Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Hansard source

The Labor Party strongly supports this bill, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021. We strongly support it because we've called for it. We've pointed out over many months that this bill was urgent, and this bill is way overdue. And, as is so often the case with the Morrison government, particularly when it comes to renewable energy, the government comes very, very late to the party, but we welcome them to the party as late as they are.

Offshore wind has huge potential for Australia. Just as we have huge potential in solar, being a country which has the best solar potential in the world, we have self-evidently a very long coastline. Every school student knows we are an island nation. It goes without much thought to reach the conclusion that we have very big offshore wind potential. But we have been one of the very few countries in the world where it's unlawful for a proponent of offshore wind to pursue that and install offshore wind, which is a complete failure of logic and must be remedied urgently, as the Labor Party has been saying for many, many months.

We have some of the best wind resources in the world, particularly off our southern coast, and this is a resource which must be harnessed for the good of the country. We have more offshore wind resource than we could use ourselves and, indeed, it provides export opportunities for Australia. We're a country which has exported energy for many years, and we will be a country which exports energy for many years to come—but of course that energy mix will change. But that will be the case only if we embrace the proper policy framework to manage that change and continue to be a country which exports, creating jobs.

Other countries are getting on with it. A prime minister recently said that in 10 years time offshore wind will be powering every home in the country. That was the Prime Minister of Great Britain. In his speech to the Conservative Party conference at this time last year, he outlined a plan—a good plan—for offshore wind for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom already has the largest offshore wind generation capacity, and in October 2020 the United Kingdom government announced a target of 40 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030—a significant increase.

Energy providers are already getting on with it. There are something like 15 proposals all around the country at varying degrees of readiness—all are well developed, but all are waiting for this important piece of legislation. The one that is most advanced is Star of the South in Gippsland. I have visited Morwell, I've looked at the plans and I've spoken to the proponents, and I use Star of the South as an example because it tells a very good story about the capacity of offshore wind. If the proposal for Star of the South were operating today, it would provide 20 per cent of Victoria's energy needs as we speak: one offshore wind installation would provide 20 per cent of Victoria's energy needs. Because it's windier off the coast and because the turbines are tall, offshore wind has a capacity to provide a lot of energy. One turn of one offshore wind turbine provides as much energy as an average rooftop solar installation does all day: one turn of one turbine, and these turbines turn 15 times a minute. When you multiply the number of turbines in each installation it gives you an idea of the scale.

But the other story of offshore wind is the jobs created. It's labour-intensive. Because the turbines move quickly they require a lot of maintenance, and because the turbines are offshore the maintenance workers have to be taken to the turbines. That creates maritime jobs and ports jobs, and I say that this is a good thing. I say it's good that a lot of jobs are created. And that there's a third reason to support offshore wind: it's not just that jobs are created, it's that jobs are created in areas which are going through economic change. The jobs are created in the same areas which have powered Australia for so long. That's because offshore wind farms tend to want to feed into our grid—in the case of most of Australia, that's the National Energy Market grid—where the grid is strongest, where the connectors are. And that's where energy has long been generated, in areas like Gippsland and Latrobe; Newcastle and the Hunter Valley; and the Illawarra, Gladstone and Central Queensland. These are the areas, in many cases, where offshore wind proposals exist. So there will be jobs created in areas where we need to diversify the economy.

On this side of the House, we want to see the world's climate emergency being the jobs opportunity for regional Australia. It can be and it will be with the right policy settings. These are the areas which have powered Australia for so long and which have access to the grid and to the ports for export. And, importantly, they have access to a wonderful skills base—the skills base of the workers who have generated power for so long is readily transferable to more renewable energy, including offshore wind. For example, I've spoken already about the United Kingdom's offshore wind industry. That's a good example. In terms of jobs created, 26,000 people already work in the offshore wind industry in the United Kingdom, with another 70,000 people forecast to be working there by 2026, which is not that far away.

As I said, there are many varying proposals around the country. Oceanex, with whom I've met, is looking at spending $31 billion to build 7.5 gigawatts worth of offshore wind generation and significantly upgrade ports. Green Energy Partners have projects that they are proposing off the Illawarra and off Newcastle. They want to use Port Kembla as a construction hub, creating jobs in the Illawarra, where they are so desperately needed. So this is an industry which I think has huge potential for Australia and must be embraced, and we must move fast. This legislation is important, but it is not the be-all and end-all. It provides significant power to the minister to declare areas, for example. I have no problem with that, but it's a power which he should exercise appropriately, prudently and carefully but also expeditiously to ensure that this industry, which has waited so long for government action, can now get on with it.

That is not to say that this bill is perfect. As strongly as we support it, there are improvements we would have liked to see made. The Senate committee, which is a bipartisan committee, agrees, and it has made recommendations to the government. I'm surprised and disappointed—well, I'm disappointed but, with this minister, perhaps not so surprised—that the government has ignored the bipartisan recommendations to improve the bill. Government senators who led the committee made some suggestions, and they're suggestions that I take on board as the shadow minister.

These suggestions include amending the objects clause to better incorporate energy transmission and exports. We can be, as I've said before, an energy-exporting nation. There's infrastructure required to do so, whether it be submarine cables or hydrogen facilities to export our renewable energy, but it can and should be done, and the objects of the bill should reflect that. There should be an amendment on consultation requirements for declared areas. We have a long coastline. Not every part of our coastline is suitable for offshore wind—hence the opportunity for the minister to declare areas. There will be some instances where that is controversial. Communities should have ownership and a voice in doing so, and there should be requirements on the minister for consultation in relation to declaration. The government should consider amendments to the changes-in-control provisions as well. There has been a minor technical amendment suggested to allow for a different change-in-control thresholds for individual licences to be considered transparently during the licence application process while still maintaining the government's intended outcomes, which seems a sensible suggestion to me. But the government have indicated they will not be taking on the advice of their own members, as well as the opposition.

There are also concerns held on this side of the House about the occupational health and safety elements of this bill. The Senate inquiry heard two additional concerns that are not reflected in the final report but are reflected in concerns held by the opposition. In particular, the bill's work health and safety framework is confusing and disappointing. The committee heard substantial evidence that the government has not adopted the national harmonised WHS law in the bill. The committee heard that the government has amended those laws into an unrecognisable state. I am perplexed by that. I do not understand why the government would do that. Without harmonisation of these WHS frameworks, we may end up with a situation where a worker would be subject to one regime onshore, a second regime while transiting to the offshore wind establishment and a third regime while actually working on the offshore wind establishment. This poses considerable risk of confusion for both workers and employers. It's a complicated situation for employers, who in the vast majority of circumstances want to comply with the law. I do not understand why the government wants to create so much red tape and make the law so complicated.

To be fair, there is disagreement on these points, including between the department, the regulator and stakeholders representing both employers and workers, but that again underlines the importance of getting it right and getting it clearer. Given this significant difference of opinion, I urge the government to urgently undertake further consultation on both the content of the WHS provisions and their coverage. If the government chooses not to do that then, if there is a change of government at the next election, we will undertake that consultation. We believe that we should improve and harmonise the WHS regulatory frameworks covering workers in offshore clean energy. That's reflected in the Labor Party's national platform already, and it will be reflected in our approach in office. It is good for workers and good for employers if we fix this and get it right. We regard it as being crucial.

There is time, with the best will in the world, if this legislation passes both houses expeditiously. There's still some way to go for the government's regulatory regime, and then, of course, proponents have a good deal of work ahead of them, so it is not the case that offshore wind will be being built in coming weeks or months. So the government has time to do this. Indeed, an incoming Labor government would have time to do this, should we win the next election.

Our second concern is that the bill does not require local benefits to be included in the merit criteria for licences. I think many, many communities would welcome offshore wind because of the jobs created and the economic activity created for young people and for workers who might have been displaced in other energy generation, but I accept that there will be controversy. I am aware of some offshore wind proposals which are controversial, particularly in Tasmania. Not every proposal will meet with community support, but every proposal needs community ownership and support to be truly successful, and partly that will depend on the consultation process undertaken by the proponents. Again, I do not mind saying in the House that the Star of the South proposal has undertaken excellent community consultation and, as I understand it, has strong support in the Gippsland community. But not every proponent will always be as assiduous in engaging in community consultation, so it should be the case that local benefits should be required in the merit criteria for licences. When the minister of the day is considering whether to grant an offshore electricity licence, he or she should be required to consider the benefits for local workers, for businesses, for communities and, importantly, for traditional owners and First Nations people. It is important that this is reflected either in the legislation, ideally, or in the detailed regulations. I urge the government to consider amending the legislation to make this clear. This is an issue not just for offshore wind but for renewable energy installations more broadly and for transmission lines particularly. I've met at the request of the member for Ballarat with people concerned about the impacts of transmission lines through that community. They have excellent ideas about how community support and ownership can be improved. It will be a massive undertaking across the country to massively upgrade renewable energy generation and upgrade the transmission grid to get renewable energy to where it will be consumed. It is going to require a lot of community support, and we make it harder for ourselves as a country if we don't have the proper mechanisms in place to get that community support going for the big expansions of renewable energy and for the transmission lines to get the energy to where it is needed.

To summarise, we do very much welcome the bills. We called for them. I've written articles explaining why offshore wind has such potential for Australia. The government promised them many, many months ago and they have been delayed, but we do very much welcome the fact that they are being debated in the House today and we would welcome their expeditious passage through the other place as well. But we do call for improvements, and if this government does not improve the bill, an incoming Labor government, should we be elected, would certainly seek to improve the legislation. That sentiment is reflected in the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name and which I now formally move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House urges the Government to improve the bill as recommended by Government Senators on the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, and to ensure safety for workers and benefits for local communities".

I commend the bill to the House and I commend the second reading amendment to the House as well.

See this speech in context