Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm thrilled and delighted to speak in support of the legislation before the House today, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the associated bills. This legislation has the exciting capacity to contribute so much to our transition to a net zero economy. This legislation is very timely, because it comes in a week that has been so significant for Australia's efforts to reduce its climate change emissions. I see these bills as part of the government's plans to make sure that we meet that target we've recently formally adopted, making sure that Australia achieves net zero emissions by 2050. It is timely, because it is legislation like this, and all that will flow from it, that is going to allow that technological revolution, which is already having such a significant impact, to continue.

The bills focus on a couple of areas but chief amongst them is the creation of opportunities for offshore renewable wind energy. It's interesting to think about the technological transformation that has occurred during the course of our history. Wind energy is in fact one of the oldest technologies, when you think about how many civilisations, how many nations, how many communities, were powered in a maritime context by wind over so many thousands of years. Yet now we are seeing that technology that was supplanted by fossil fuels during the 19th and 20th centuries reach a new forte in a different context, and these bills are about allowing that to occur. It is that type of technological transformation that we are seeing in so many areas of our economy and society that is going to be the vanguard of ensuring that not just Australia but the world achieves its goals to contain emissions and reach net zero.

That's why this legislation in particular is so important. It is legislation that is delivering real, practical and meaningful opportunities for us to reach our targets. It's exactly the type of legislation that should have priority in the parliament today. It reflects the fact that the transformation of our electricity sector, which this will support, is well underway. The bills will allow the development of offshore renewable electricity sectors in Commonwealth waters. We have as a nation, as an island continent, some of the largest marine territories in the world.

Offshore renewable energy infrastructure has the potential to help meet our environmental objectives not only of reducing emissions but also of creating such significant investment and job opportunities across our country. It will add to our technological prowess and skills. However, it's extraordinary to believe that in fact things like offshore wind farms are effectively not permitted under current Australian law. Without the regulatory framework proposed in this bill, there is no clear pathway for investors to pursue large-scale offshore renewable energy projects.

This legislation will provide industry and the community with the certainty it needs to invest in offshore electricity infrastructure projects. The bills establish a regulatory framework to enable construction, installation, commissioning, maintenance and decommissioning, and the operation of those offshore electricity assets. It is a comprehensive regime that is outlined in the bills, and it provides that framework that I know that industry has been so keen to see established. It will permit the minister to declare specified areas suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure activities and establish an appropriate licensing regime. It will permit, for the first time, offshore wind farms and also, importantly, provide a framework for projects like Marinus Link and Sun Cable, which I will talk a little bit about further. The government estimates that, just with the three most advanced projects—those two I've mentioned, Marinus Link and Sun Cable, and the Star of the South wind farm proposal—it could deliver investment worth $10 billion and create over 10,000 jobs during their construction. And they will all provide ongoing jobs to support their operations.

The legislation will contribute to the transformation underway in electricity and support the development of clean energy just when we need it most. It's worth reflecting on the fact that almost a quarter of electricity generated in the NEM is coming from renewable sources, and that solar and wind is now accounting for 99 per cent of new electricity generation capacity in Australia. Of course we know from the projections that were confirmed in the plans released yesterday by the Prime Minister that our renewable energy capacity is expected to exceed 50 per cent by 2030, and it will go on and on, and by 2050 it will be a major contributor in us reaching our net zero target. Our task in that context is to assure that renewable energy can be accommodated within our transmission systems, within our electricity and energy systems, at higher and higher levels, and this bill will contribute to that goal.

The bill builds on what I do think is the government's strong record of supporting renewable energy projects and critical grid infrastructure. I see it in the context of the work that we're doing to support that massive expansion of the Snowy Hydro scheme, which is going to be the largest energy storage project in the Southern Hemisphere, and in the work that we're doing to support the deployment of new renewable capacity, particularly solar, which is now happening faster than almost any other economy in the world. We, in fact, now have the most solar per person of any country in the world and more solar and wind than any country outside of the European Union. Through agencies like ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, we have invested something like $11.2 billion into over 800 clean energy projects, with a total value that now exceeds $39 billion when you include the leverage that they've given to spark private sector investment. We've established a $250 million program to support the construction of critical new transmission lines, including projects like EnergyConnect, VNI West and of course Marinus Link, about which I will talk bit more.

I am particularly excited about the potential of offshore wind farms. It is an area where we are seeing technological advancement. Like so many areas of the clean energy transformation, we are seeing costs come down. We're seeing turbines get better. We're seeing technology improve, which will particularly benefit Australia in the deployment of wind farms in deeper waters. This is why organisations like the International Energy Agency say offshore wind is going to be one of the big three in the future energy development. It, in fact, predicts that wind will provide a third of global electricity demand by 2050, by which we're aiming to reach our net zero target. Offshore wind can operate at a capacity which is equivalent to coal and gas in some regions and double the capacity of traditional solar panels. Offshore wind has larger capacity because it deploys bigger turbines than their terrestrial cousins and therefore is a beneficiary of the more constant and reliable wind found in the maritime environment. When there has been some controversy about the placement of some wind farms on land because of their location, it obviously has the benefit of having less visual impact than traditional wind sources. There is also the potential to locate offshore wind farms not only offshore but also close to existing industry ports and transmission services. Globally, by 2030, wind farms could be generating 200 gigawatts of power.

To date, the big players in the offshore wind sector have been the United Kingdom, most famously perhaps through its work in the North Sea—I was going to say North Shore, but we're not quite there yet!—China and Germany, which account for 70 per cent of offshore wind farm generation. But we're seeing a rapid scaling up of offshore wind generation in other parts of the world, Across Europe, Netherlands comes forth, for example. We're seeing expansion in the UK with Prime Minister Boris Johnson flagging his intentions for an even greater role for offshore wind farms, and we're also seeing an expansion in our own region, in the Asia-Pacific. In the United States, a nation which perhaps surprisingly has done relatively poorly in relation to offshore wind generation, the Biden administration has announced its support for a rapid expansion of the sector. I think I read that at the moment the United States only generates something like 42 megawatts of electricity from offshore wind. The president's goal is to see that expand to 30 gigawatts over the course of the next decade. Our goal as a nation should be to join them, and Australian's waters, our maritime territories, are well suited to this task.

As Geoscience Australia has noted, we have some of the best wind resources in the world, and it stands to reason that that is the case. Many of these opportunities have been outlined in an excellent report I recently read by the Blue Economy CRC, which was released in July this year. It found that Australia has abundant offshore wind resources in a range of locations, with, perhaps not surprisingly, the strongest resources occurring in southern latitudes. These include areas like the south of Tasmania, in Bass Strait, off the south west and south-east coasts of the continent and off other parts of Western Australia, Queensland and my own state of New South Wales. In fact, Australian offshore wind resources are comparable, if not greater than, those areas that have been the centre of a lot of activity in the North Sea off Britain and Europe.

Due to the depth of our waters and the nature of the continental shelf, one of the challenges that Australia has experienced is the capacity to deploy offshore wind by using the traditional technology of being able to effectively anchor to the seabed. That becomes more challenging the deeper your oceans and your waters are, but this is a game where technology is providing the solutions that we will need. We are now at the point where we are seeing the commercial development and deployment of floating offshore wind technologies which overcome those barriers of ocean depths. It is a fact that so far most offshore wind farms have been fixed technology with foundations on the seabed. However, floating wind technology does provide extraordinary potential for our own nation.

There are many projects that are under development that will support offshore wind. In fact, I think there are something like 10 that are under development today. I want to highlight one of these—the Star of the South project off Gippsland, because it is probably the most advanced. It highlights what potential we have. If developed to its full potential, the Star of the South will generate up to 2.2 gigawatts of new capacity, which would power the equivalent of 1.2 million homes across Victoria. Some have said that it will provide as much as 20 per cent of Victoria's current energy needs.

The offshore wind farm Star of the South is proposed to be located between seven and 25 kilometres off the south coast of Gippsland, near towns such as Port Albert, Mclaughlins Beach and Woodside Beach. The project includes a transmission network of cables and substations to connect the offshore wind farm to the Latrobe Valley. The project will use underground cables for most of the transmission line, unless it's not technically feasible or where overhead lines would have lower impacts. Three potential route options have been investigated with one taken through to detailed planning. We are likely to see, with this legislation, and with all of the approvals that will follow, the investment start delivering power by the end of this decade.

Projects like Star of the South do more than just provide cheaper and cleaner energy; there are huge economic benefits that will come from this project. It would create 2,000 direct jobs in Victoria over its lifetime, including 760 Gippsland jobs during construction and 200 on an ongoing basis. It would mean an investment over its lifetime of something like $8.7 billion in the Victorian economy. As a New South Welshman, I'm delighted to see Victoria benefit in that way!

But this is just a sample of what the future can hold for us. I also want to briefly mention that this bill is not just about offshore wind potential; it envisages technologies that are still a twinkle in a scientist's eye. It will also better support the deployment of undersea cables to allow, within Australia, a better connection of renewable energy resources—I'm thinking particularly about the Battery of the Nation project in Tasmania, which has such extraordinary potential. This bill will allow Mariner's Link to occur in a more orderly fashion. There is also our export potential as a nation. What has excited me are those proposals for cable connecting Singapore to northern Australia and our capacity, through solar power, to generate a new energy export to Singapore. Again, this legislation will support Sun Cable in proceeding as that cable winds its way across the sea to link, in a new way, Australia with one of its closest friends, the Singapore nation.

I strongly support this legislation. It is about providing the future for our energy sources, and it is going to help us meet our goal of net zero emissions by 2050. I commend the legislation to the House.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of these bills and the amendment moved by my colleague the member for McMahon. The bills establish a regulatory framework for electricity infrastructure in the Commonwealth offshore area beyond three nautical miles. This framework will finally allow the construction, installation, operation and maintenance of offshore wind and other electricity infrastructure. These bills allow the energy minister to declare suitable areas for offshore electricity infrastructure and they establish a licensing system for offshore electricity activities and put in place various regulatory measures around the management and compliance of these activities.

We will be supporting these bills because, despite the Deputy Prime Minister saying we shouldn't be making laws about climate change and despite the Prime Minister saying laws aren't what's needed to drive clean energy and despite the minister for energy and emissions reduction saying—I'm not quite sure what he says—here we have the perfect example of why we need laws to encourage investment and to allow investment that will drive clean energy. That side of the House doesn't seem to grasp this. Either they want clean energy or they don't. Either they want laws to drive a clean-energy future or they don't. I hate to tell them, but right now, by debating these bills, we are making laws that will enable a clean future. That's what governments do. And isn't it about time these bills were before the House? We've been calling for these bills for years.

It seems that now the COP is just around the corner the Morrison government has realised their homework is due and they're rushing to get it in on time. These regulations are vital to unlocking Australia's potential as a renewables superpower. Offshore wind will play an important role in Australia meeting its climate obligations and getting to net zero by 2050. Australia is uniquely placed in this regard. Our potential for offshore wind is huge. We have the environmental advantage, the skilled workforce and resources, and business and industry keen to take advantage of it right now. In fact, they've been calling for these regulations for some time.

There are projects lined up that have been sitting on desks, collecting dust, for years, and these aren't small projects. The Star of the South, for example, a project proposed off the coast of Victoria, is huge. It will create around 2,000 direct jobs for workers from along the Victorian eastern coastline—workers from communities that have been involved in traditional energy industries, whose economies are changing with the closure of coal-fired power, workers whose skills are able to be deployed into the offshore electricity industry. They should take up the opportunity, because they will enter secure well-paying jobs in an industry providing massive amounts of clean energy to the state of Victoria.

The clean energy output figures projected for these sites are enormous. The Star of the South is predicted to be able to produce up to 20 per cent of the energy needed to power Victoria. When the minister stands up and says, 'We need more power, we need cheaper power and we need reliable power,' this is it. The Star of the South project will invest around $8.7 billion into Victoria over its lifetime, including an estimated $6.4 billion directly into the Gippsland economy. The good people of the Latrobe Valley have been screaming for this kind of economic diversification, and those on that side of the chamber might be surprised to know the Latrobe Valley is regional. It is a rural community and they love this project, and it's about renewables. Go figure. These sorts of renewable projects, we know, will work and they need to be unlocked now.

For years the minister has sat on his hands, refusing to bring this legislation forward. Maybe he didn't know that laws work and are needed to make these things happen. Well may we say, 'Well done, Angus.' The fact is, I wrote to the minister in October 2019 requesting that he move, get this legislation onboard, get these laws going. Did we get a response? Did I get a response? Nope. Not a word. But here we are, with a net zero credibility government, a net zero credibility minister, rushing around like chooks without heads trying to do something credible. So well done, Minister. On listening at least to the calls of industry and those of us on this side of the House, finally the legislation is coming forward. He certainly hasn't heard the cries of workers in the Latrobe Valley. He certainly hasn't heeded the calls of small businesses in Gippsland, all desperate for this massive project to get going years ago. But at least, and at last, industry can get on with the job of delivering clean energy for Australia, because the Star of the South will power around 1.2 million homes. It will be cleaner, it will be cheaper. Who'd have thunk it? It's all because we're here today making laws.

I will note that the Senate inquiry into these bills did raise a number of concerns regarding its drafting. Really, can those opposite get anything right? The first was around inadequate requirements for consultation with the minister for the environment, their own minister, and consultation with state and territory governments, and with energy authorities. We know the government has a shoddy track record when it comes to environmental consultation, particularly in the area of energy—and particularly when the energy is offshore—so it's important that proper consultation and approval frameworks are built into these regulations.

The second area is in relation to transmission and export of energy generated offshore. We know that with the natural advantages Australia has for offshore wind, and with industry and a workforce ready to go, opportunities will arise for Australia to export the energy we're producing offshore. The legislation, as it is proposed, inadequately addresses exports—and it's critical that we get this right if we're going to take true advantage of these opportunities.

The final issue I'd like to draw attention to is regarding workplace health and safety provisions in this legislation. There's nothing more important than making workplace safety a top priority. We know that this will be dangerous work—some aspects of it—and that this work requires a highly skilled workforce which understands the risks and which has conditions and protections that reduce the risks and keep them safe. I know that the unions for these workforces—predominantly the Maritime Union of Australia, the Electrical Trades Union and the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union—are doing all they can in preparation for these offshore wind projects. That's to make sure that standards are up to scratch and that they're ready to protect their members.

But it's really important that this House does its part too, by legislating proper workplace health and safety standards and making sure they're consistent with existing standards in the industry. I understand that current consultations on the standards included in this bill have not reached their conclusion and that agreement hasn't yet been found. In fact, it's the understanding of the unions that the provisions currently in the bill will lead to differences in the provisions for onshore and offshore workplaces. As my colleague the member for McMahon rightly pointed out, a worker could be subject to one regulatory regime onshore, another while in a transit vessel and another again when they reach the offshore renewable platform. As a former union official, I know that this will undoubtedly lead to confusion and mistakes—and all it takes is one mistake for things to go horribly wrong, particularly in high-risk industries. So we call on the government to continue their consultations in this area and to listen to the concerns of workers and their unions to get this right. If this isn't resolved properly before an election, an Albanese Labor government will resolve this upon taking office—because an Albanese Labor government won't risk the lives of workers.

The job opportunities that flow from these projects will make a big difference for workers in traditional energy industries and for their communities because these jobs are overwhelmingly union jobs. They have decent wages and decent conditions, and they're secure jobs. They're jobs in an industry which is booming and has a bright future—one which, if we get this right; if we get the legislation right in this place, and fast—can turn into a lucrative export industry for decades to come.

Australia can and should be a renewables superpower. There's no reason, other than the government's consistent and persistent reluctance to act, that Australia should not be at the forefront of renewable energy technologies, harnessing the natural advantages and exporting clean, cheap energy to the world. That, as my colleague the member for McMahon put so well, is the opportunity for Australia in the world's climate emergency.

We've seen some crazy rhetoric from the government, particularly over the last fortnight, when it comes to climate change. We heard the Minister for Resources and Water claim that solar panels don't work in the dark. We've heard the Nats say that they are moving forward on moving forward to somewhere, with one of their own actively campaigning against that moving forward—presumably to move backwards to somewhere else. Oh, and we have the Prime Minister's plan—a plan, a plan!—of graphs, gloss and glitzy slogans but very little substance at all. And yesterday on Sky News I was personally mentioned by the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction as wanting to rip gas barbecues out of people's homes. Really; where does this absurdity end! In fact, Deputy Speaker, you might be pleased to know that I'll be having a barbeque this Friday with my family for my birthday. I'll be 58 on Friday. I'll be sure to send the minister a snap, because there will be plenty of burnt sausages in a low-emissions technology—I promise him!

Australia should be at the forefront of clean energy technologies. We in the Labor Party want Australia to lead the world in the expertise, the technology and the experts for clean energy. In doing so, we will see jobs—jobs that we know come with climate action. There is no good reason why we haven't already seen these jobs. As I have said throughout this speech, we are uniquely placed to become a superpower.

We know—it has been playing out front and centre over the last fortnight—that the government has climate deniers right throughout their ranks and climate deniers now in the cabinet room. We know that, contrary to the claims of the Prime Minister in this place, that this is a government bitterly divided when it comes to climate action, and that the division and the infighting we have seen play out over the last fortnight has culminated in an empty plan. It's a plan in name only, with little policy, little ambition and no real action—and no wonder; after all, this is a government frozen by their division. We saw the trade-off that the Prime Minister had to make in order to get a deal—if you can call it that—with The Nationals on net zero: the Minister for Resources and Water is back in cabinet. That shows so plainly what we all know to be true: they don't really care about regional Australia or about jobs for anyone else; they care about a pay rise for themselves—and, all the while, they sell regional Australia and the rest of us down the river.

We've heard the media constantly calling for the cost of the government's plan. Well, I've got an exclusive on that. I can tell you that the cost of their plan—their hollow, policy-free plan—is jobs. Jobs will be lost. That is the cost—jobs in rural and regional Australia, in mining communities and in our export industries. But they don't care; they've got a minister in the cabinet room with a pay rise—well done! They played out their pantomime of consultation and the Deputy Prime Minster has been able to trot out to the media all week to pretend that he's acting in his constituency's best interests.

It's not a coincidence that it has taken until days before the Prime Minister flies out to COP that we've seen anything resembling climate action from the government. They have been dragged kicking and screaming to this position, for things that we've been calling action on for many years now. It's not just us on this side of the House and it's not just the many climate activists who have been calling for action—and I want to give a big shout-out to all of the wonderful activists, particularly in my seat of Cooper, who have never given up on good policy on climate change; our closest trading partners and our captains of industry and businesses, small and medium, have also been screaming for this. It is embarrassing to see a government scramble now to dress up glossy brochures with meaningless graphs and slogans.

But, unlike this government, Labor has a plan. We have a plan to get to net zero, to make Australia a renewables superpower. We have a plan to invest $20 billion to rewire the grid, enabling a massive uptake of renewable energy and creating thousands of jobs. We'll make electric vehicles cheaper, cutting taxes, and incentivising the uptake of EVs across the country. We'll support 10,000 new apprenticeships in the energy trades of the future, skilling up Australian workers to work in renewable jobs. We will have 400 community batteries constructed that will power 100,000 households with cheaper renewable energy. And we'll make sure regions are at the centre of Australia's shift to becoming a renewable superpower. We will invest $15 billion in a national reconstruction fund, creating jobs, jobs, jobs, and we'll cut emissions in the process. (Time expired)

Katie Allen (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and related bills. If one thing was made clear yesterday by our announcement, it's that the Morrison government fully supports renewable energy production as well as regional jobs and jobs for Australians. The bills before us today allow for those things to flourish, by establishing a regulatory framework on offshore electricity infrastructure. Our great country has numerous important renewable energy infrastructure projects on the horizon, and, for their success to be guaranteed, this framework must be employed. Projects including the Marinus Link, Star of the South and Sun Cable will be enabled by this legislation, ensuring all Australians have access to affordable and reliable power sources.

The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 is crucial to ensuring Australians have a strong regulatory framework, around which a successful renewable energy sector can continue to be developed. Importantly, this bill will protect existing maritime stakeholders, by ensuring that areas will be made unavailable for infrastructure projects if their impacts cannot be appropriately controlled. This bill guarantees the protection of our environment, by placing an onus on developers to be conscious of their wider impact as they plan and proceed with their works. Moreover, this bill requires developers to provide financial security covering the decommissioning of their projects prior to any construction occurring. This ensures that taxpayers' funds won't be wasted by the government on decommissioning these infrastructure projects.

This legislation stands to reaffirm the Morrison government's vision for a renewable future, by accelerating the development of crucial infrastructure at the same time as protecting existing maritime entities. This bill not only prohibits unauthorised offshore electricity infrastructure in Commonwealth waters; it ensures that existing maritime businesses, including navigation and fishing, are protected from interference by developmental impacts. The offshore infrastructure regulator will be authorised to take action against such businesses whose developmental actions adversely affect other businesses. This is a key commitment, as it acknowledges and holds to account large businesses by carefully regulating the way in which they proceed with infrastructure development. Moreover, this bill stands to empower the minister to declare areas as suitable for electricity infrastructure as well as grant licenses to businesses to proceed with development. This ensures a strong system of regulation that protects existing industry while encouraging renewable energy production offshore.

This speaks to a number of projects that are in development and on the horizon. I'd like to talk about three of those now. Firstly, I'd like to talk about the Marinus Link. Returning to this bill's framework, it comprehensively covers all aspects of energy generation and transmission, supporting our commitment to affordable and reliable power. The Marinus Link will be regulated under this legislation. It connects Tasmania and Victoria with a 1,500-megawatt capacity undersea electrical and telecommunications pathway. This project will link the two states as well as strengthen Australia's electricity grid. Many don't know that Tasmania's high level of hydropower makes it already a net energy producer. By linking with Victoria, this will enable Tasmania to become the battery of the nation. In addition to this, excess renewable energy produced in Victoria will be able to be transferred to pumped hydroelectric storage facilities in Tasmania for future use, increasing the efficiency of Australia's energy sector.

The national significance of the Marinus Link cannot be understated. It crucially supports the energy market as it transitions to being more renewable. That's not to mention the estimated $1.5 billion of revenue added to the Victorian economy and the 1,400 jobs created. With the strong regulatory framework this bill provides, the Marinus Link will be accelerated to support Australian industry and, in particular, Tasmania's ability to become the battery of the nation.

The second project that will be supported by this legislation is the Sun Cable project, particularly the Australia-Asia Powerlink. Under this proposal, the world's largest solar farm and battery storage facility will be installed in the Northern Territory, with energy transmitted to Singapore via a high-voltage direct current transmission network. These are amazing projects. This is the future for Australia. This project is an important one for the green energy evolution, and it will work towards helping to decarbonise the energy sector. Not only considering the environmental benefits, the Australia-Asia PowerLink will create thousands of operation and construction jobs, especially stimulating local regional communities and suppliers with the $23 billion project. Again, the legislation before us today enables projects like this, empowering industry and ensuring a commitment to a renewable energy-led future.

The third project is the Star of the South off the coast of Victoria, which will be enabled by this legislation. Currently Victoria generates enough electricity through wind energy to meet roughly nine per cent of the nation's total electricity demand. The Star of the South project, yet again enabled by the bill before us today, will see this figure rise to 20 per cent. This endeavour can power 1.2 million households across Victoria by connecting into the grid through the National Energy Market, strategically making use of existing infrastructure to promote efficiency and ensuring energy prices are kept low for all Australians. The star of the sea will invest and unlock $8.7 billion of funding into the region and $1.4 billion into the Latrobe Valley in particular. These projects are not only important as standalone projects but need to be considered as part of Australia's national effort towards moving toa renewable future, and that is what I would like to talk about today.

As I said in my first speech, climate change is real and affects us all. I stressed at that time both the environmental and economic imperative to act then, and I stress it again today. It's not just an environmental imperative to act, it's an economic imperative. In fact, it's not just an economic imperative, we now know it's an economic inevitability. And yesterday was a momentous point in our country's history. Yesterday, Australia committed to net zero emissions by 2050. This target is important, because it puts out there where we are heading, and we have said very clearly what our principles are for the plan that underpin it. We don't believe in a target without a plan; we believe in a plan that supports a target. And there has been months and months and years and years of work to this point to be able to say what those factors are that will contribute to our future.

As a medical researcher, I understand the principles of innovation. I understand that to unleash innovation you need to develop commercial, scalable solutions, and that's why the Morrison government is taking a partnership approach with business. It's not a top-down bureaucratic approach. Our approach has the market principles at heart. It's about providing choice—choice for consumers, partnerships with businesses, building jobs for the future, allowing the market to take us there but by investing in the market in order to unleash our technological capabilities. This is not a bureaucratic approach which suffocates innovation. We will see a range of new and innovative technologies reach cost competitiveness and help drive down costs across industries while building strong Australian businesses. That is the Liberal way. That is the way that has been effective and efficient over and over again. Our scientists and our engineers will be front and centre of this new green tech evolution.

There's a lot of talk about what this plan will be, and obviously the plan has only been released in the last day so there's a lot more talk to come, but, more importantly, there's a lot more delivery to come and we need to look at the details of that delivery as we move forward. We know that that is coming, but, before we get to that point, I want to talk about the generalities, because the government has put very clearly on its road map what it intends to do. Firstly, continuing our strong record of emissions reduction with our emissions being 20 per cent lower than on 2005 levels. Secondly, our Technology Investment Roadmap will use technology targets to reduce emissions by a further 40 per cent. We also understand that there are global technology trends with shifts in our demand for exports and developments in global technology, and this will reduce emissions by a further 15 per cent. As an example, lithium, nickel and copper are likely to be the critical minerals of the future. We know that. For instance, I understand that at the moment our lithium exports are at around 90,000 tonnes a year—90,000 tonnes in 2021. Each electric vehicle needs about nine kilograms of lithium. It also needs about 40 kilograms of nickel. So that's a lot of kilograms of critical minerals that the world will need as we increase our electric vehicle capacity, and we know that that is coming at speed.

We have 90,000 tonnes being shipped out this year to our export markets, at $14,000 a tonne—I think that's about right. I spoke to someone who works in the lithium sector, and he said that they're anticipating that the lithium export market will grow from 90,000 tonnes a year to two million tonnes by 2030. You can see right there that that is one of the future exports that we will see our country develop and grow. I encourage that we look to doing better with refining our critical minerals and making sure we do more value-add so that we can extract the highest amount of value before we export them overseas. All of these new global technology trends, which include use of electric vehicles and hydrogen trucks, need critical minerals, and our government has had that very firmly in our focus.

We also believe that high-integrity offsets will be important for our future. These involve restoring carbon in soils and vegetation and working with our Indo-Pacific neighbours to reduce emissions by a further 10 per cent. Everyone knows there's millions and millions of hectares in Australia that we can better utilise through farming methods and through storing carbon in our soils and vegetation. That will enable us to provide high-integrity offsets not just for ourselves but for our neighbours.

We also know that future technology breakthroughs will be incredibly important. We understand that investing in future new and emerging technologies will also be important for the last 15 per cent of emissions reductions. These are not just made-up ideas; these are numbers that are backed by scientific integrity and scientific investment. We will continue to do that as we work and partner with business to make sure that the R&D that's developed here in Australia and around the world gets to commercialisable, scalable outcomes that will fuel our super power outcomes for Australia.

In the past, I've talked a lot in this place about our low-emissions technology strategy, and that's because I've believed in these technologies from the very start. I've really backed them in, and it's pleasing to hear that they are being talked about by the media more frequently now. Joe Biden has supported the five low-emissions technology stretch targets and added a sixth one. Those five stretch targets in our plan have now been increased to six stretch targets, as Joe Biden, the President of the United States, did earlier this year—except that our sixth stretch target is different from his. Our stretch targets include clean hydrogen under $2 a kilogram; ultralow-cost solar under $15 per megawatt hour; energy storage—that is, batteries—under $100 per megawatt hour; and low-emissions steel and aluminium steel production under $700 per tonne and aluminium under $2,200 per tonne. I note that the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction, Angus Taylor, has said that he believes a stretch target on green cement will also be very important, and I back that statement in. The remaining targets are carbon capture and storage under $20 per tonne of CO2; and soil carbon measurement under $3 per hectare per year. These are incredibly important aspects of understanding the commercialisable aspects of getting to a clean-tech future.

This morning I was out at a hydrogen pilot program in the ACT, which is being funded by Woodside. It's a partnership program. The federal government is investing billions of dollars—I think $1.2 billion—in hydrogen development, and it's also partnering with states and territories, which is a very good outcome. At this Woodside pilot program, I saw, for the first time, electrolysers in use. They are using green energy from the ACT grid to electrolyse water, produce hydrogen, compress the hydrogen and then take it to a pump. It's all there on site at this hydrogen hub. We actually put hydrogen into a hydrogen car, which we then drove around the corner. It's fantastic to see. It's like an electric vehicle but, instead of being plugged into a power point, it's plugged into a hydrogen pump. The hydrogen is very cold; you have to take the temperature right down. Instead of putting petrol into your bowser, you are putting hydrogen into the bowser. This is the future as we speak, and it is now coming at speed. As we know, when you start to commercialise things, the costs come down. We know that, as we move into the future, more and more of these projects will become our reality.

So we have a plan. It's about technology, not taxes. It's about partnering with business. I'm very pleased to say that the bill that we're discussing today is a very important one to underpin this progress, and I commend the bill to the House.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021. Offshore wind is booming globally. As an island nation, Australia has a coastline of more than 60,000 kilometres, with very high wind resources indeed. And with that comes so much potential now for offshore wind energy. Already there are over 10 offshore wind proposals in Australia just waiting for legislation to be passed by this parliament now in order for their projects to be given the green light.

One of those is off the coast of my home city of Newcastle. These projects promise enormous generation capacity, with tens of thousands of jobs in the construction phase—thousands of good, ongoing jobs and billions in investment. Importantly, most of these proposals, which have been waiting for this government to act for some time now, are sitting alongside our traditional energy regions, where we already have very strong infrastructure in place because of the electricity grids we have in our regions. It's regions, indeed, like Newcastle and the Hunter which have the most to gain from a thriving offshore wind industry. One single turn of an offshore wind turbine can provide as much energy as a whole day's worth of rooftop solar, and these turbines can turn 15 times per minute. Around the world, more than 35 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity are already in operation, with expected increases up to 80 gigawatts by 2030 and 2,000 gigawatts by 2050. Currently, Australia's entire National Energy Market is around 55 gigawatts, so that's the enormous potential that awaits us all.

We have more offshore wind resources than we could ever possibly use ourselves, and that means there's a lot of potential for exporting globally—exporting potential that regions like Newcastle and the Hunter could benefit from. It's deeply regrettable that all of those benefits have been on delay for so long because of the inaction of this government. Credible offshore wind projects have been waiting now for more than five years for this legislation. This is a government that has been in power for eight long years and they have spent those years fighting each other to figure out how they get onto a pathway to net zero. Eight years in government, and all they can deliver for regional Australia is a $31,000 promotion for one of their mates who doesn't believe the wind blows at night

This government is more interested in its own self interest than what is in the national interest and, as a result, cities like Newcastle have missed out on job opportunities because this government has dragged its feet to bring critical legislation like this before the House. Now this government is trying to play catch-up so that communities like mine don't miss out, hopefully, on some of the great opportunities for jobs and industry in our lifetimes—opportunities for new traineeships and apprenticeships; for our local manufacturing and supply chains; for our seafarers; for the blue economy workers; and for those currently working in traditional resources industries.

Newcastle can be a renewable energy powerhouse. Not only do we have the capacity to manufacture the parts needed for those wind turbines but we also have the deepwater port to export wind turbines. You cannot find many places in the world where you have the rail infrastructure, the manufacturing capacity and the deepwater port to produce and export offshore electricity. Investors have been waiting and waiting for this government to get its act together, to legislate for offshore electricity. That is seriously ironic, given the Morrison government's obsession with 'technology, not taxes'. Now that the legislation has been introduced, it is time for us to move fast. We don't have a moment to waste. Several of the submissions from the business community to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee have already made clear that the government must move quickly to declare wind zones and to award licences so that investors and industry can get on with the job.

But let's not kid ourselves. There are some issues with this legislation that we on this side of the chamber feel have not been adequately addressed. In particular, Labor has concerns over the bills' work health and safety arrangements. The committee heard substantial evidence that the government has not adopted the harmonised national workplace health and safety laws in these bills. Instead, the government has opted to amend those laws to the point that they are actually no longer recognisable. Without harmonisation of the WHS frameworks, we may end up with a situation where a worker could be subject to one regulatory regime onshore, a second while in transit on a vessel and a third while working on an offshore renewable project. That will lead to confusion and pose a risk to both workers and employers. To be fair, there is disagreement on these points, including between the department, the regulator and stakeholders representing both employers and workers in the industry. Given the significant difference of opinion, Labor urges the government to urgently undertake further consultation on both the content of the WHS provisions and their coverage. Australia has some years to get this right during the feasibility period before construction begins, and it is crucial that we do that.

The committee also heard consistent evidence that the merit criteria for licences should ensure benefits for local workers, businesses, communities and First Nations people. The committee heard that it was important for this requirement to be reflected broadly in legislation in order to allow those benefits and ensure they are reflected in detailed regulations. Labor encourages the government to consider a legislative amendment to ensure benefits for local communities where these new energy industries will be situated. Already we have seen countries across the world include local procurement targets for offshore electricity within their local supply chain, development strategies and procurement policies. For example, in March 2021, the US Biden administration announced three coordinated steps to support rapid offshore wind deployment and job creation. The first was to advance ambitious offshore wind energy projects to create well-paying jobs, the second was to invest in infrastructure to strengthen the domestic supply chain and deploy offshore wind energy and the third was to support critical research and development and data-sharing. Offshore wind can develop into a single significant source of employment in the maritime blue economy.

Australia's share of manufacturing and supply chain activity in most renewable energy sectors is low, but it does not have to be that way. Workers in Newcastle and the Hunter Region have seen what this government has done already to our manufacturing industry. In the last 10 years we have lost 8½ thousand manufacturing jobs in Newcastle and another 5,000 in the Hunter. That's over 10,000 families who have lost opportunities in the good jobs that manufacturing provides. After years of manufacturing decline, imagine the jobs we can create locally by creating new energy sources, like offshore wind, adding those to our current mix. Offshore wind also offers immense opportunity for the production of green hydrogen for export. Hydrogen produced by offshore wind directly or through the supply of electrolysis located in port facilities could be a real game changer. If we produce hydrogen from renewable energy, then Australia could forge a multibillion-dollar green industry with tens of thousands of new well-paid jobs.

Newcastle in particular has the energy smarts, the industrial experience and the infrastructure needed to be a key player, but first the policy settings have to be right. There are opportunities now that can begin investment, create jobs and build confidence in the future of our regions, but only with the right leadership. If we do not start that work today, I am very worried that we will be playing catch-up and be left increasingly vulnerable on the world stage, because this Prime Minister and this government have left Australia and carbon-intensive regions like Newcastle and the Hunter hanging out to dry.

We have the Glasgow climate summit in less than two weeks. Only now are the government trying to cobble together a strong enough statement to say they are going to commit to net zero emissions by 2050. Newcastle and the Hunter have got a lot at stake in any kind of energy transition in this nation, which is why we should be leading those discussions, ensuring that no-one is left behind as we take full advantage of every new energy opportunity ahead. There are important, very important, renewable energy opportunities that are ripe for the picking.

But the Morrison government's announcement just yesterday was all slides and slogans. They only have one plan for the region, and that's a big scam. They have offered zero modelling, zero legislation and zero new policy. The Prime Minister has just removed the word 'preferably' from in front of the word '2050' but has announced no new policy to get there; nor has he shown the public any modelling. It's a question that the Labor leader, Anthony Albanese, has put consistently to government, as we saw in question time yesterday—begging the Prime Minister to share that modelling with the Australian people. 'Bring the Australian people into your confidence. If you believe that the trajectory that you are about to set us on is the best one possible, share that information with the people.' But, no, that modelling has not been forthcoming.

There are those deals that have been done with The Nationals. We know there are deals that have been done, but they are being kept secret and hidden as well, although we do know that one regional job has been secured—that of the climate-denying new federal minister for resources, which has been promoted back into cabinet, I understand. So his job is secure. But what I want to see is a plan that's going to make secure the jobs of tens of thousands of families in Newcastle and the Hunter. No more hiding your head in the sand, pretending that everyone can just go along the same as always and that this is the way it's going to be forevermore. Nobody believes that anymore. Everybody sees the lack of authenticity when the Prime Minister and, indeed, most of the government members stand up and try to say that we can just continue as is. No-one's wearing that. Their radar can detect that blatant, shameless lying going on among some government members.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I'll ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment about lying. It's unparliamentary language.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will withdraw the word 'lying' and suggest, then, that I have had visits to my region from government members who have not spoken the truth. They have not spoken the truth. They like to rub a little bit of coal on their face and pretend they are at one with the mining community, but they do not tell them the truth.

I think a change in rhetoric may be all that the Deputy Prime Minister allowed the current Prime Minister to get away with. But it's not enough for investors, it's not enough to bring energy prices down and it's not enough to create new jobs and new industries in my region. (Time expired)

Dave Sharma (Wentworth, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to acknowledge the important opportunity here to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the associated legislation. Why are these bills important? They are important for two reasons, as I see it. Firstly, Australia has the potential to be a global offshore wind superpower. We have one of the largest coastlines in the world. Our offshore wind resources are comparable to those of the North Sea, between Britain and Europe; the United Kingdom generates almost 10 per cent of its electricity from offshore North Sea wind resources. Even in Australia, if all the current offshore wind generation proposals were built the energy capacity from those would be greater than that from all our current coal-fired power stations. This is an immense potential resource, but to date we have not had the regulatory or legal framework to allow these things to proceed. These bills provide that framework.

The other important element of these bills is to allow the grid stabilisation function. We know that as more renewables come into our electricity generating supply we need to find a way to stabilise them, because renewables, by their very nature, are intermittent in their generation; the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. You can either stabilise those over time by having electricity or energy storage facilities—things like pumped hydro schemes and large-scale batteries—or by distributing the power over distance.

These bills will allow us to do things like build the Marinus Link and the various interconnector projects which will allow us to connect, in the Marinus Link case, the mainland with the offshore pumped hydro storage capabilities of Tasmania, and allow that to act as a stabilising force for our grid and allow greater renewable penetration into the grid. These bills provide the regulatory framework to allow offshore electricity infrastructure projects, including transmission and generation projects in Commonwealth waters. Both of those will be important—the generation side, because of our offshore wind capabilities, and the transmission side, which will allow us stabilisation grids.

Some of the projects that could be enabled by this legislation include what I mentioned before: the Marinus Link, which will support Tasmania's hydro capability acting as the Battery of the Nation; also important, offshore wind projects in their own right like the Star of the South project, which is a proposed offshore wind farm off the coast of Gippsland, in Victoria, which has the potential to provide almost 25 per cent of Victoria's electricity consumption; and the Sun Cable, an important export opportunity for Australia—a proposed international transmission infrastructure line that will allow us to export solar power through a direct current cable, a DC cable, from Darwin to Singapore and beyond there into the region.

These bills establish a licensing scheme for offshore electricity infrastructure projects and empower the minister—in this case, the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction—to declare areas suitable for offshore electricity infrastructure. This is a regime that requires public notice and consultation prior to any final declarations, which will mean that potentially affected stakeholders, including existing maritime users, fishermen and the like, are able to make submissions and make their views known. It allows the minister to grant these licences which will allow project proponents to undertake offshore infrastructure activities in these specified areas.

The legislation also establishes the statutory authorities to administer and regulate this framework. NOPTA and NOPSEMA, which are the already-existing regulatory bodies involved in granting offshore oil and gas prospecting and exploration licences, will now take on, under this legislation, the administration and regulation of functions of these activities. They've already got significant experience in regulating offshore activities through their existing capabilities.

When we talk about this, we need to bear in mind Australia's record on renewable energy generation and, indeed, emissions reduction, for that matter. Too often, in this debate, people who argue for more ambition seek to denigrate or diminish or discount what we've already achieved. I don't think you can have the basis for a factually sound and reasoned and rational debate unless you acknowledge what's gone before and the journey we've made to date, before you talk about some of the challenges of the future.

Despite what you might hear and despite what some people would have you believe, Australia has a very good record on both renewable energy generation, installation of renewable energy capacity, and emissions reduction. Our latest emissions reduction figures show that our emissions have reduced by 20.8 per cent since 2005. Over the same period our economy is 45 per cent larger, our population is about 20 per cent larger and a large part of that emissions reduction, or more of it, has come from our domestic economy. If you view Australia as a domestic economy alone, our emissions reductions have been 35 per cent. That's because a lot of our emissions are in export related industries—some 40 per cent of them.

What are the figures elsewhere around the world? We recognise that climate change is a global problem and that emissions reduction is a global challenge. Over the commensurate period, from 2005 until now, emissions have been reduced in Canada by one per cent; New Zealand by four per cent; the OECD average, for modern advanced economies, is seven per cent; Japan by 10 per cent; the United States by 13 per cent; and Australia by 20.8 per cent. The only group within the OECD that has bettered that is the EU, which has reduced its emissions by 23 per cent—in large part because they've outsourced or offshored a whole lot of their industrial and manufacturing capability.

Australia is installing renewable energy generation at a record pace. We installed seven gigawatts of renewable energy last year, which is about eight times the global average of renewable energy generation. One in four Australian homes now have rooftop solar. In fact, in 2020 we had 378,451 rooftop solar installations in Australia, which is a world record. Renewable energy in Australia is now some 27.7 per cent of our electricity generation. That's the 2020 figure. It produces about 63 gigawatt hours. That figure was up 3.7 per cent from the previous year. Of the seven gigawatts of renewable energy installed last year, we had three gigawatts in small-scale solar, two gigawatts in large-scale solar and others in wind. So in 2020, as you can see, we've already made quite a transition in our energy mix. Coal is about 62 per cent still, on average, of our electricity generation; renewals is about 28 per cent; and gas—often, peaking gas—is around 10 per cent.

What this bill will do is allow more renewable energy to go into the grid, because it will provide access to new resources, offshore wind, but it will also enable the stabilising infrastructure—particularly, the Marinus Link and other interconnectors—to go ahead. This is an important point that we've been debating in the House, over the last few days, the legislation. I know some people think we should be legislating a net zero by 2050 target. To me, that confuses the purpose of legislation. It confuses ends with means. To start with, our emissions reduction target is an international commitment. It's a treaty-level commitment. It's one we make on things all the time.

The way you make a commitment internationally is you deposit an instrument or a ratification, or you deposit a new commitment with the treaty body repository. For Australia, net zero by 2050 will be contained in what's called a nationally determined contribution and it will be deposited with the custodian of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. That's how you make an international commitment.

Legislation is the means to allow those commitments to take effect. This piece of legislation, for instance, the offshore electricity infrastructure bills, will provide us with one of the tools we need within our toolkit in order for that goal to be met—just as the recapitalisation of ARENA and new regulations for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency will provide another tool to allow this goal to be met.

To me, it would be like if we wanted to legislate to limit inflation to two per cent or end childhood poverty or enforce reconciliation with our Indigenous peoples. You don't legislate for those things. Those things are policy goals, and you put in place legislative bills and tools to allow you to meet those goals. For inflation, it might be the independence of the Reserve Bank that you legislate for. For childhood poverty, it might be childhood assistance or childcare programs. For Indigenous reconciliation, it might be you legislate for a voice to parliament. But this is what the purpose of legislation is for, and I think it's important in this debate that we don't confuse ends with means. Legislation here is a means to an end; it's not an end in itself. You don't affect social policy change and you don't affect economic policy change with a bill. You do it with the assistance of the legislation, but you do it with the executive arms of government.

That takes me to my next point, which is the issue we've been discussing this week, which is net zero and our Long Term Emissions Reduction Plan. I think this is a very important announcement the government has made this week, which is committing Australia to a firm target of net zero emissions by 2050. It has a number of important elements which I think work with the grain of consumer behaviour, capital market behaviour, the economy as we've got it and technology. What our Long Term Emissions Reduction Plan lays out, which was released accompanying the target, is how we plan to get to net zero.

The lowest hanging fruit here is actually electricity generation. That's where we've made the most gains to date. This is what this bill will allow us to make the furthest gains in, and that's where the easiest and the cheapest emissions reductions are likely to come from—by putting more renewables in our electricity grid. The next gains are likely to be from electrification of the transport sector, and that's why we're doing things like investing large amounts in electric vehicle charging stations and transmission infrastructure but also things like hydrogen hubs to conduct the research and development and seek the commercialisation of hydrogen as a liquid fuel.

The harder to make abatements, or mitigations, are going to be in sectors like agriculture and some industrial processes and fugitive emissions from things like mining. And, as the Long Term Emissions Reduction Plan lays out, these sources of emissions will either need to be abated with new technology or offset in some way, and that is going to be a challenge for the future. But I think, with the technology that we have currently available and that is commercially available, we can do a large part of our emissions reduction goal and get a long way to net zero without disrupting our economy, without destroying jobs or industries, without impacting on our way of life, without changing our diet, without doing any number of other things. We can do that with technology as it is.

What we also lay out in our Long Term Emissions Reduction Plan is the technology targets we need to hit in order to move down that pathway. Some of those are important to recognise. Clean hydrogen at less than $2 a kilo—at that price point, hydrogen becomes commercially competitive as a source of energy for transport and other uses. Low-cost solar at less than $15 per megawatt hour—this is significantly lower than the wholesale cost now but it will allow large penetration into the network. Energy storage at less than $100 per megawatt hour storage—this is an important component of stabilising the intermittency of renewable energy sources. Green steel at under $700 a tonne—this would make it commercially competitive. That's direct reduced steel, using things like hydrogen rather than coking coal to reduce the iron ore to steel. We need green aluminium at less than $2,200 a tonne, and we need carbon capture and storage at less than $20 a tonne, because there will need to be carbon capture and storage in a net zero economy. Finally, we need to be able to measure soil carbon at less than $3 per hectare. All of those technologies, if we get to that price point, will get us at least another 40 per cent of our way towards net zero. Bear in mind we're already at 20 per cent. This will get us another 40 per cent. New technologies will take us a further 15 percent. Then abatements and offsets will need to take as the remainder of the way.

I think it's important to recognise here that this economic transition is not something to be feared, it's not something that's unprecedented and it's not something that Australia has not gone through before. It's true we are a highly emissions-intensive economy at the moment, and that partly reflects our export mix and partly reflects our industry mix. But, if you think back through Australia's economic history, for most of our history since Federation our largest export was wool. Even as recently as 1970, at least half of Australian exports were wool and wheat. Resources have only really come on as major exports since the 1970s. They will remain as important exports into the future, but what our commitment to net zero and our Long Term Emissions Reduction Plan allow us to do is to generate new sources of exports and new sources of prosperity, which will remain essential in ensuring jobs and industries in our regions well into the future.

Kate Thwaites (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 really reflects so much of the Morrison government's approach to climate policy. It's very late, and while this government has been dithering and playing political games—coming up with slogans—Australia has been missing out on the potential that offshore wind energy offers us in contributing to our energy needs, reducing our emissions and creating jobs. So it's good that this bill is finally here, albeit late. But the regulatory framework for Australia's offshore wind industry has been so delayed that vital projects and jobs remain mired. Labor has long called for legislation to unlock the benefits of offshore renewables, particularly offshore wind generation, because we know that we have enormous capacity here in Australia for offshore wind generation.

As well as that generation capacity, offshore wind offers us thousands of jobs and billions in investment for regional communities, including—and especially—for those which are most impacted by changes in global energy markets. So it's shameful that these benefits have been delayed by this government. Those opposite had promised to aim that the legislative settings and framework for this would be in place and operational by mid 2021. Instead, we are belatedly getting the introduction of these bills, and we know that it will most likely take well into next year for them to be implemented. As I said, this reflects so much of the slowness around this government's climate policy and its attitude towards tackling climate change.

I did hope, like so many in our country hoped, that this week would be different. We thought that this was the end of the more than a decade-long climate war; the end of eight years of inaction from this government and the end of slogan and spin—that we would have a result after all the bluster and noise that was coming out of the Nationals. But we were wrong. Let's be very clear about what we got out of the Prime Minister's big climate reveal yesterday: it was not a plan; it had no ambition. We got a pamphlet and we got some slides, not a plan—no legislated target and none of the increased ambition we need to avoid catastrophic warming.

I do admit that there was one new part in yesterday's climate reveal: we did get some new slogans, and we do know that this is a prime minister who loves a good slogan. In fact, that's all this Prime Minister thinks it takes. He has no interest in grabbing hold of the jobs, the industries and the potential of the future, or of grabbing hold of the action that we need to take to make sure that our entire country benefits from it. He has no genuine commitment to net zero and the action we need to take to avoid catastrophic warming. In fact, how can he have any sort of genuine commitment when we look around him and see the balance he's trying to bring and the coalition he's trying to stitch together? His own Deputy Prime Minister has said that he doesn't believe in net zero—that's the Deputy Prime Minister who is going to be in charge when the Prime Minister takes off for Glasgow tomorrow. In fact we just heard in estimates questioning that this government has not had Treasury do any modelling on the economic costs or benefits of net zero by 2050, or indeed any modelling of climate-change-related impacts on the Australian economy—none at all! That says everything we need to know about the Prime Minister's commitment and about his government's commitment to genuine action on climate change; they're just not serious. But this is serious. It has been too long; it has been a political game to this Prime Minister and his government for far too long. This is not a political game. Under this government, this country has wasted so much time and we're now out of time to waste.

Australia should be a renewable energy powerhouse and, of course, wind, including offshore wind, should be a big part of that. Just as with solar, we should be a wind superpower. We have one of the longest coastlines in the world. We have some of the best wind resources in the world. Anyone who's visited any of the coastline down in Victoria, where I'm from, would know that we have some very windy coastlines in our state.

Across the country, we have more offshore wind resources than we could actually use to supply our domestic market. Recent research by the Blue Economy CRC indicates feasible wind resources of 2,223 gigawatts of capacity off Australia's coast. In fact, our entire national energy market is around 55 gigawatts. So there's room for this offshore wind energy capacity not just to help Australia with our energy needs and our transition to renewable energy but also to be an export for our country and for us to be able to help other countries as well as grow industries.

Of course, because we're so late, the rest of the world has already moved on this. In fact, it was UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson who said that in 10 years time 'offshore wind energy will be powering every home in the country'. In the UK, they already have the world's largest offshore wind generation capacity, and in October 2020 the UK government announced a target of 40 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030, up from its original target of 30 gigawatts by 2030.

So the rest of the world is ahead of this government. Energy providers here in Australia are ahead of this government. They know the capacity that's there in our offshore wind. They've just been waiting for this government to catch up and bring some legislation that allows them to harness that. There are more than 10 projects that have been waiting on the government bringing on this legislation so that they can get on with the job, and these projects have massive capability. Again in my home state of Victoria, Star of the South, which will be off Gippsland, will produce enough energy to cover 20 per cent of our state's current energy needs. That is huge. A single turn of an offshore wind turbine can provide as much energy as a whole day's worth of rooftop solar.

Some of the best wind resources are located just off the coasts of the regions that have powered our country and built the industries that have powered our country for generations now. These regions include Gippsland in my home state; the Hunter Valley, including Newcastle, which the member for Newcastle has just spoken about; the Illawarra; and Central Queensland, including Gladstone. These regions have all the things that support these offshore wind generation: the strong electricity grid infrastructure, the ports, the railways and the populations for new energy and new industries. It is striking that the proposals for offshore wind that we are seeing come forward in this country—the proposals that are ready to be unlocked once this government gets its act into gear—are in our traditional energy regions, because of this strong connection they have to the electricity grid and because of the infrastructure they already have in place.

So it's these communities and these workers that have the most to gain from a thriving offshore wind energy industry. They will create the energy that will benefit all of Australia, but they will create the jobs that will benefit the regions and all of Australia as well. It's not just putting in place offshore wind infrastructure; it's the turbines that need maintenance and the network of ships and ports that are required for that maintenance. From a government that likes to talk up technology, not taxes, it's really disappointing to think that we've had to wait so long for this legislation, which allows us to unlock all of that potential.

Labor does support this legislation and its aims. The bill establishes a regulatory framework for electricity infrastructure in the Commonwealth offshore area; it allows the construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore wind and other electricity infrastructure; it allows the energy minister to declare a certain area as suitable for offshore electricity infrastructure; and it establishes licence schemes for offshore electricity activities. As I said, Labor supports these aims. We are concerned that they've been too slow in coming and, again, that they are not as comprehensive as they should be. That's why I support the amendments that have been moved by the member for McMahon.

I make it clear once again that we must move quickly on this. Industry is ready. The rest of the world is moving. It is time for Australia to catch up. This is long overdue, like most of the government's climate efforts. Let's not make offshore wind energy the other part of the puzzle that slips by this country because we've got a government that is focussed on slogans and a political game and is not actually focused on what will create the jobs of the future and what will make sure that our country transitions to net zero 2050 with a credible, actual plan to get us there. The IPC report makes it very clear that the window to act on climate change is closing. If we don't take significant action now, we miss that window and the consequences for all of us are dire. We will not limit warming to the level that we need for us all to have a future. That is a real consequence for all of us. And, of course, there are immediate economic consequences as we get locked out of the jobs and industries of the future—the jobs and industries of the future that we should have right now in this country. But we don't, because we get slogans rather than plans and commitments.

In my community, the No.1 issue people raise with me is the need for genuine action on climate change, and they are not going to be bought off with a slogan. They are very clear that this country needs to transition—it needs to transition with the jobs and industries of the future, and it needs to transition so that we keep warming within acceptable levels for us all to have a future. We still haven't seen the plan, the commitment, from this Prime Minister and this government that allows my community and the rest of Australia to be assured that that's where we're heading.

In contrast, of course, Labor is very clear that we are committed to net zero by 2050. There are no quibblers on our side—no-one who accepts the party room decision but actually tells the media they don't back it. We have plans in place. We have a new energy apprenticeship program to train 10,000 young people for the energy jobs of the future. We want to make electric vehicles cheaper by cutting input and fringe benefit taxes and developing Australia's first national electric vehicle strategy. We want to invest in community batteries. We want to fix and modernise the electricity grid, with $20 billion to rewire the country.

We know that you don't just do this work with a pamphlet. You do this work with commitment, with thoroughness and with the policies that back it up. We continually fail to get those policies and get that commitment from those on the other side. We don't have more time for political posturing, games and slogans; it is time for action. I say to my community: I continue to hear your voices on this. I know you're not satisfied with what's come out of this government this week. I will keep fighting for our country to do more—to do what we have to do—to tackle climate change and get us all the future we deserve.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's probably fair to say that the contributions from those opposite on this debate have been, as always, disappointing. They cannot help themselves.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Lingiari will withdraw.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for External Territories) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While the member for Lingiari is insulting people personally when he doesn't agree with their ideas, when they won't bow to his thuggery, let me explain to him why the contribution from his side has been so disappointing. Apparently, to listen to their speeches, they're all in favour of this piece of legislation. In fact, they tell us that their only complaint is that we didn't do it sooner, ignoring the fact, of course, that when they were in government the greatest moral challenge of our times got swept under the carpet because it became too difficult for them. So instead of congratulating the government yesterday for doing something that they could never achieve when they were in power, they come here and they whinge and they whine and they complain that we just didn't act soon enough.

Now we're acting. But, once again, in this most extraordinary of situations, they find themselves moving yet another piece of meaningless second reading amendment. You have to ask yourself: why do the Labor Party continue to move these second reading amendments? Could it have anything to do with this mysterious website called theyvoteforus.com.au? (Quorum formed) The Labor Party keep calling for quorums because they don't want to talk about theyvoteforus.com.au. The reason they don't want to talk about these left-wing front groups is that it exposes their hypocrisy over and over again on these debates and so many other debates.

They move these second reading amendments because of their big-tech billionaires, litigation lawyers and industry super. You may note one group missing in all of that—organised labour. That's because Labor are no longer the party of organised labour. They are no longer the party of the working men and women of this country, because most of them haven't even met one in their entire lives. They are too stuck in the boardrooms of AustralianSuper in Collins Street, where they get to look over all that they have taken over.

That's why they don't care. They don't care if electricity prices go through roof. They can come in here and quote to us, as often as they want, what Boris Johnson thinks of offshore energy. But what they won't stand up and talk about are all those pensioners in the United Kingdom who will not be able to afford heating this winter because of the sorts of politics that Labor would happily inflict on the Australian people from this place. But, don't worry, there's theyvoteforus.com.au—the big-tech billionaires who have got their hands in their pockets and are fronting up all these left-wing front groups for them. Talk about astroturfing—astroturfing, thy name is the Labor Party and the crossbench support that they rely on!

The absurdity of their position over and over again—even for a bill that they claim they support they still have to move second reading amendments, they still have to quote Boris Johnson. This year the pensioners of the United Kingdom will find themselves either not being able to afford heating or not be able to feed themselves because of gas prices, because of Boris Johnson and the UK's over-reliance on offshore wind energy and under-reliance on nuclear energy and gas. But Labor don't want to talk about that. They want us to go headlong into magic bean solutions for the climate and for the energy market, because that's what their backers, that's what their funders, that's what their donors want them to do.

The working men and women of this country that you used to represent, that you used to stand up for, can go to hell as far as you guys are concerned—people; sorry, I don't mean to be gender specific about that. What this shows is that we on this side are relying on technology. What we are doing on this side is actually creating the environment and the frameworks that allow other Australians, innovative Australians, to go out there and build the future, to go out there and build the electricity grid of the future. This legislation is not about banning, is not about mandating, is not about telling people what they can buy and how they can live; this is about creating an environment that enables investors to make decisions that will allow Australians to live in a net zero world sooner rather than later. It does this by encouraging them to do that. It does this by enabling them to do that. It does this by creating a positive vision about what this nation can be. But most of all it does this by getting government out of the way of people who have the solutions to this problem.

We keep hearing that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy anywhere in the world. Well, if government is not in the way, then investors will start providing that energy. You only have to look at the New South Wales government and their renewable energy zones to see the billions of dollars just waiting on the sidelines to invest in this sort of technology. Yes, we don't have all the solutions yet. Anyone who says they do is talking through their hat, but what we do know through the IPCC report—and those opposite should read past the executive summary. They should read chapters 2, 3 and 8 that talk about the importance of nuclear energy, that talk about the importance of firming in dispatch power, that talk about the importance of carbon capture and storage to humanity getting to a net zero world. Yes, it also talks about the importance of renewable energy and it talks about the importance of offshore energy. Those on this side, like the member for Higgins, like the member for North Sydney, like the member for Wentworth, have pointed to all those things that sit before us right now. It only takes our capacity to reach out and grasp them, and that's what this bill does.

This is a package of three bills: the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021 and the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, all of which were introduced to the House on 2 September. These bills will establish that regulatory framework that will allow that investment, that will allow those things to occur, that will allow that positive vision to come to life. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill, the main bill, establishes that framework to enable the development of offshore electricity infrastructure. The proposed framework covers all phases of development from construction through to decommissioning of generation and transmission projects. Projects that could be enabled by this legislation include the Marinus Link project over the long-term and support Tasmania's Battery of the Nation vision that would see dispatchable power going into the grids of Victoria, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. That will allow more renewable energy to be used as part of our grid, because that dispatchable power will be sitting there. There is also the Star of the South, which many members have mentioned, which will allow 2.2 gigawatts of energy to come into the grid in Victoria that could, at different times of the day, represent 20 per cent of their electricity needs.

We also have Sun Cable, which is backed, of course, by Twiggy Forrest and Mike Cannon-Brookes, and they are proposing to send electrons from the Northern Territory to Singapore. This is something that has had the backing of the Northern Territory government and of course the federal government and of course those private sector investors—and they are taking on the risk of innovating for that project. I think if the opposition were directly involved in that, two things would probably happen: it would be over budget and it would never quite work the way we want it to. Because of this innovation, because of this private sector involvement, Australia will be exporting renewable energy to Singapore sometime in the near future.

I am told this framework will see 10 projects that are already at proof of concept come into the marketplace, and investment can commence. And why wouldn't it? Australia has some of the best areas for offshore wind and also onshore wind. That is what Geoscience Australia says. We are responsible for some of the largest areas of territorial waters, globally speaking. Innovations in floating offshore wind farms are allowing the deployment of those stations further and further out to sea, all within bodies of water that Australia has control over. That will represent massive opportunities for us to electrify our grid.

Now, as Rewiring Australia has pointed out—and as Bill Gates argued quite succinctly in his book—the best and clearest path not just for Australia but for the entire world towards net zero globally is to electrify everything we can. To do that, we will need to produce in Australia somewhere between five and six times as much electricity as we currently do; and, globally, eight times as much. That task should not be underestimated by anyone in this chamber or anyone in the media who thinks, 'Well, now we've declared it, we can all go home.' No, this will be an incredibly difficult task for us to fulfil.

It is important to note that these bills are not just about offshore wind. They will also enable undersea cabling, which is also incredibly important for enabling us to get power—the most obvious case being from Tasmania to the mainland.

If we can achieve these things, if we can make this work, then Australia can indeed set up a future where we have very cheap, very clean energy. We can also start to attract to our nation the manufacturing jobs that we lost under the carbon tax. People will realise that this is the best place to make green steel and clean aluminium because the major cost of that is energy, and the energy that will be produced in Australia will be in such abundance that there will only be one logical place in the world to produce those materials and those goods, and that is here. I call on the Labor Party to stop playing games for the benefit of their big-tech billionaires and to get with the program.

Anika Wells (Lilley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In January 2020, the Morrison government promised Australians that our offshore renewable industry would be open for business by mid-2021. Yet here we are, with 2½ months left until the end of the year, debating the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021. This bill will establish a regulatory framework to allow for the construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore electricity infrastructure in Commonwealth areas. Labor has been campaigning for a legislative framework to unlock the benefits of offshore renewables for some time.

There is growing commercial interest in an Australian offshore electricity sector, with a dozen offshore wind prospects currently in the early planning stages around the country. These offshore renewable energy projects tick all of the boxes when you think of bang-for-buck economic investment. Offshore renewable energy has the potential to create a reliable and affordable electricity network that guarantees Australia's future energy security. It will see billions of dollars invested in Australia, creating tens of thousands of jobs while delivering social and economic benefits in our regional communities. It will maximise import and export trade opportunities which leverage our renewable energy resources.

Offshore renewable energy also has the potential to expand our local manufacturing capacity and expand scalable supply chain benefits for small and medium enterprise in Australia, with the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre estimating that manufacturing components for offshore winds creates eight times more jobs than the construction of projects. This level of investment in the manufacturing sector would be a game changer for my electorate of Lilley, which has a proud manufacturing history but which has struggled under eight years of an LNP government.

In the absence of a regulatory framework, the economic and environmental benefits of offshore wind and other offshore renewables have been delayed by the Morrison government. There are three key areas where this bill could be improved to make it fit for purpose, and these issues were raised by key industry stakeholders during the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill. First and foremost, the bill fails to reflect serious concerns that were raised in the Senate inquiry about the work health and safety framework. The inquiry had substantial evidence that the work health and safety provisions of the bill should be fully harmonised with the national work health system, in turn providing consistent and robust protections for workers. Instead of heeding this advice, the Morrison government has amended the work health and safety provisions beyond recognition. As the bill stands, a worker would be subject to one regulatory regime onshore, a second while in transit on a vehicle and a third while working on an offshore renewable project. This patchwork of health and safety regulation poses significant risk and confusion for workers and employers alike. Secondly, this bill fails to create a provision which allows government electricity-planning agencies, developers or state governments to request that the minister commence the process of declaring an offshore electricity area. It also fails to provide a time line for when that process will be complete, and it doesn't provide transparency and certainty as to the matters the minister shall consider in making the declaration. Finally, the bill fails to address evidence received by the Senate inquiry on the importance of legislated merit criteria on socioeconomic benefits for local workers, for business communities and for First Nations people when issuing a feasibility licence, commercial licence or transmission licence. The minister should also be required to consider the potential impacts of offshore renewable energy infrastructure on our precious marine environment, of which my electorate is a beneficiary. The merit based and environmental criteria must be reflected in this legislation to ensure they are reflected in detail in subsequent regulations. These three improvements would provide greater certainty to a future offshore wind industry and ensure that the economic benefits of local supply chains are maximised while providing the highest possible standards for workplace health and safety.

COVID highlighted the fragility of our economy against the impact of disaster. It pulled into focus the value of scientific knowledge in anticipating, preparing for and managing the impact of natural shocks. Most importantly, it weakened the domestic and global standing of political leaders who refused to take science seriously. As our global allies and domestic peak bodies commit to net zero by 2050 to tackle climate change, the Morrison government remains conspicuously outside the tent, refusing to offer real solutions to tackle climate change and protect our environment. And it is quite a big tent. Every state and territory in Australia has signed up to net zero, the Business Council has signed up, the National Farmers Federation has signed up, the Minerals Council has signed up and the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association has signed up. Yet somehow, after eight years in government, the Morrison government is still divided on the basic science of climate change and has come up with a PowerPoint plan to reach net zero by 2050 that would fail as a grade 7 science project.

Blindly led by an outdated ethos and held hostage by climate deniers, science doubters and conspiracy theorists, the Morrison government isn't just embarrassing us on the global stage but they're actively hurting our economic success and undermining the environmental and social wellbeing of our great nation. They have no timetable for action and they have no set destination; they're fixated with short-term political acts over long-term vision. Above all, the Morrison government continues to misjudge the time frames in which we must act before irreparable damage is done. Until net emissions fall to zero, global average temperatures will keep increasing. Even if greenhouse emissions fall but remain positive, temperature increases will be slowed but they will not stop. And while we are the ones who are making the decisions today, it is the future generations who will pay the price. The time for action is now.

Decarbonising our economy and investing in renewable energy isn't the death knell for the Aussie blue-collar worker that the Morrison government would have us believe. It will not end the Aussie weekend and it will not take away your lawnmower or your ute. Tackling the climate emergency by investing in renewable energy actually presents Australia with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for significant economic growth in our post-pandemic recovery. From a domestic viewpoint, public and private investment in solar and wind generation, energy storage and transmission to link resources to expanding industrial centres has the potential to create new jobs quickly, to lift our employment rate and to increase wages sustainably. From a global stance, embracing the opportunities of a low-carbon world economy would change the structure of the Australian industry for the better by reducing emissions whilst also lowering costs and increasing global competitiveness.

Decarbonising our electricity and embracing renewable energy will also ensure our that our Aussie manufacturing sector is equipped for the future. Aluminium is currently the most electricity-intensive product entering world trade in large volumes, and Australian competitiveness in coal based aluminium smelting has been challenged by rising electricity costs. In the current environment, no mainland Australian smelter is guaranteed long-term survival in the absence of fundamental changes in electricity supply. This will have serious consequences for companies like GJames in my electorate of Lilley, which is a successful family-owned business employing over one thousand local workers to manufacture glass and aluminium. While the Morrison government sits on its hands, Australian industry is stepping up and leading the way in pursuing net zero emissions by 2050. The Australian Renewable Energy Agency has identified the sector as a key target in its strategy to support industry in reducing emissions, and has partnered with Rio Tinto to conduct a feasibility study at the Yarwun refinery in Gladstone to find a way to partially decarbonise refining by using renewable hydrogen in calcination.

I know that the best prospect for Australia in the post-pandemic economic recovery is an accelerated transition to low-cost renewables because I've seen the blueprint for success in my own electorate of Lilley. GEM Energy is a solar power and battery company in Pinkenba, near Brisbane Airport. I had the pleasure of meeting with the CEO of GEM Energy, Jack Hooper and his team—and his dogs!—last week to gain some more insight into the future of the energy landscape in Australia, including our renewable targets and how we can ensure grid stability and cheaper energy prices for all Australians. The growth of the renewable energy industry has enabled GEM Energy to expand from a small operation in regional Emerald to a company which employs over 50 full-time staff, and it has delivered over $160 million worth of solar and battery projects. The story of GEM Energy proves that there's a bright future for Australian workers in renewable energy.

I have also seen the opposite side of this story, where the Liberal led Brisbane City Council decided to outsource the manufacturing of electric buses to a company in China instead of manufacturing them at Volgren in Eagle Farm, risking the jobs of dozens of local workers. I'm glad to report that Volgren is progressing in spite of Mayor Schrinner and his Liberal mates, and has recently announced that it will be doubling its workforce over the next year to prepare itself for the opportunity that manufacturing electric buses will bring.

As the federal member for Lilley, I have a simple, effective and commonsense plan to boost our local economy. First is northside infrastructure projects built, secondly, by northside workers and, thirdly, using equipment and materials manufactured in Australia. In line with this plan, there is no comparable opportunity for nation-building public and private investment on the same scale as renewable energy. As elected representatives tasked with securing Australia's future, we must grab this opportunity with both hands. We cannot stand by and allow our economy and our workers to be unprepared for the global shift in energy supply.

Australia has the opportunity to emerge as a winner in a low-pollution global economy, but only under the right leadership. We need a just transition and investment in the renewable energy sector, and we need an Albanese Labor government to do it. An Albanese Labor government will harness the power of renewables to power our manufacturing, develop our hydrogen industry and create a generation of secure well-paid jobs. We will unleash the power of our solar, hydro and wind power stations by rewiring the nation, building a new transmission line to connect renewables to industry. We will give power back to the people by building community batteries for household solar. And, with our electric car discount, we will cut taxes on electric vehicles, making them cheaper for families to buy. We will join with the rest of the world and adopt a target of net zero emissions by 2050, creating jobs, cutting electricity bills and lowering pollution. We will invest $100 million to support 10,000 new energy apprenticeships and $10 million in a new energy skills program. We will support the Australian Renewable Energy Agency and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, which Labor set up when last in government and which the coalition has spent seven years undermining.

There is a real need for industry policy to ensure that the offshore renewable energy industry achieves its potential. Offshore wind is not one of the technologies prioritised by the government's low-emissions technology road map—another missed opportunity by the Morrison government to harness the power of renewable energy. An Albanese Labor government will prioritise offshore wind regulation to unlock the billions of dollars and thousands of jobs for Australia's regions that the Prime Minister is stalling on. I thank the House.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021. This bill is part of a package of three bills including the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021, which were introduced in the House on 2 September. Together these bills establish a regulatory framework to enable offshore electricity infrastructure projects, principally offshore wind, including transmission generation projects in Commonwealth waters. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, the main bill, establishes a regulatory framework to enable the development of offshore electricity infrastructure. The proposed framework covers all phases of development, from construction through to decommissioning, of generation and transmission projects.

This is an important bill. As speakers have indicated, the offshore wind industry is sweeping the world, and it's only right, and indeed necessary, that we see offshore wind projects off Australia's coastline—some 60,000 kilometres of coastline blessed with windy conditions. A portion of that coastline is in my electorate of Barker. It wasn't a surprise to me that I received a phone call in mid-August this year from representatives of Australis Energy, the wholly owned subsidiary of Australis Energy, which is registered in England and Wales, who are currently looking at an offshore wind project off the coast of Kingston South East—that is Kingston in the south-east, not Kingston in the Murray, both of which are in the electorate of Barker. This particular project, it is understood, will have the generation capacity of 600 megawatts, or enough to power 400,000 South Australian homes, and create up to 100 permanent high-quality jobs across its lifespan. All of this sounds excellent: 100 jobs, powering 400 South Australian homes.

But, of course, what this legislation does is say to proponents of projects like this one that we as a nation are going to establish a regulatory framework to ensure that (a) the application, the proposal and the project take place in a way that meets the necessary environmental and other approvals; and (b) in the event that ultimately the project requires decommissioning at end of life, that is undertaken, again, in a way that's environmentally sensitive and in accordance with important regulations. And, of course, the legislation provides a framework in the event that the proponents, either during the construction phase, during the operation stage or even at the point of decommissioning, are not in a financial position to meet the commitments associated with decommissioning or making good that project. That's why I regard this legislation as particularly important. We don't want a situation where we have a host of stranded assets which are subject to seasonal conditions out at sea—which we all know to be particularly caustic—without there being, if you like, the kind of backup required in the event of insolvency or other maladventure.

I have sought to engage the local community. I've spoken to the Mayor of Kingston District Council, Kay Rasheed. She is yet to be provided with a detailed brief in relation to this project. It was announced on 24 August this year. It is now more than two months since that date, and the local community hasn't been actively engaged. I've just come off a call to the executive officer of the South Eastern Professional Fisherman's Association. For the benefit of the House, Kingston is where you'll find the Big Lobster, so it might not be a surprise to those in the House to know that there is a significant southern rock lobster fishery at Kingston. The comment I received was that it would be nice to be engaged. I take it from that that Australis Energy hasn't reached out to the local professional fishermen's association at this stage. I say all of this from the perspective that I, Her Worship the mayor and representatives of the local rock-lobster-fishing industry sound supportive of this project, and no doubt are. But I encourage Australis Energy to reach out to community leaders and provide further detail in relation to this project. Even the information I've been given, outside of what I can obtain publicly on their website, can be best described as brief.

It's important that the community be engaged, because the community needs to be involved. I understand the application has been made to the South Australian government, and all of that is fine and dandy, but local communities need to be part of these decisions, and I encourage Australis Energy: engage the local community, including the local rock lobster fishermen, and take them on this journey with you. My experience in this place over eight years, in dealing with projects like this—not least the Beach Energy project in the south-east of South Australia, which sought permission to hydraulically fracture and mine for gas in the south-east—is that they have met with significant opposition, for many reasons, one of which may well have been the failure to positively engage the local community.

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No advanced country is more affected by dangerous climate change than Australia. Extreme weather events, including floods and bushfires, have afflicted Australian agriculture and households. Australia has the highest emissions per person in the advanced world, yet we're doing the least to combat climate change. According to this year's Sustainable development report, Australia ranked last of 193 countries for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. What little reduction there has been under the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison governments has occurred despite them, not because of them. Labor's renewable energy target and state government land-clearing policies have accounted for the lion's share of the emissions reductions, which nonetheless are significantly smaller than we saw under the six years of the Rudd and Gillard governments.

We have, in this country, a range of organisations committed to fighting against climate action. Among them is the Institute of Public Affairs, whose executive director, John Roskam, once told the Sydney Morning Herald:

Of all the serious sceptics in Australia, we have helped and supported just about all of them …

Whether that's Ian Plimer, Jennifer Marohasy or Peter Ridd, you've seen the Institute of Public Affairs backing climate misinformation and working hard against climate action. So it might come as little surprise to the House that the name for the Institute of Public Affairs newsletter is 'The Australian way'. How appropriate that the package brought down by the Morrison government bears the very same name as the newsletter of the No. 1 denialist think tank in Australia.

The fact is that what we saw from the Prime Minister yesterday was sideshows and slideshows, as the member for McMahon has noted. We didn't see any commitment to serious climate action. As the leader of the Labor Party said yesterday, we saw, from the Prime Minister, net zero modelling, net zero legislation and net zero unity. This should be called the 'Joyce-Morrison government' for the way in which the Nationals tail is wagging the Liberal dog. When the Prime Minister gets on a plane to go off to Glasgow, the person left in charge of the country will be the member for New England, who himself opposes net zero by 2050.

But net zero by 2050 isn't the goal of the Glasgow talks; it's a bare minimum pledge, which most advanced countries signed up to years ago. The debate at Glasgow is going to be over what countries will do by 2030, and the Prime Minister will turn up to that debate with the same 2030 targets as Tony Abbott, the climate change denier who once called climate change 'absolute crap' and mistakenly referred to carbon dioxide as a colourless, weightless gas—leading to a terrific riposte by Malcolm Turnbull, who noted that he should try and make that argument to anyone who has ever dropped a block of dry ice on their foot.

The fact is that this government is running from serious climate action. It has worked for the past eight years in cahoots with climate denialists. Under the Morrison, Turnbull and Abbott governments, we have seen renewable energy jobs gutted. We have seen a failure of leadership. As Warwick McKibbin, who's not always a cheerleader for this side of the House, has noted: '"Technology, not taxes" is actually a marketing device rather than a policy. It is actually "inefficient costly policy and not low cost efficient policy". The question is: how many "sneaky" income taxes are ultimately going to pay for the government's net zero strategy?'

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.