Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, which I will be opposing. The coalition will be opposing this bill for a number of reasons, and I will elaborate on all of these reasons.

Essentially, there are five reasons. This is a bill that Labor has promoted as supporting the net zero transition, particularly in the regions. But when significant research is done into this bill, it's anything but. This is an industrial relations bill and the Labor government, in introducing this bill, is simply providing yet another gift to the union movement. This bill also shows bureaucratic waste and duplication and it shows a top-down Canberra-centric approach, which is set to fail in delivering for the unique needs of the regions. The regions have unique needs that are different from those of the metropolitan areas around Sydney. But also, each region in and of itself has unique needs, and this bill is going nowhere to address that. Finally, it is imposing significant obligations on small, medium and large businesses alike, particularly within the regions.

My seat, the seat of Hughes, is a metropolitan seat, so, when I was considering my approach to this bill, I particularly had regard to the speeches and the commentary made either by my colleagues who are members of the National Party or by my regional colleagues. I've just been present in the chamber for the member for Bowman's speech, and I was similarly present for the member for Herbert's speech. I think that, for those of us who have seats in metropolitan areas, it is important to consult with those who are in the regions, because they understand their seats the best, and they are unanimous that this will not deliver for their specific areas.

I would like to turn to what this bill is actually about. It is stated that it will transition the current Net Zero Economy Agency from an executive agency which currently sits within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to a standalone statutory authority known as the Net Zero Economy Authority. Under the legislation, the authority's stated functions are: first, to coordinate net zero policy and planning across government; second, to facilitate both government and private participation and investment; third, to support affected workers; fourth, to provide First Nations Australians the opportunity to participate in the transition; and fifth, to deliver educational and promotional initiatives as Australia transitions to a net zero emissions economy. That statement of objectives is full of motherhood statements. That may well be the intention of these bills, but, when we delve into the substance of these bills, we can see that the legislation, as it is currently drafted, will not achieve those objectives.

There are two broad aspects to the legislation that in fact operationalise the authority's powers. One is the facilitating of new investment in the net zero transition. It has been stated that the authority will be a shopfront for industry and investors. It will seek to work with project proponents and state governments to get renewable projects to investment decision. That all sounds fabulous, but it won't do that in practice. The authority will mobilise public moneys through vehicles like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation and the National Reconstruction Fund, with private financing support; address enabling infrastructure needs; and navigate regulatory processes.

The second main responsibility of the authority is to assist the impacted workers in that transition area through the Energy Industry Jobs Plan. This plan will allow the authority to utilise the current IR system to manage the redeployment of workers in closing coal-fired and gas-fired power stations and their dependent employers. This includes coalmines, for example, that are reliant on a closing power station. What the plan does not specify or anticipate is the types of employment that workers may transition into. Therefore we say that this is essentially an IR bill disguised as a bill for the regions and the transition.

As already indicated, in the coalition's view, this legislation has significant flaws. As we found out the night of the government's failed budget, the government has already doubled the budget to nearly $400 million alone, with further funding to a total of $1.1 billion over the medium term. But this is establishing simply another big Canberra bureaucracy across the net zero authority, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and the Fair Work Commission. The government has been unable to detail the actions that this authority would perform. Instead of consulting with the regions, we will have a Canberra bureaucracy dictating to the regions what will occur in each and every region and what in particular will occur to their deployed employees. This is very important for regional Australia.

The component of the Net Zero Economy Authority that relates to new investment in the net zero transition is simply a bureaucratic waste. It largely mirrors the responsibilities of existing federal and state agencies, and we already have those agencies established. It is difficult to understand, then, why these are being duplicated and why this is setting up more Canberra bureaucrats. The authorities that will be duplicated include the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, the Australia Renewable Energy Agency and the role of existing mechanisms such as the Major Projects Facilitation Agency. This is because the authority explicitly has responsibility for facilitating public and private sector participation and investment in greenhouse gas emissions reduction and net zero transformation initiatives in Australia, including in new industries. But this is almost completely copied and pasted from the Clean Energy Finance Corporation's legislated role. Then, when we look at the role of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, we see it similarly contains exactly those sorts of authorities. This level of duplication, when it is couched as being to promote new investment, is highly concerning. It simply is going to be Canberra again trying to dictate to the regions what will occur in their particular areas.

We have seen with this type of body that it will simply be a national body. It's going to be a top-down, Canberra-centric approach. It won't be able to fully consider regional needs and priorities. We've heard already in this place from many members whose seats are in regional areas, and they have pretty well identified and articulated individual needs for their particular regions. Therefore, having a top-down approach to say 'This is what is going to occur in all of these regions throughout Australia' simply does not make sense when one considers that every region throughout Australia is unique and will have unique needs.

It's also quite likely that, once established, the federal government will continue to add additional powers and responsibilities to the authority to support its net zero and climate ambitions. But it remains unclear—and I say it will always remain unclear—how this authority is actually going to assist workers in the regions who will be facing unemployment. Of course, when it unemployment comes through those regions, in many cases, particularly in the smaller towns, the whole town collapses.

We see with Labor's budget this year that the funding is now being budgeted to $400 million, with further funding to total $1.1 billion over the medium term. It's still unclear how many will be employed in this authority and what its specific tasks will be besides a very generalised view to supposedly assisting those in the regions who will be losing their jobs as we transition to new energy. We already have over $13 billion in taxpayer funded subsidies for big business, so this legislation goes nowhere and, indeed, will only add to this crisis we already have. It is far too much spending. Instead, Labor should be focusing on dealing with energy costs and high inflation, and its current out-of-control red tape. This is adding one more layer of red tape and one more layer of bureaucracy.

As we turn to the impact this will have on small and medium businesses particularly, we need to look at the reality facing most Australian businesses not just in the regions but throughout metropolitan areas of Australia. We already have insolvencies at record highs and more businesses going offshore. Supporting a small number of big businesses in this area is irresponsible and a slap in the face for small businesses directly seeking answers from this government and desperately seeking help simply to survive.

I'll turn now to the second-biggest feature of the proposed legislation—the Energy Industry Jobs Plan. This has been a carryover for many years from when the current minister for disability services, Bill Shorten, was leader, and it has been part of the ALP national platform going back to 2018. Australia's current industrial framework already features a well-established safety net that applies, and has applied for a considerable amount of time, in instances of business closures and industry change, particularly in the area of the closure of coal-fired power stations. Therefore, it is unclear why this new plan is in fact needed.

As has already been stated, a further national agency to assist regions is simply duplicative of state based mechanisms that have been designed to achieve the same outcome. For example, if we turn to some of the specific regions: in New South Wales the New South Wales government has the Hunter Regional Plan; in Victoria there is the government's Latrobe Valley authority transition plan. This new authority, however, would cut across the work and the vision of existing Regional Development Australia committees, which recognise that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to creating vibrant regions. Therefore, this bill is again going to add another layer of regulation that has not already been considered by the fair work system. How this authority and how this bill, and the regime it is setting out, will work with the existing fair work system is completely unclear. It appears there will be significant overlap with existing industrial obligations without in any way setting out how those existing obligations, in the case of interaction, will play out. Therefore, for all these reasons, the coalition and I will be opposing this bill.

See this speech in context