Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

After a very interesting contribution, I am pleased to be here and to sum up this debate on the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and related bill. Creating a Net Zero Economy Authority is integral to our government's vision for A Future Made in Australia, a future that includes all of us, from our cities to our regions and to the most remote parts of Australia. The transition to a net zero economy will be one of the most important economic transformations in Australia's history. That's why I welcome the contributions from members in the chamber to this debate, many of whom have come to talk about what they want to deliver and their aspirations for the future of their communities, recognising the great opportunities for their communities as we make this big economic transition to net zero. This will be a new part of our national story.

We want to unlock all of the community benefits that this new chapter will bring—the new, secure, well-paid jobs in our regions and in our suburbs. Meeting the demands of the new energy economy means creating a supply of new jobs. That's part of building a better future for Australians. When the Prime Minister addressed our nation on election night in 2022, he committed our government to ensuring no-one is held back and no-one is left behind.

The Net Zero Economy Authority will help deliver on this vision. It will ensure, as we build a shared net zero future, that there is a place in that future for every Australian, no matter where they come from and no matter who they are. Every Australian will be part of the journey to bring us to being a renewable energy superpower. When we commit to opening the doors of opportunity, the transition to a net zero economy is about widening those doors. It is at the heart of the future opportunities that we seek to build for the next generation of Australians. Our message is clear: the way we power Australia will change, but those who do it will not. That is why we must ensure that now we have the right tools to generate a bright and clean future for generations to come.

We have seen great engagement from members in this debate on the need to take concrete, coordinated action as Australia transitions to a net zero future. I note that some in this debate have said that this new body is not needed. The government disagrees. Stakeholders have been calling for an entity of this nature for a long time. We have heard that call from business, investors, both domestic and global, unions, local governments, community groups and regional businesses. We have responded to that call. As the Prime Minister said in speaking in this debate, this bill reflects our government's determination to shape the future, rather than wait for the future to shape us. We saw the Minister for Defence Industry and Minister for International Development and the Pacific talk about how:

We must seize these economic opportunities. We have a great opportunity right now to harness this clean energy industrial revolution.

I completely agree. This is as big as the industrial revolution. Indeed, I note that, when it came to the industrial revolution, we didn't have this magnificent parliament. We didn't have the Australian Constitution as that revolution took hold. It is now upon us to show that we can do this big economic transformation in an even more coordinated way.

We had a wonderful contribution from the member for Cooper, the assistant minister, who talked about her experience as a union representative and young nurse back in 1985. She noted that throughout all that time there was 'growing awareness of climate change' and how 'change was needed to reduce our emissions and protect our environment and, importantly, we needed to protect and support workers through that change.'

For more than three decades we've been talking about the need to protect workers as this transformation happens. This bill delivers on that objective, having an enduring authority that will ensure that no worker is left behind and every worker is given the opportunities that they rightly deserve, both in the new energy economy that we seek to build, but also to make sure that as there are changes that are not necessarily in their hands they actually have support through that process.

The member for Chisholm came in and shared some of the community groups who are encouraging her to vote yes to this bill to support it. She talked about the Baby Boomers for Climate Change Action, the Australian Conservation Foundation Chisholm Group, the Kooyong Koot Alliance, the Friends of Scotchmans Creek and Valley Reserve and the Friends of Damper Creek Conservation Reserve—community groups who know that this will deliver for their communities in inner-city Melbourne as much as it will for communities in our regions. We had the other deputy speaker, the member for Newcastle, talk about how this enables her to go into her community and say, 'You can be assured we're not going to be leaving your people behind.' That's exactly right. That is what this bill is about.

The member for Fremantle talked about, again, Labor governments taking responsibility when there are big economic transformations. We did it during the Global Financial Crisis, we did it with the opening up of the Australian economy in the 1980s and 1990s, and we're doing it again, taking responsibility.

I commend the member for Hasluck who said this bill 'is about ensuring those who powered our industries for decades are not left behind as we embrace cleaner technologies and methods'. I note that my good friend, the member for Swan, who grew up in the Goldfields—a great region of Western Australia—talked about her proud time working in the resource sector. She's an engineer who's worked on the mines, and she said, 'But I am also someone who wants to see action on climate change.' This bill delivers on both. We've had contributions from the member for Bennelong talking about how communities like his are sick of governments 'wasting time and politicising climate action'. He said that his community 'wants consensus and they want action'. Again, this bill delivers on this.

The member for Macquarie highlighted that this bill does have an omission. Most bills do. This bill does not deliver the goal of those opposite to deliver a nuclear powered future for Australia. She pointed out very clearly, 'The costings show us that nuclear is the most risky, most expensive option that we have.' Then we saw the member for Canberra talk about the action that's happened on this government's watch, and how we've 'already approved 46 renewable energy projects, with another 130 in the pipeline,' and how, as a result of this action, 'we've seen a 25 per cent increase in renewable energy in the National Energy Market'.

The member for Corangamite reminded me of a quote we used to hear echoed back to those opposite quite a bit, which was a description of the energy policy under those opposite. Those who've come in over the last few days of this debate and made a number of assertions about how they could do it better and how they could manage it better, but the member for Corangamite reminded us that one former Liberal Premier went so far as to describe energy policy under the former Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government as a 'slow-moving train wreck'. That's what a Liberal Premier said about those opposite when they were in government. Again, I remind people that they might say they have got all of the solutions but they definitely didn't have them when they were in government.

I do want to address something that's been said by a range of members of the opposition in this debate. They have outlined and claimed that the Energy Industry Jobs Plan will create duplication within the existing workplace relations system. I note that, as is clearly in the explanatory memorandum that is right there, the Energy Industry Jobs Plan has been designed to work within and complement the existing workplace relations system. It includes a range of safeguards to ensure small businesses are not unreasonably impacted. Additionally, we have listened to business groups and have amended the bill to further align the processes and procedures of the plan with those under the Fair Work Act. Again, those amendments are on the table for members to see.

We saw the member for Fairfax, just a few moments ago, bringing in all of the anger and aggression he's clearly learnt from the Leader of the Opposition, and the same old union bashing that we've seen from those opposite for years and years, huge amounts of partisan politics, assuring us that they've got all the answers. But still, the one question that not a single member of the coalition was able to answer during this debate—despite a number mentioning their enthusiasm for nuclear power—was where any of the promised nuclear reactors would be. Not one said that it will be in their electorate. Not one outlined where that would be.

But we did see some science from the member for Lyne, formerly the Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Investment, who explained to the House that 'nuclear power stations are basically big kettles.' I thought it was so good that, after he put it in Hansard once, I'd put it in Hansard a second time. 'Nuclear power stations are basically big kettles,' so, every time we hear the outline that all the policy work is almost done, it's almost completed and there have been very careful costings in the coalition and lots of careful looking at where those nuclear power plants and nuclear reactors will be, we can be assured that they've also really thought through the complexities of nuclear technology, because they've come in here and told us 'nuclear power stations are basically big kettles.'

Others wanted to go further to tell us how much they understood the complexities of nuclear power. We had the member for Hinkler—again, formerly the Senior Minister for Resources and Water, who said working at an existing power station is 'exactly the same job in a nuclear power station because there is no difference.' Working at an existing power station, coal or gas, is 'exactly the same job in a nuclear power station because thee is no difference.' I think even Homer Simpson would be offended by that!

So we've had some interesting contributions in this debate. We've had interesting contributions from people who sat around the cabinet table for nine years—nine years of stop-start policymaking, nine years where they sold us direct action and no direct action was ever taken, nine years where they attempted to abolish and water down the renewable energy target, nine years where they had a clean energy target that they put forward and then abolished. We had a discarded national energy guarantee. We had one member of the coalition, when they were in charge of energy policy, say that energy storage was 'as effective as a big prawn'. And then, in their final year in office before the Australian people gave them some time in opposition, they oversaw one of the largest spikes in emissions in 15 years, with some 4.1 million tonnes of emissions. We saw under those opposite a dive in investment in renewable energy. We saw a lack of investment in storage. We didn't see enough investment in transmission. I also note that, when they were last in office, the establishment of nuclear power plants was not part of their agenda. It's interesting. I wanted to put all of that on the record as we look at what is actually in contrast in this debate.

In my final comments, I will say two things. One is to again thank the outgoing chair of the Net Zero Economy Agency, which has been within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet until, hopefully, this parliament enacts this into a statutory authority. Greg Combet has done incredible work in setting up this agency, getting us to this point where we have this legislation for the parliament to debate, and I want to thank Mr Combet and all of those who worked in the agency within Prime Minister and Cabinet. We hope to soon establish them into a stand-alone statutory authority with the passage of this bill in the weeks ahead.

I conclude with this. The Net Zero Economy Authority will play a pivotal role in Australia's successful transformation into a net zero economy. It will help ensure that we successfully navigate the changes that are happening across the world. We want to make sure that, in the enactment of this legislation, we leave no-one and no region behind. Our government will continue to take action to build the industries and create the jobs that underpin our future prosperity. This bill is an essential part of that. It's for those reasons that I commend both the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and the Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 to the House.

See this speech in context