it would never let something like this happen again. Now, the government is rolling out tools for automation in aged care and the NDIS, so that your level of support is determined by an automated tool and human assessors are not allowed to change or override a decision even if they think it's wrong. This comes more than two years after the robodebt royal commission recommended a legislated framework for automated decision-making in government and clear transparency and oversight. Despite the gravity of getting this wrong, the government has not acted on this recommendation. I'm not arguing against the use of automated tools. Done well, automation can help government move faster and be more efficient.”
“Plus, these gas companies should know that the deal they're getting is too good to be true. This is a solvable problem. There are options that could ensure Aussies get their fair share, without crushing an industry that will remain important for WA and Australia for some decades whether we like it or not. The best option will be simple, with limited loopholes, and will ensure Australians capture a fair proportion of the value of our gas during both crisis and normal periods. The solutions exist. What is needed is the political will to ensure that our resources truly work in the public interest—not just for a fortunate few, but for every Australian.”
“Sharing the upside could be done in a few different ways: by fixing the PRRT; by introducing a targeted windfall-profits tax; or through a two-way cash-flow tax, with the government sharing both upside and downside. Now, the hardest thing about changing the tax treatment of these big gas projects is the purported sovereign risk. Investment decisions were made based on an expectation, at the time, that the tax treatment wouldn't change. We need investors for big projects in Australia if we're going to make the most of the new energy opportunities ahead of us, and we don't want investors to back off because we change our tax position all the time. Certainty is needed. But the sovereign-risk argument is often overstated by gas companies. We are a stable, rule-of-law democracy, with world-class resources.”
“Because deductions are so generous and uplift indefinitely, many gas projects have never paid PRRT and likely never will. The Commonwealth collects more revenue from beer excise than it does from the PRRT. So what do we do about it? Well, we can agree that Australians must get their fair share for their resources, but we must be careful that changes don't cripple an industry currently vital for WA and Australia. There are a range of reform options available. Gas companies need to either pay for all the gas they extract and sell overseas, because it's our gas, or share the upside from external shocks, like war, more fairly with Australians, or a bit of both.”
“First, other major fossil-fuel-exporting countries typically capture between 75 and 90 per cent of profits from fossil fuel companies for the public. Australia captures less than 30 per cent. Second, since the price of gas surged from the war in Ukraine, the gas exporters have made windfall profits approaching $100 billion. Much of that profit was earned on royalty-free gas, and little PRRT was paid. At best, around $20 billion was collected in company tax. In proportional terms, nurses, teachers, tradies and truck drivers pay a higher effective tax rate than these companies. In Australia, the petroleum resource rent tax was meant to address both the problem of not paying for our gas and the superprofits problem, but it has failed comprehensively. The PRRT scheme was designed for oil projects, not gas projects.”
“Secondly, Australians do not capture our fair share of upside when prices surge. Economists across the political spectrum agree that it's sound policy to tax economic rents—the superprofits that arise from unexpected price spikes. Taxing economic rents does not discourage investment or production because companies still earn an acceptable return. These two problems mean that the only way Australians get a benefit from gas exports is through the company tax system. When gas companies make more profit, they pay more company tax. This is important but not enough. The gas companies do not pay for their use of our resources, and they do not share in the unexpected windfall of international price spikes. Two facts make this point.”
“I thank the member for Mackellar for raising this matter of public importance. Australia is the second-largest exporter of liquefied natural gas in the world. When international gas prices go up, you'd expect a country like Australia to benefit. But, when prices spike, Australians are not receiving their fair share of the upside. There are two fundamental problems with the tax system applying to our gas exports. Firstly, gas exporters largely do not pay Australians for the gas they extract and sell. This gas belongs to the Australian people. For most resources—coal, iron ore or onshore gas—companies pay royalties for the rights to use it, but most gas exports are subject to no royalties. That means vast quantities of Australian gas are sold overseas without Australians receiving a direct return for the resource itself.”
“In rural and remote Australia, it's often the only way to access specialist care. For people who are seriously ill or frail, Telehealth can prevent unnecessary suffering. Tragically, some people in regional WA have died without access to VAD or endured exhausting travel because telehealth is unavailable. Australia is the only country to criminalise telehealth in VAD. The fix is simple: amend the law to clarify that VAD is not suicide. I urge the government to act so no Australian is denied dignity at the end of life because of where they live.”
“Voluntary assisted dying, or VAD, is now an established part of Australia's health system. Every state and the ACT have legislated for it, with the Northern Territory expected to follow this year. Yet as the 2026 S tate of VAD report to be launched tomorrow highlights, significant barriers remain for people eligible to access it. Today, I want to focus on one key barrier—one with a simple solution which I first raised more than two years ago through a private member's bill but which remains unresolved. Outdated provisions in the Commonwealth Criminal Code mean clinicians risk criminal liability for using telehealth to provide lawful VAD care. Patients must therefore attend all consultations in person, and doctors fear prosecution if they mention VAD during a telehealth appointment. Telehealth is an essential part of modern healthcare.”
“This is about ensuring that scarce public resources aren't reinforcing outcomes that work against farmers, against resilience and against long-term competitiveness. I commend the motion to the Chamber.”
“Above that cap—$50 million—credits are still available but only if they're reinvested in reducing diesel use through electrification or other decarbonisation measures. This change would incentivise mining companies to reduce their reliance on a volatile international diesel market. Decarbonising mining operations would make our economy more resilient to shocks like the Iran conflict. On last year's figures, this reform would affect only about 15 companies. Farmers, small businesses and most regional operators would not be affected. It would make the scheme fairer in a fuel constrained market, reduce pressure on diesel supply chains and bring tax settings into closer alignment with stated climate goals.”
“With diesel supply chains tightening, this policy is actively shaping who gets access to fuel and at what price. Right now, that policy favours the biggest players in the market, and it does so at a time when farmers, truckers and everyday Australians who genuinely depend on diesel and often have no alternatives are under pressure. This motion is not suggesting that we remove fuel tax credit support for farmers or small businesses. Many have no viable alternatives to diesel today. They should not be asked to carry the burden of reform, especially at a time like this. The proposal put forward by the member for Bradfield is modest and targeted. It places a cap on how much diesel fuel tax credit a single company can receive.”
“Their ability to get diesel at all can depend on what's left. The concentration of this scheme is extraordinary. In the most recent year of available data, just 15 mining and freight companies received almost $3 billion in diesel fuel tax credits. Those companies burned close to six billion litres of diesel in one year, and these 15 companies made up 25 per cent of total fuel tax credit claims. This is in a scheme with over 170,000 businesses buying diesel and claiming tax credits. So, while Australians are doing it tough at the bowser and copping huge prices, BHP is being given $600 million in taxpayers' funds for its use of diesel. Billions of dollars are going to some of the world's biggest companies while Aussies are doing it tough.”
“The war in Iran is demonstrating how exposed we are to volatile and concentrated global fossil fuel markets with geopolitical instability. If we were further on our way to decarbonisation, we would not be so exposed. Continuing to effectively subsidise diesel for mining companies delays investment in electrification and in cleaner alternatives that would strengthen energy security over the long term. The second problem with the current fuel tax credit structure is that the scheme in its current form favours mining companies over farmers, truckers and small businesses when fuel supply is tight, like it is now. A small farmer cannot secure bulk contracts or hedge price risk or stockpile fuel in the same way a major mining company can. When supply tightens, farmers become price takers.”
“Under the safeguard mechanism, there's an effective carbon cost of $30 to $40 a tonne, but the diesel fuel tax credit amounts to an effective subsidy of about $190 per tonne of carbon pollution from diesel use. That is more than five times the decarbonisation incentive created by the safeguard mechanism. So, for the very large diesel users, we have a weak incentive to decarbonise and a strong incentive not to. In one year, the diesel rebated under this scheme produced more emissions than the combined emissions from all of Australia's planes, buses and trains. That is extraordinary. The rest of us are working hard to do the right thing, but at the same time we're making it cheaper for big polluters to keep polluting than to decarbonise. Right now, we're seeing another good reason to decarbonise.”
“I'm here to talk about the diesel fuel tax credit scheme, which I think the previous member didn't actually mention in her speech. The diesel fuel tax credit scheme is increasingly hard to justify in its current form. This is a policy that affects farmers, miners, transport operators and small businesses but not evenly. There are two main problems with it. Firstly, it discourages decarbonisation. Secondly, when fuel supply is tight, it disproportionately benefits mining companies over farmers. Firstly, on the decarbonisation problem, Australia now has a safeguard mechanism to encourage large emitters to reduce pollution but a diesel fuel tax credit to effectively subsidise pollution, and the incentive to keep polluting is much greater than the incentive to reduce pollution.”
“No marine protected area can fully insulate its ecosystems from a warming ocean. If we're serious about the goals of this treaty, then we must also be serious about reducing our emissions. Thirdly, there's sustained leadership for Oceania neighbours. Leadership in this context means more than showing up to international conferences such as the Pacific Islands Forum. Instead, it's capacity building, technology and information sharing, and maintaining open and inclusive channels for dialogue. We must prove that we're a leader in ocean governance, not the reluctant, delayed signatory we've sometimes appeared to be. I'm proud to advocate for and support this bill. It's a significant step in the right direction, providing a strong legal foundation for responsible stewardship of our global high seas. I commend the bill to the House.”
“There's also a compelling case for cooperation with neighbouring states to progress protection of key areas in the eastern Indian Ocean, where high seas waters connect directly with Australia's marine parks and support migratory species including whales, turtles, sharks and seabirds. Establishing well-designed science-based marine protected areas in these regions would support biodiversity, safeguard migratory pathways and strengthen the ecological resilience of ocean systems that flow directly into Australian waters. Secondly, there's committing to ongoing climate action to underpin biodiversity protection. The high seas treaty is a powerful tool, but it cannot succeed in isolation. Marine biodiversity is under threat not only from direct exploitation but from the cascading effects of climate change.”
“The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; the Australian Maritime Safety Authority; and scientific agencies must be properly equipped to act. Playing a leading role in implementation also means identifying priority areas for protection. Australia is particularly well placed to work with others to advance proposals for high-seas marine protected areas in regions of clear ecological significance and connectivity to our own waters. These include areas such as the South Tasman Sea and the Lord Howe Rise, between Australia and New Zealand, which are recognised biodiversity hot spots and have been identified by scientists and conservation experts as strong candidates for high seas protection.”
“The Australian people do deserve more decisive, clear leadership on environmental protection. Passing this bill is an essential next step in Australia's continuing commitment to responsible ocean governance, so where do we go from here? I believe there are three critical ways forward. Firstly, there's leading on implementation as we initially led on negotiation. Australia must now invest the resources, the institutional capacity and the political will to ensure that this treaty delivers its intended outcomes. The upcoming federal budget must include dedicated resourcing for Australia's obligations under this treaty, including for the regulatory frameworks needed to conduct environmental impact assessments.”
“I hope that this spirit of cooperation can continue to guide environmental and climate reform in this place. While I wholeheartedly welcome this treaty into domestic law, Australia's ratification is seriously overdue. Despite being a champion in the negotiating room, as well as being one of the first countries to sign the treaty in 2023, we were not among the first 60 nations to ratify the agreement. Our absence from this group of first-movers is significant, as their support was required to trigger the actual entry into force of the international commitment. We may have missed out on a valuable opportunity to shape the norms and operating institutions of the treaty body. Our slowness to approve created a confusing, indefensible position in which we'd helped to write a treaty that we'd not ourselves agreed to be bound by.”
“I also want to acknowledge something that is too rarely celebrated in this place, which is multi-partisan collaboration. Australia has spearheaded treaty negotiations over nearly two decades under both Labor and Liberal governments. Throughout multiple rounds of intergovernmental conferences at the UN, evidence based diplomatic dialogue and the final agreement reached in New York in March 2023, sustained Australian engagement from both sides of politics has helped to shape one of the most significant ocean governance agreements to date. I commend the opposition's support for the ratification of the treaty today. Conserving our oceans and our natural world should be a fundamental pillar of our conservative parties. Australia has shown that environmental leadership does not have to be a partisan cause.”
“The concept of sea kin, which is the understanding that humans are in a relationship of kinship and obligation with the sea, is central to cultural identities and practices for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The migratory pathways of marine species are cultural highways and storylines that connect people to country. Harms posed by exploitative fishing, destructive mining and pollution are cultural as well as ecological. They sever connections and silence stories that have existed for tens of thousands of years. The high seas treaty's framework for environmental impact assessment must, as it's implemented, incorporate Indigenous knowledge, perspectives and voices. Australia's leadership in implementation should be guided, in part, by those who have been stewards of this ocean for the longest time.”
“Our relationship with other nation states across the Pacific, South-East Asia and the Indian Ocean is defined, in large part, by the sea—that is, by fisheries, shipping lanes, shared ecological systems and the existential threat posed by climate change to low-lying nations. Especially for those Pacific neighbours for which the health of the ocean is not an abstraction but a foundation of national survival, our leadership sends a powerful message: we hear you, and we're willing to back our words with legal commitments. For many First Nations communities across this continent and its islands, ocean protection contains strong cultural and spiritual dimensions.”
“The humpback and blue whales that use blue corridors parallel to my electorate of Curtin also rely on international waters for migration and reproduction. Protecting isolated patches of domestic waters can only go so far to ensure sustainable and holistic protection of interconnected marine ecosystems. Furthermore, this extension of MPAs would amplify the effects of Australia's own domestic marine protection efforts as well as provide the economic co-benefits of improved long-term fish stock viability and protection of marine industries, such as tourism, fishing and aquaculture. Australia now has an opportunity to demonstrate strong leadership in the Indo-Pacific region through implementation of this treaty.”
“The potential to create a global interconnected network of marine protection areas, MPAs, across the high seas has long been called for by conservation experts and may now be a reality. A network of high seas MPAs would function as the connective tissue for global ocean protection. Huge areas of ocean which are essential for regulating climate, providing fish stocks and supporting biodiversity are now essentially eligible for protection from habitat destruction, exploitative fishing practices—including those with high bycatch rates of non-target species and bottom trawling—and disruption of biological carbon sequestration processes. The ecological benefits are huge. Our oceans do not respect national boundaries. The currents that flow through Australian waters connect to every ocean on Earth.”
“That letter was a direct call on the executive to stop delaying and to honour the spirit of leadership Australia had shown in the treaty's negotiation. I reminded the government of our 30 by 30 commitment—the pledge made by the international community, including Australia, at the Convention on Biological Diversity in 2022—to protect 30 per cent of the world's land and oceans by the year 2030. The high seas treaty is an essential mechanism for delivering on the ocean component of that commitment. I've also spoken in this House about the overwhelming concern for this issue that has been expressed to me by 500 constituents from my electorate of Curtin. This showed that my community was really concerned about the lack of protection for the high seas globally.”
“Such assessments involve considering how adverse impacts can be prevented, mitigated and managed to best support biodiversity and ecosystem health. The provision is strengthened by the requirement to evaluate cumulative impacts, which enables a comprehensive appraisal of the potential harmful effects of activities on complex, interconnected ecological systems. Thirdly, the bill establishes transparency and reporting arrangements for marine genetic resources, recognising the growing scientific and commercial interest in biodiversity found on the high seas. These mechanisms represent a fundamental shift in the legal governance of the ocean. I've taken a consistent stance on global ocean protection in this parliament. In August last year, I wrote to Minister Watt and called for immediate ratification of this treaty.”
“The agreement does three things to promote marine conservation in these important oceanic zones. Firstly, it establishes a legal framework to designate marine protected areas on the high seas. No legal mechanism to protect international waters existed prior to this treaty. With this new legal pathway, the international community can set aside areas of the open ocean for protection—no fishing, no mining and no exploitation—to allow marine ecosystems to recover and fulfil their ecological functions. This is the ocean equivalent of creating a national park. Secondly, it requires stringent environmental impact assessments be undertaken by corporations and states that plan to conduct activities on the high seas.”
“This bill and this treaty enable more comprehensive ecological protection of biodiversity hotspots by creating an interconnected network of protected zones. The bill allows Australia to demonstrate regional leadership in the Indo-Pacific, and it demonstrates respect for First Nations philosophies towards sea stewardship. There does, however, remain a responsibility on Australia to exhibit strong leadership in implementation, particularly when it comes to funding enabling institutions as well as continued action to support Indo-Pacific neighbours and climate mitigation. The bill represents the domestic legal ratification of all elements of the biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction agreement, commonly referred to as the high seas treaty or global oceans treaty.”
“The oceans are critical to our way of life in Curtin and in Australia, but they're under threat from climate change, pollution, exploitation and extraction through bottom trawling, mining and drilling. Too often the natural world is overlooked in exchange for near-term profits. Here in parliament, we must fight for our oceans and the infinite intrinsic wealth they provide to us all. So it's with great pleasure today that I support this bill which ratifies Australia's international commitment to global protection of international waters under the high seas treaty. It provides the first legal mechanism to protect our oceans beyond national jurisdiction. The high seas cover two-thirds of our planet's surface, yet less than one per cent are protected.”
“I rise today to speak to the High Seas Biodiversity Bill. Australia is an island continent with one of the world's largest maritime jurisdictions and bordered by three major oceans. Our economy, our environment and our way of life are strongly shaped by the sea. For the people of Curtin, this connection is deep. The Indian Ocean shapes our ecosystems and is part of our daily life, whether through recreation, tourism, science, culture or livelihoods. Just off shore from my electorate runs a major migratory corridor for humpback and blue whales. These species move between Australian waters and the high seas along ancient pathways that are critical for feeding and breeding. These so-called blue corridors extend well beyond national jurisdictions.”
“They also deserve accountability when government assumes financial risks on their behalf. This bill moves us towards the first goal; it's our job to ensure it does not compromise the second.”
“That's a very long time to wait for a comprehensive assessment of how these powers are being used and whether they remain appropriate. So my support today comes with clear expectations. We need robust safeguards to ensure public money is used responsibly and to ensure that, in exchange for providing this insurance, taxpayers benefit from any upside should the worst happen and prices continue to rise. We need transparency around the criteria relied on in activating these powers and how taxpayers are protected in contracts. We need confidence that parliamentary oversight will be meaningful, not symbolic, and we need assurance that any ongoing use of the strategic reserve will not distort markets in ways that undermine our international obligations or disadvantage Australian businesses. Australians deserve fuel security.”
“In order to maintain public trust in this power, it will be important to ensure that there is transparency about the contracts that are being signed on behalf of taxpayers and whether they address potential upsides as well as potential downsides. In the time available, I've not been able to investigate how this sits with our international trade obligations. The strategic reserve may raise a WTO direct subsidy question, but I suspect we will not be the only country putting in place these types of measures in the current context. These are broad and effectively permanent powers. They span fuel security, critical minerals, supply chain resilience, national security and the broader Future Made in Australia agenda. Yet the next statutory review of the act will not be tabled until after 31 December 2029.”
“The government said the powers would be structured in a way that would allow sharing in the upside, and it would be up to the EFA to determine contractual terms. I strongly encourage the EFA to treat upside sharing as a core negotiating objective to ensure that we're not giving out free insurance. If the worst happens and prices keep going up, some of that increase should be returned to the taxpayer. Of course, fuel importers won't want to sign contracts covering this possibility if they can help it, but urgency should not be used as an excuse to agree to one-sided contracts that are bad for taxpayers. How protected taxpayers are will depend on the contract negotiating skills of EFA staff.”
“I acknowledge that these are extraordinary times, and I welcome the fact that further legislation will be needed if the government seeks to go beyond this $2 billion ceiling. One major concern I have about these new powers is that we may end up with one-sided contracts. For example, if an importer pays $3 a litre for a fuel shipment expecting to sell it for $3.10, I understand that the government could be on the hook if the importer can only sell it for $2.90 because the worst of the price pressure is over by the time it gets here. But, if the importer actually sells it for $3.20, above the expected price, because the war goes on, will the importer reap the full benefit of the upside, or will that benefit be shared with the taxpayer? Today I asked the government about this.”
“This bill also makes significant changes to EFA's mandate. EFA's core mandate has traditionally been export focused. Underwriting import transactions across a broad range of goods marks a substantial departure from that mandate. Yet we have limited clarity about how these new functions will be integrated into EFA's existing governance structures or what additional expertise and oversight arrangements will be required to manage this risk appropriately. The appropriation bills introduced today impose a $2 billion ceiling on actions that government can take over the next three months to respond to fuel security challenges, but we don't have certainty as to the proposed scale of the Commonwealth's total exposure under this bill in relation to fuel imports.”
“These powers can be activated whenever a minister determines it's in the national interest to do so. That's a very broad test. The strategic material definition is effectively unlimited in scope. It means the strategic reserve powers could be extended to almost any traded good at ministerial discretion, including in circumstances where the assessment of a supply disruption may be highly subjective. I understand why broad powers are required at this time of uncertainty. We're hearing alarming forecasts of all the industries that could be affected by the conflict in the Middle East. There is a level of trust involved in times of crisis, and I'm prepared to extend that trust. But I urge the government to make good on it by using these powers carefully, proportionately and transparently.”
“The government is setting aside $2 billion over the next three months to respond to fuel security pressures—an extraordinary sum of money. The way this will work is that this taxpayer money will only need to be spent if prices drop and fuel importers are making a loss. Then taxpayers will foot the bill for the gap between what fuel importers thought they could sell the fuel for and what they can actually sell it for. I have some concerns about how broad the powers in this bill are. This bill does more than respond to the immediate crisis. It grants EFA expansive and ongoing powers to contract on behalf of the Australian government and commit public funds not just for fuel but for critical minerals and any other materials, goods or things that are vulnerable to supply chain disruptions.”
“The concern is that this could reduce willingness to purchase additional supply when Australia needs it most. This bill seeks to remove that disincentive so that fuel continues to flow. Fuel security matters to Australians. Our freight and agricultural sectors run on diesel, and households rely on petrol to get to work, to school and to essential services. But our reliance on these fuels also makes us vulnerable. Every global shock, every geopolitical flare-up, every supply chain disruption hits us hard, and that vulnerability is in itself a compelling argument for accelerating decarbonisation. The faster we transition to cleaner, more resilient energy systems, the less exposed we'll be to the volatility of global oil markets. The appropriation bills introduced concurrently today underline the scale of the challenge.”
“Under these amendments, EFA may insure or indemnify importers, provide guarantees, make loans or enter into other arrangements designed to encourage additional supplies of strategic materials into Australia. In the case of fuel, while the government has been clear that it does not intend to pay upfront for fuel purchases, public funds will underwrite the risk faced by importers when buying at today's or tomorrow's extraordinary prices. The rationale is straightforward. Importers are concerned that, if they purchase fuel now at very high prices and the conflict driving those prices ends suddenly, they may be left with significant losses when shipments arrive, potentially eight weeks later. Given the uncertainties surrounding geopolitical developments in the Middle East, fuel importers are understandably reluctant to carry that risk.”
“For that reason, I will support this bill to enable the government to respond quickly to the current crisis. But this bill also asks parliament to place a great deal of trust in the executive, trust in the breadth of the powers being granted, trust in a new and expanded role for EFA and trust that taxpayers will be adequately protected when public money is used to underwrite private risk, and it's those issues that I want to focus on today. But, first, let's look at what the bill actually does. The bill gives EFA new tools to address supply chain disruption affecting strategic materials. That includes fuel, critical minerals and any other materials, goods or things determined to be vulnerable to supply disruptions.”