Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

For some time now, my community in North Sydney has been calling for action to mitigate the impacts of climate change, while supporting economic opportunities in emerging green technologies and industries. We've spoken about it as gearing our nation towards a forward-facing economy, and I welcome this opportunity to speak about the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 today.

Transforming the Australian economy to net zero emissions is one of the biggest opportunities and challenges of our time. Indeed, former US senator and secretary of state John Kerry has likened the challenge to a wartime effort, highlighting the national security threat climate change poses and the type of mobilisation required to address it. Much of this transition will play out in regions outside our capital cities, where the bulk of Australia's industrial base is located. While I represent the urban electorate of North Sydney, my community elected me on a platform of ensuring that the transition to net zero is fair and equitable. I also have a deep personal connection to regional Australia, having grown up in north-west New South Wales, so I know exactly how pivotal one industry can be to an entire community and how important it is to ensure that, as industry transforms, communities are taken along for the ride. Ultimately, though, whether it's my electorate of North Sydney, or my hometown region of northern New South Wales, both communities are looking to capitalise on the strong economic growth that should come with this transition to a net zero carbon economy. Both communities see the potential that comes with our nation delivering on our climate targets and ensuring regional communities thrive. And both fundamentally recognise the importance of building communities that are climate-safe, regenerative, economically sustainable and socially just.

Australia's regions, workers and communities stand to benefit from the global shift to green technologies and energies, but only if the transition is managed well and with the fair distribution of wealth generated from the transition across our whole economy. Transition authorities, such as the one proposed in this legislation, have proven to play a crucial role in helping countries like Germany, Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States all manage the impacts of a changing energy sector. Given this, where there's a lesson for us to learn from those countries, I suggest that we learn it well. I broadly welcome the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 then, along with its proposal to establish the Net Zero Economy Authority for the purposes of coordinating Australia's transformation to a net zero emissions economy. However, for the authority to achieve its goal of helping Australia to meet its greenhouse gas reductions targets, and to support the transition to a net zero emissions economy, its establishment must be accompanied by strong and clear climate targets; policies that provide clear direction and empowerment; and appropriate settings from the government. Without the policies in place to reduce emissions, including phasing out fossil fuel extraction and use, and clear sector-by-sector plans to manage an equitable transition, this authority will not achieve its goals. Additionally, I believe the bill could be strengthened by taking a whole-of-community approach; expanding the scope of the authority beyond coal regions to other industries affected by climate change and the energy transition; ensuring an independent board appointment process, where members are appointed by an independent selection panel; ensuring long-term funding for the authority; and avoiding overlap with existing industrial relations frameworks. I note my crossbench colleagues, including the members for Mackellar and Indi, have proposed amendments to achieve many of these things, and I support their calls and commend their amendments both to the minister and the House.

The core objectives of the authority as established by this legislation are appropriate. Specifically, I welcome the focus on promoting investment in decarbonisation initiatives, especially within energy-centric regions—the facilitation of public and private sector participation and investment in greenhouse gas emissions, reduction and net zero transformation initiatives is good. At the same time, helping employees across closing coal- and gas-fired power stations, and their affiliated employers who are impacted by the net zero transformation, to transition to a new opportunity is also welcome. Harmonising and coordinating government-wide policies aimed at achieving net zero emissions and achieving Australia's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets is also good, as is building community understanding, confidence and engagement with the net zero transformation, and supporting First Nations communities in gaining advantages from this transition. Finally, engaging with the broader public to enhance understanding and involvement in the transition process by encouraging, supporting, developing and delivering educational and promotional initiatives is sorely needed.

Ultimately, as a nation, we are incredibly lucky when it comes to our clean energy endowment. Australia enjoys many comparative advantages in the transition to clean energy. We have a higher ratio of renewable energy resources to domestic demand than many other countries. We have vast access to mineral resources that will remain in demand, including some that are crucial to the energy transition, and we have the existing expertise to mine them. We also enjoy a proximity to growing Asian markets. With our massive landmass and unparalleled solar and wind resources, we are truly well placed to become a renewable superpower. But, to realise this opportunity, we need to step into it with purpose and in a coordinated fashion, ensuring no person, no community and no economic sector is left behind.

Beyond Zero Emissions estimates that Australia can grow its revenue from new green exports to $333 billion by 2050, which is almost triple the value of the 2019 fossil fuel exports. This will only be achieved, however, if our approach to transitioning our industries is inclusive, participatory and consultative. A top-down planning model will not work, and we must recognise the unique needs and opportunities of each community. Ultimately this revolution must be led by regional communities, not foisted upon them.

To effectively manage the changing landscape of Australian industry, ensuring and maintaining a strong social licence for renewable energy will be essential, and this authority can play a crucial role in ensuring that. There are, however, potential changes to the bill that would strengthen it. The first is to take a whole-of-community approach. Regional communities are often built around a core industry, and any impact to that industry has ripple effects through the entire community, to everything from the local school to the mechanic to the coffee shop. Supporting a smooth transition requires not only working with employers and employees from the impacted industries but should also extend to the broader community, to address the cumulative impacts of the change.

The Next Economy, who have worked extensively with regional communities to manage economic change, recommended in their submission to the Senate inquiry on this legislation a more holistic economic development approach to ensure long-term resilience and prosperity at the regional level. An example of what this may look like would be the authority offering structured support to small businesses in the region to take advantage of new opportunities, and investment in things like local health services, wellbeing, child care, aged care, housing, education and transport, to make communities more attractive to new people and new businesses. Ultimately what could be better for a region then becoming a hub for new, in-demand skills development? It would be incredible to see this new authority play a role in identifying that sort of opportunity for regional communities in Australia.

Next is expanding the scope of the authority beyond coal regions. While it makes sense for the authority to focus on regions facing coal-fired and gas-fired power station closures in the first instance, ultimately the scope of the authority should not be limited to these areas alone but rather extended to be broad enough to support all regions where core industries will be impacted by climate change. These industries will include things like forestry, tourism and agricultural industries, just to name a few.

We also need a more transparent board appointment process. As the board is the key decision-maker for the authority, it is imperative that the appointment of members to the board should be transparent and free from real or perceived undue political interference. More could be done to ensure members of the board bring appropriate knowledge and expertise to the work of the authority and that the work of the board is informed by a variety of perspectives.

As it stands, the board will consist of a chair and at least five, and not more than eight, other members. Two board members must have expertise or experience in the trade union movement, and two other board members must have expertise or experience in business, industry, finance or investment. A board position should also be reserved, though, for a First Nations person, and there should be at least one board member with experience in regional development. The government should also consider reserving a board position for someone with expertise and significant standing in climate science and engineering.

It is not appropriate that the minister is responsible for appointing all board members. I also think it is a significant weakness that the guidelines for appointment do not currently stipulate that the board must include someone with deep knowledge and connections across regional and rural Australia or someone with First Nations connections. For this reason, I strongly support the amendments of my crossbench colleagues the member for Indi and the member for Mackellar to ensure the appointment of board members is independent, transparent and appropriate.

We also need more secure long-term funding for this authority. To date, $83.2 million in funding over four years has been announced for the authority, but this is not enough to ensure it can engage in long-term planning. As the Grattan Institute has stated:

To take a true place-based approach that creates real change and strengthens regional economies, the Authority must be able to take a long-term view. It will not be able to design or commit to long-term activities if it does not have budget certainty beyond three-year funding envelopes.

If the authority is expected to provide real help to communities and regions at the forefront of the energy transition, it must be securely funded. Research by The Next Economy shows the work of transition authorities and outcomes from regional communities are more successful when the authority has access to its own funding. The Grattan Institute has also recommended legislating a minimum 10-year budget for the authority to put it on a stable footing and increase its effectiveness. To secure this funding, the government should redirect subsidies from the fossil fuel industries in consumption—which, according to last week's budget, will cost our economy upwards of $44 billion over the forward estimates.

Next, the authority should avoid overlap with existing industrial relations frameworks. While the bill is designed to operate within the existing industrial relations framework, multiple stakeholders representing businesses that are likely to be affected by this bill have raised concerns with the content and practical implementation of the Energy Industry Jobs Plan in part 5 of the bill. The obligations in the jobs plan have considerable overlap with existing obligations in Australia's industrial relations framework, and clarity is needed as to how these areas of overlap and the inconsistencies will be resolved.

The bill mandates employers who are closing must offer support to their workers, including retraining, financial support and career guidance, redeployment options, and paid leave. It creates processes and schemes for pooled redundancy and redeployment to enhance worker security and mobility, and it implements a system whereby the Fair Work Commission can issue binding decisions on the specific types of support that employers are required to provide to their workers. Further clarification, however, should be provided on how these inconsistencies and areas of overlap between existing industrial relations frameworks and the Energy Industry Jobs Plan can be resolved to provide more certainty to affected employers and to avoid unintended consequences.

Finally, I reiterate that the lofty goals of this legislation will not be achieved without stronger climate policy from this government. This agency—this single agency—simply will not succeed in its goal of transitioning workers and communities away from fossil fuels if the government continues to approve and fund new fossil fuel projects without laying out a clear pathway to net zero. The Australia Institute has found there are more than 100 new fossil fuel projects planned in Australia. If all of these projects proceed, they will produce $4.8 billion tonnes of emissions by 2030, and this government have given no confidence that they intend to curtail fossil fuel use or export. They have provided considerable funding to the Middle Arm gas project, they have passed the sea-dumping legislation following lobbying by Santos, they have declined to add a climate trigger to our central environmental legislation and, most recently, they have announced a gas strategy that posits gas as a central part of Australia's energy and export sectors out to 2050 and beyond. It is essential to provide certainty for communities, workers and investors. Talking up climate action while announcing gas plans out to 2050 and continuing to approve new fossil fuel projects does not provide it.

This legislation is a good start to help guide Australia's net zero transition, but without a detailed plan, strong interim targets, and policy settings to help industries and communities a net zero authority will not alone achieve the goal of getting to net zero emissions by 2050.

See this speech in context