Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Before I get into my speech, I was listening to be member Corangamite. She did mention Anglesea. I would just like to reference an interview that the member for Wannon gave on 24 May this year, when asked about the nuclear industry. When asked whether there would be a reactor in Anglesea, he said:

No. Anglesea was ruled out last year, so there will not be a nuclear fired power plant in Anglesea.

So there we go; that was very clear from the member for Wannon. It's a bit disappointing when we talk about the most challenging transition that this country is undergoing, that those opposite choose to engage in scare campaigns. They're not prepared to have a debate on the merits, nor to listen to people like the former chief scientist Alan Finkel, who has debated the merits of nuclear. They want to engage in scare campaigns. I think it's very important that we correct the record and answer that for those residents in Anglesea and Corangamite, and have the absolute clarity, as the member for Wannon said, that there will not be a nuclear power plant in Anglesea.

While the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, that we're here to debate, has been called that, it's actually an industrial relations bill. It has little, if anything, to do with the pathway to net zero. What this legislation is looking to do, is to move the current Net Zero Economy Agency, which is already an executive agency within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, to a standalone authority called the Net Zero Economy Authority. Let's look at what the functions are going to be, because that's a really important part of this new authority. Their functions will be to coordinate net zero policy and planning across government; facilitate both government and private participation and investment; support affected workers; support First Nations Australians to participate in the transition; and deliver educational and promotional initiatives as Australia transitions to a net zero emissions economy.

The coalition will be opposing this bill for many reasons. It's bureaucratic waste and duplication. It's a top-down, Canberra centric approach which is set to fail on delivering on the unique needs of the regions. It imposes new obligations on small, medium and large businesses. And it is another example of Labor's haphazard approach to industry policy, which delivers no guarantees for local workers.

As I said previously, the transition to net zero represents one of the most profound and challenging shifts in human history. It encompasses not only technological but economic change, and it's going to have deep social implications. But it is crucial that, as we transition, we ensure we have cheap and reliable energy. Cheap and reliable energy is what has lifted people in Australia and around the world out of poverty. It is the cornerstone of economic growth, and it allows businesses and communities to grow. When we look at this transition, the most challenging transition, any government and any person genuinely serious about engaging in this discussion must be and should be technology agnostic. You should be prepared to look at any technology that will transition us to net zero as quick as possible while ensuring we have cheap and reliable power.

There are two broad aspects to this legislation that operationalise the authority's power. The first is facilitating the new investment in the net zero transition. The authority intends to be a shopfront for industry and investors. It will seek to work with project proponents and state governments to get renewable projects to investment decisions. The authority will also look to mobilise public money—through vehicles like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the National Reconstruction Fund—with private finance and support, address and enable infrastructure needs and navigate the regulatory processes.

This is just another example of the hypocrisy of this government when it comes to the discussion around nuclear energy and the transition to net zero. The Prime Minister, the minister and those opposite are very quick to criticise nuclear and talk about whether any public money and any taxpayer money will be used for nuclear energy as part of our mix moving forward. They criticise nuclear and say, 'We can't use taxpayer money for nuclear energy,' but they're very happy to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on renewable energy. So the real question is: why is it okay to support one form of zero emissions energy but not another—an energy source that provides baseload zero emissions energy, so crucial to our economy? The government can't answer that because the reason is not science; it's ideology. The government are putting their ideological beliefs above the needs of the Australian people. They're putting their ideological beliefs above the needs of Australian communities—Australian coal communities, Australian farming communities, Australian businesses. They're not prepared to engage in a mature conversation on nuclear energy. All we hear from the minister responsible, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy in this country, are insults are jokes when we're trying to have a mature discussion about the most challenging transition in our country. His transition is already off track. The numbers are showing that he's not going to hit his 42 per cent target. They're not going to deliver their renewables-only approach, and he won't have a conversation about why not. They're not even prepared to take off the moratorium on nuclear and let business decide if it stacks up. Business cannot invest the money in a business case on nuclear, because it's banned in the country. Well, take the moratorium away and let business have a look at whether it stacks up. In only 19 G20 countries is business investing in nuclear, for those opposite.

Let's be clear. Let's look at the science. Those opposite are very quick to talk to the science. Nuclear energy is the only zero-emissions, scalable base load power option that exists. It is the only option around the globe. Renewables are not base load. The batteries are not proven as scalable. And they won't even have a conversation about it. They're not even prepared to put all options on the table.

The second responsibility of the authority is assisting the impacted workers in the transition area through the Energy Industry Jobs Plan. That plan's going to allow the authority to utilise the industrial relations system to manage the redeployment of workers in closing coal-fired and gas-fired power stations and their dependent employers. But the plan does not specify or anticipate the types of employment that workers may transition into. In his address to the National Press Club earlier this year, the current Net Zero Economy Agency chair, Greg Combet, could not give a guarantee on the transition of coal power station workers to green jobs in the renewables sector. There is a genuine and real risk that these workers will be left with fewer employment opportunities and lower rates of pay.

Again, we look at nuclear as a discussion. As the Leader of the Opposition and many experts have said, one of the benefits of nuclear is that it can go in existing coal power station sites. Not only does that reduce the cost through existing transmission lines—the environmental cost of 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines, the money of installing those, the access to workers—by utilising those already there; it also creates genuine, long-term jobs in the coal communities that are losing their current coal plants. It can create some different jobs with nuclear technicians, no doubt, but those that have the cleaning contracts for a coal power plant can also have the cleaning contracts for a nuclear plant in the same location. Those that go to the local footy club, the grocery store—all those secondary jobs that are created for an industry like this—would continue to exist. It's nice to say that you've got an authority that's going to find jobs for workers, but, if there are no businesses, there's no work for them. Again, that is another one of the opportunities and advantages of nuclear that those opposite, this government, aren't even prepared to have a conversation about.

Now, this authority is full of duplication and full of waste. The investment facilitation aspects of the proposed authority duplicate the role of existing funding agencies such as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the role of existing mechanisms such as the Major Projects Facilitation Agency. The level of duplication of the proposed Net Zero Economy Authority's responsibilities to promote new investment in the net zero transition and existing Commonwealth entities is just beyond a joke. It's creating another level of bureaucracy that's already there. It's money that's being spent in a top-down approach, with a Canberra-centric focus. Over a billion dollars of federal funds in the forward estimates have been put forward to duplicate projects and initiatives that are already there. For example, there are regional planning initiatives that already exist through the New South Wales government's Hunter Regional Plan and the Victorian government's Latrobe Valley authority transition plan. So you've got plans in these communities that are going to be duplicated by a federal plan—waste. The new authority would also cut across the work and vision of the existing Regional Development Australia committees, which recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to creating vibrant regions.

This legislation is going to drive bureaucratic duplication and it's also going to negatively impact small and family businesses. It's important to note that the larger risk in this legislation is not for the large energy-generating companies, but rather for small businesses who supply goods and services to a closing power station, who may be caught up in this energy industry job plan process. These businesses don't have HR or internal workplace lawyers and are unlikely to have any line of sight of what's coming. It's so important that we continue to protect these small businesses, and there's no carve out for them.

The coalition will oppose the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill because it's bureaucratic waste and duplication, and it's a top-down, Canberra-centric approach, which is set to fail on delivering on the unique needs of the regions. It imposes new obligations on small, medium and large businesses, and the fact is that it's another example of Labor's haphazard approach on industry policy, which delivers no guarantees for local workers.

See this speech in context