Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Hansard source

Labor will support this bill for a very simple reason: because we have been arguing for it. It makes total sense that when you consider where Australia is positioned—when you consider the potential energy generation through this initiative; when, as was reflected on by the member for Fremantle, you look at a comparable site in terms of the North Sea, which is considered the largest geographic source of wind energy, and we can compare to that quite favourably; and when you look at what is happening in terms of generation internationally. Internationally, at the moment, there is approximately 35 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity that's currently in operation. But you can expect that within the next 10 years to jump up to 80 gigawatts and by 2050 will go to 2,000 gigawatts. So, (1) internationally, people have recognised the opportunity that exists; (2) in Australia we know that we are in a really good position; (3) if you compare in relative terms what we currently generate as energy to meet the needs of Australians—it's 55 gigawatts—you get a sense about where the opportunity presents itself with offshore wind. This is why Labor has been saying it is mad for us not to think about this and act on it. It is mad not to act on it, because, from our point of view, and particularly from my own point of view (1) when you take onboard the fact that there is this huge demand—about a dozen propositions or proposals ready to seize this opportunity—and (2) when you look at what is behind that if that happens, which is a huge jobs opportunity for the country, particularly in manufacturing, and (3) when we can use what we are very good at producing in this nation—steel—on those projects, we'll have renewable energy using Australian content manufactured by Australian workers. We have got a very proud heritage and tradition of steel manufacturing. We'll be able to set up the construction phase, and then the operation and the maintenance all along that chain can be provided by Australian industry and Australian workers. It's an opportunity that should be seized and hasn't been. Why? Because, yet again, we've got a government that's—quite unusually, as they're usually quick to announce and slow to deliver—slow to announce and deliver. They have been shamed and prodded into this bill, and so have finally brought the legislation before us.

I want to emphasise this point: even in question time today the government remarked upon the number of homes in this country that have solar panels installed upon them and reflected on the fact that Australian technology is embedded within that, that Australian technology has driven that. But they omitted to reference the fact that a lot of that manufacturing capability was offshore. We didn't hold onto it. We didn't find ways to seize that opportunity in a way that would have enriched our nation; we just offshored that opportunity. It's one of the reasons why we argued, successfully, for the establishment of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to help make technology that may not have got market backing early on something that is a proposition worth investing in.

In what we have put forward as the Labor Party—the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund—we have targeted renewables and low-emissions technology, specifically looking at the manufacturing opportunity that exists. If the commercialisation is supported through the CEFC you can have the opportunity then followed up with investment in manufacturing capability to ensure it happens. There were a lot of regional based manufacturers who wanted to get involved in terms of wind turbines, and they missed out on opportunities because the government didn't require local content on some of the power purchase agreements managed by Snowy Hydro. This put huge pressure on a regionally based employer, Keppel Prince, in Portland in regional Victoria, where hundreds of jobs were put under pressure because investors didn't want to use locals to help build the wind turbines that would be used for generating energy that would go to Snowy Hydro.

This is a scandal, and this is why Labor has argued in its Buy Australian proposal a 10-point plan to use the power of government procurement to help provide opportunity for local industry. When you combine what's being argued here with what we can see elsewhere, this will provide a huge jobs bonanza for locals; it is very important for us to line up all the resources to back that in. We see that good climate policy is good jobs policy. That's where we should be going. Particularly in terms of this, we should be looking at using Australian steel that is made here, with Australian manufacturing capability that puts it together, that then gets constructed by Australians, that can generate huge amounts of energy for Australia offshore in a way that we are missing out on at the moment. It is a win all round for us. That's why we support the bills and why we urge that this happen.

I come back to this point: why did it take so long? The reason it took so long is: this is a government that has fought against this very issue, of finding ways to generate power in a cleaner, more sustainable way. The rest of the world got it. These people didn't. They saw an opportunity not for jobs but for politicking—their jobs, not the broader community's. They wanted to find a way to score points. The problem is: on that side the resistance is baked in so deep within the coalition, within the Liberal and National parties, that they miss the opportunities that are presented, due to the scepticism that exists on their side and the refusal to acknowledge that we've got to deal with this broader issue in terms of climate change and the fact if we do deal with it we will have job opportunities that could flow for Australian industry as a result.

I feel, in particular in this debate, bad for one group of people who get this, who know that this has to happen and that something needs to be done—that is, Liberal voters who recognise that the issue of climate change is serious. They expect action on it, but they back a government that doesn't take it seriously. For Liberal voters who understand that climate change has to be dealt with, their views are not respected by the government that they vote in. I feel bad for those Liberal voters, because they are being disrespected. They have provided support and they have been disrespected by Liberal governments for years.

So I make this point: what can those voters do to make sure that that disrespect doesn't continue? Those voters—those Liberal voters who expect serious action on climate changes—reside in big numbers in the seats of Higgins, Wentworth, Mackellar, North Sydney, Kooyong, Brisbane and even Goldstein. The members for those seats like to parade their green credentials in the local area but consistently stand against taking any action on this. We have had two opportunities for them to legislate on net zero, and they would not do it. They wouldn't seriously back anything other than a PowerPoint presentation—because that's what we've got and what the Prime Minister is taking to Glasgow. The commitment within that presentation has already been laughed at by the international community, who shake their heads at the fact that this government won't do the right thing in terms of what's required for Glasgow. We'll be an international embarrassment.

Those Liberal voters in all those seats want this taken seriously and expect their representatives to do the right thing, but they won't. These seats that I mentioned—Higgins, Wentworth, Mackellar, North Sydney, Kooyong, Brisbane and Goldstein—are all prized assets in the Liberal Party, and you've got to get existential on those assets. You have to make them sweat. I say to those Liberal voters who want to be respected on the issue of climate change: the only way you're going to get respect is to vote them out. You've got to vote out Katie Allen in Higgins. You've got to vote out Tim Wilson in Goldstein.

See this speech in context