Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am in continuation. There are a lot of reasons why offshore wind must be harnessed for the good of our country. In the long run there is potential not just to generate electricity for us here in Australia but also to export that energy into other countries. There is potential for export to Southeast Asia. The rest of the world is already taking advantage. Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister, has pledged that by 2030 wind farms could power every home in the UK. Imagine that for Australia. One of the already proposed offshore wind farm projects in Victoria is the Star of the South, off the Gippsland coast. If built, it would have the potential to supply up to 20 per cent of the state's energy, or energy for around 1.2 million homes. That's 1.2 million homes that would get the power for their heating, their washing machines, their microwaves guilt free from the gusts that blow around our state. And I tell you it is very windy there in Gippsland. What I find amazing is that one turn of a wind turbine provides as much energy as a solar panel out in the sun for one day. They're big turbines, and these turbines turn 15 times a minute. If you multiply the number of turbines in the installation, it gives you an idea of the scale.

But the other story of offshore wind is the jobs that it creates. It is labour intensive: you have the construction phase and the maintenance. And, because they are offshore, the workers cannot swim there. Well, maybe some of us can, but certainly it is not practical, so they have to be taken there by a crew, so this creates maritime jobs and port jobs. Estimates suggest that the offshore wind industry could create as many as 8,000 jobs each year from 2030, and these jobs will be created in areas that are going through economic change and transition, like the Hunter Valley, Gippsland, Latrobe, Illawarra and in Central Queensland. Twenty-six thousand people already work in the offshore wind industry in the United Kingdom. Another 70,000 are coming on board by 2026. In Australia, green energy partners have two projects they are looking to start exploratory work on off the Illawarra and off Newcastle. They want to use Port Kembla as a construction hub. The government likes to talk about technology not taxes, but here we see them late to the game yet again. They're always late, always laggards, when it comes to offshore wind technology.

There are some issues with the bill that we don't feel are adequately addressed. The Senate committee examining the bill, including government senators who lead the committee, made some suggestions that it considered important to legislation. These include amending the objects clause to better incorporate electricity transmission and exports, and an amendment on the consultation requirements for declared areas. And the government should consider amendments to the changes in control provisions. These three suggestions were made by government as well as non-government senators on the relevant committee. It's surprising, then, that the minister has so far decided not to listen to his own colleagues. It's becoming a pattern, where even government members of various committees make recommendations or support recommendations and the minister ignores them.

We are also concerned about the bills' work health and safety framework. The committee heard substantial evidence that the government has not adopted the harmonised national WHS laws in the bills. Instead, the committee heard the government has amended those laws into an unrecognisable state. Without a harmonisation of these WHS frameworks, we may end up with a situation where a worker would be subject to one regulatory regime onshore, a second while in transit on a vessel and a third while working on the offshore renewable project. That poses confusion and risks for both workers and employers. Another concern we have is that the bills do not require local benefits to be included in merit criteria for licenses. When the minister of the day is considering whether to grant an offshore electricity licence, he or she should be required to consider benefits for local workers, businesses, communities and First Nations people. Currently, the bills, as they stand, do not do this. We would welcome an amendment to ensure benefits for local communities where these new industries will be situated.

Despite these concerns, I am shocked to see the government's change of attitude on wind farms. Once upon a time they were too noisy and unappealing to look at: that was the narrative that the government was pushing. And it's flip-flopped all over the place on this. It's only taken the government eight years to finally make a decision on climate change policy, and after all the melodrama we've seen over the last couple of days—the infighting, the scare tactics, the huffing and puffing in the Nationals party room. All that hot air in the Nationals—

An honourable member interjecting—

Well I could feel it when I walked past in the corridor, there was so much hot air coming out of there! And then the government rocked up with a reheated policy announcement from last year, talking points that the Prime Minister delivered just reheated from last year's so-called technology roadmap. He whacked it on a PowerPoint and he thought that, by doing that, 'Oh, I can call it plan'—and I think he mentioned 'plan' about 94 times in his speech. This so-called plan is as hollow as the Prime Minister. It shows a lack of conviction. Also, the so-called plan is as shambolic as the Deputy Prime Minister, who is flip-flopping all over the place, wanting to be both the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia and a rebel against the government—a rebel with a cause against his own government. Talk about schizophrenia; talk about not knowing who you are! Ultimately this government acts in its own self-interest when it comes to climate change policy.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will interrupt the member for the moment. The minister?

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Youth and Employment Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just in relation to that last comment, he linked the Deputy Prime Minister and then used a word which could reflect on him. I would ask him to withdraw that.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the member to withdraw that particular reference.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member. The member has the call.

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The substantive point is that the government have a track record in maintaining their self-interest above all else—their interest in maintaining their power. They are not using the political power that they have in the executive to implement policies in the interests of the Australian people. They are not doing it in the interests of Australia or even the interests of the rest of the world when it comes to what is clearly a global problem in reducing emissions. That's probably why it has taken so long to get even a whisper out of them, or even a policy, or similar to a policy, out of them, and even then it is a zero plan when it comes to net zero emissions.

Unlike that mob over there, unlike the government, we on this side of the House believe—we have conviction—in a set of policies that will make a difference. It is the right thing for Australian jobs, it is the right thing for our climate and our environment and it's the right thing for future generations. We are committed to climate policy for those reasons. It's not about us; it's about the future generations. It's about what is important for Australians today and into the future. And it is not because it is politically expedient either; these are hard decisions that have to be made.

For all the talk and criticism of Labor, on the opposition benches, we are still in opposition, but we are a party that can form government. We are an alternative government to the Australian people, and we have policies that will take action on climate change—real, substantive action on climate change. It is about Australia being brought back into the community of nations who will fight the good fight on this global issue. Unlike the Liberal Party and The Nationals, whose policies are not really based on scientific evidence but on a lot of hot air, we base our assessments, our analysis and our policy work on the science. That's why we committed to net zero emissions by 2050. That's why we committed years ago. That's why we will have more ambitious targets. If elected, we will invest in electric cars to make them cheaper—a critically important transition. We will invest in 10,000 new energy apprenticeship jobs, because it is about jobs and the opportunities that come with renewable energy. We will invest in hundreds of community batteries to power hundreds of thousands of households around this country. And the Leader of the Labor Party has already announced $20 billion to rewire, rebuild and modernise the electricity grid for the renewable energy age. That's the future we are investing in and committing to.

As I said, it is about future generations. It's about what is important for Australians. For Australians, it's about us making us a renewable energy superpower. We have the assets and we have the resources. We are blessed with an abundance of natural resources, and we're not taking those opportunities. That's a failure. Offshore wind is part of that future and part of that investment in new jobs, in new industries driving our economy and in a reliable, affordable, clean energy future for our children and our grandchildren. Only the Labor Party, when it forms government, will make this happen for Australians and for our future generations. Thank you.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member. I think the member for Gippsland will wait for us; so I give the call to the Leader of the Opposition.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many decades ago, Bob Dylan sang, 'The answer is blowing in the wind,' and, in terms of solutions to drive renewable energy to lower energy costs and be able to manufacture more things here, indeed the answer is blowing in the wind. The answer is also in the sky—

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies. I will just interrupt the Leader of the Opposition for a moment. The member has a point of order?

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: I took to my feet to seek the call, and the call would normally alternate. I have no problems with the member for Grayndler making a contribution; I just wanted to make sure that I would have the opportunity to speak.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. After the Leader of the Opposition, we will go to you and then to the member for Kingston, who will speak virtually.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I didn't want to delay the House, but thank you for that.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for the clarification.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Gippsland gives a character assessment of the Deputy Prime Minister again, we might even hang around to listen to the member for Gippsland on this issue! The answer is blowing in the wind, but it's also in the sky, in the form of the sun. Today we were at a community solar farm run by a cooperative here, just off Majura Road. That is powering 260 homes here in the ACT. This legislation is a recognition by the government—perhaps belatedly, in the pre-election period—that maybe there is something in this renewable energy stuff after all. The Prime Minister, of course, said that renewable energy targets were nuts. He also said that the use of electric vehicles would end the weekend, and he also said that batteries, which of course can store renewable energy, are as useful as the Big Banana or the Big Prawn. He was vociferous in his opposition to net zero by 2050, and he continued to run scare campaigns.

It's interesting that, in spite of the fact that some of the rhetorical position has changed on net zero by 2050—to which wind energy, including offshore wind, can make a major contribution—the Prime Minister continues to try to run a scare campaign at the same time. The big problem for the government in electorates like Mackellar, North Sydney, Higgins, Goldstein and Kooyong is that he undermines the pretence of caring about renewable energy and a transition to a clean energy future by the absurd scare campaign which, at the same time, he's trying to run. So he's trying to do both, and that will not be effective, because they're onto him.

We think that this bill, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, is a good idea. We'll be voting for it. We called for it a long time ago. This nation has abundant wind resources, and we should be delivering a framework for their exploitation at the earliest opportunity. We have the opportunity to be a renewable energy superpower for the world, as Saudi Arabia is for fossil fuels. We see that with wind projects like Big Kennedy and Little Kennedy in the electorate of the member for Kennedy. I travelled there with Bob Katter, looking at those jobs, which are driving growth in regional towns like Hughenden. When you go into a town like Hughenden and you go to the pub there, as I have done with Bob Katter, you see people who've grown up and lived in that community, some for generations, and who, with projects like Big Kennedy and Little Kennedy—which is particularly appropriate, as the wind comes down the cape and off the gulf—are positioned in such a way as to really maximise the economic benefit.

Or you go to Kidston, a project in which an old, abandoned mine is being used for hydro storage. If you look at the major solar projects that we looked at in North Queensland, you know that there is enormous opportunity with renewables to create jobs, to lower energy prices and, therefore, to make us more competitive. But not for those opposite. The latest example of the childish nonsense they carry on with occurred yesterday, when we saw the Prime Minister putting a mobile phone up here, as if there are people in this parliament who oppose mobile phones. It's a bizarre position that he finds himself in.

I'll give him the big tip as he goes to Glasgow, the town which gave the world Billy Connolly. They do have a sense of humour, but they won't laugh in a positive way—they will laugh in an uncomfortable way—if he starts to do some of the nonsensical, rhetorical positioning that we saw in the announcement, or nonannouncement, on Tuesday, which included no new policies and 94 mentions of plans without actually producing a plan. This is the last opportunity today for him to produce the modelling, which he says has been done. We don't see what that modelling is. How does offshore wind fit into the model that the government has, for example?

All we got on Tuesday were two new initiatives. One was the promotion of the minister for resources into the cabinet and an increase in his salary—the minister for resources who has been out there saying that renewables don't work when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, who apparently hasn't heard of batteries and who, as I've said, must get a real shock when he turns on the tap and water flows out, even though it's not raining outside. This must be seen as another miracle for those opposite. That's one of the two initiatives that we've seen.

The second initiative, of course, is that the Productivity Commission is going to have a review every five years. They'll produce a document saying how it's all going. That does show that they've got a sense of humour, because the Deputy Prime Minister, who trumpets this as one of the big breakthroughs that were got by the National Party, has said that he uses Productivity Commission reports 'when I run out of toilet paper'. That is the respect that he's given to the Productivity Commission. Now he says: 'Guess what people in regional Australia? I won't show you the modelling. I won't show you any of the detail. I won't attend the press conference with the Prime Minister, but I've got you a Productivity Commission report.' It's quite extraordinary.

The truth is, though, that, if we harness renewable energy, we need to do it in an appropriate way. I don't support wind farms off every coast. There's obviously a whole range of projects that would be entirely inappropriate. But, with this government, who knows? The PEP 11 project—the idea that you'd have oil drilling off the coasts of the electorate of the member for Kingsford Smith; Maroubra Beach; Terrigal; the beautiful Avoca Beach, on the Central Coast; Merewether, in Newcastle; Manly; Freshwater and Dee Why is anathema. Similarly, even though offshore wind wouldn't produce the same level of damage to the pristine environment that something like oil drilling might, it wouldn't be appropriate to have offshore wind in those sites either. But who knows with this government? Who knows where this could go?

When you are so obsessed with being defined by what you're against, it's difficult to advance in a way in which you actually promote support for what you're for.

That's why, after nine years, this legislation—just like everything else this government does—is too late. They have denied this nation first-mover advantage over that nine years of inaction. So we do need to catch up. Around the world, more than 35 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity are in operation, with expected increases to 80 gigawatts by 2030 and 2,000 gigawatts by 2050. Australia's entire national energy market now, in comparison, is about 55 gigawatts. There are more than a dozen offshore wind proposals in Australia and appropriate sites that could power substantial parts of our country—and create jobs; that is important.

I'll give you the big tip as well about what we need to do, which is fix the grid. That's what our Rewiring the Nation proposal will do—a $20 billion fund to make sure that we actually plug in the energy that's being created so that you have the most efficient operation of the grid. If you speak to anyone in the energy sector they'll tell you that this is the most significant thing you can do to drive down our emissions, but it will also drive down energy prices and make the system operate more efficiently. But it is beyond the capacity of those opposite to do that, which is why we'll need to do it if we're successful in the next election campaign. It will be critical.

We have, of course, a range of other plans, including community batteries; that's what we were talking about today with the solar farm operators. They're in the ACT. We have a plan to make sure that Australians can benefit from the jobs that will be created through new energy apprenticeships.

We have a plan for the National Reconstruction Fund—$15 billion. How do you take existing industries and transform them so that they can become more efficient? How do you create new industries as well? We have abundant resources in this country. The Liberal-National Party model is to dig them up, send them overseas, get things made and then buy them back once the value's been added. That's not our model. Our model is that, wherever possible, we should manufacture things here, create jobs here and create value here, and that is what we are absolutely determined to do and that's what the National Reconstruction Fund will look at.

New industries—why is it that we produce everything that goes into a battery but we aren't making more of them here? Why is it that we aren't producing wind turbines here on a mass scale, like we used to? They've actually departed, under this government. The two institutions, above anywhere else in the world, that we should be proud of in terms of breakthroughs in PV solar technology are the Australian National University and the University of New South Wales. But what has happened as a result is that the value's been produced somewhere else. China or other countries overseas have received the value of those scientific breakthroughs. We want to commercialise those opportunities, going forward. But here that will be hard with a government that just isn't fair dinkum.

Tonight, when the Prime Minister leaves Australia, we'll have the Australian politics version of the whoopee cushion in charge. Makes a lot of noise, is uncomfortable about that noise that's there—but he will be in charge of the country. And he doesn't support net zero by 2050; he's opposed to it. So how fair dinkum are they going to be? At least Senator Canavan, the Productivity Commission guy, is fair dinkum and honest about his backward view of the world. But Australia can't trust a government that isn't fair dinkum on these issues. (Time expired)

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021 and the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021. I will keep my remarks brief and resist the offer from the member for Grayndler to reflect on the characters of my colleagues, but I will acknowledge—

Opposition Member:

An opposition member interjecting

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will endeavour to keep my comments coherent. Can I say, in the interest of full transparency, that the member for Wills is actually my tennis partner, and he handed out a few backhanders today for the National Party. Apart from those political comments, I thought the member for Wills's contribution was very valuable, from a Victorian perspective, and I agree with the basic premise of his argument, that there is enormous potential for Victoria to be an energy powerhouse, just as we have been an energy powerhouse for decades previously. I'm very proud to represent the community of the Latrobe Valley, which has powered the enormous economic wealth and prosperity of Victoria for decades, and proud to represent the energy industry workers, who go to work every day and who have kept the lights on, particularly during the last couple of years of the pandemic, when there have been fairly challenging circumstances from time to time. They have maintained that reliability of supply in Victoria and across the south-east of the country. It's important when we have these debates that we do recognise the enormous contribution of those blue-collar workers—now high-vis workers—and recognise also that this is an unsettling time, when we're having conversations about transition of energy jobs into new areas and ensuring that people are treated with respect as part of that process, their families are treated with respect and their communities are properly supported if there are any economic shocks to those communities.

I welcome the package of three bills that is before the House and acknowledge that it provides a regulatory framework to enable offshore electricity infrastructure projects, including transmission and generation projects, in Commonwealth waters. Projects that could be enabled by this legislation include the Marinus Link project—that's a longer-term project to support Tasmania's Battery of the Nation which would link the island state with Victoria and quite possibly travel through my electorate and the electorate of the member for Monash; the Star of the South project, which is a proposed offshore wind farm off the coast of my electorate of Gippsland, in Bass Strait; and Sun Cable, which is a proposed international transmission infrastructure project between Darwin and Singapore. These are all very significant projects that will support the federal government's commitment to continue to invest in and support the delivery of affordable and reliable energy for Australians but also keep our international commitments in terms of emissions reductions.

This is important legislation because it provides confidence and certainty, particularly certainty around major investments which could result in tens of thousands of jobs in communities like mine. It's hard to know exactly what the full potential is for projects like this, but the Star of the South proposal off the coast of Gippsland is one project that has captured the imagination of my community. I want to congratulate the proponents for the way they have endeavoured to engage with the community in a respectful way. They've certainly met with the local members of parliament at state and federal level. They've taken my advice and ensured that they've had good consultations with the commercial fishing industry, which could be impacted by any activity off the coast of Gippsland. They've also treated the landholders in the region with respect and spoken to them and informed them of their plans for the region. I encourage the proponents to continue to engage in such a respectful and collaborative way.

It's terribly important, as we move forward with the commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, that we are looking at these large-scale renewable energy projects. As I said, in Gippsland and the Latrobe Valley we have a rich heritage of generation of energy through fossil fuels, through brown coal in the Latrobe Valley and through oil and gas in the Bass Strait. We know there's a transition underway, in the sense that there will be a greater dependence on renewable sources into the future, and projects like the Star of the South have enormous potential to help fill that gap in the energy market in the future. We have seen large-scale solar and wind projects in Gippsland already. The potential for offshore wind is something that, I think, will have greater capacity to unite our community. It's true that previous onshore wind projects have often divided communities, so I see huge potential for the offshore wind program into the future. I commend the bills to the House.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm really happy to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021. Labor has been calling for this bill for some time. Just as it does with everything to do with securing jobs for the future, this government has dragged its feet when it comes to our transition to a clean energy future. This bill comes from a government that told people at the last election that having electric cars and supporting electric cars in this country would ruin the weekend. It said they would destroy the weekend. That was said at the same time that car companies all around the world are putting no new research and technology into the old cars. All the research is going into electric cars. This is government has tried to run a scare campaign on everything, yet the world is moving. If we do not act quickly, we will miss out on those jobs. That, for me, as a member of parliament, is incredibly frustrating. The government's letting politics get in the way of job creation has been incredibly frustrating.

This bill will bring into place a regulatory framework for electricity infrastructure in the Commonwealth offshore area, which will allow for the construction, installation, commissioning, operation, maintenance and decommissioning of offshore wind and other electricity infrastructure. This is a really important piece of legislation for ensuring that we can unlock the potential of offshore wind. Offshore wind is an untapped resource that blows during the day and the night—it might be news to some people in the National Party that the wind does blow at night and during the day—and has huge potential to create large amounts of electricity, which we need as we transition to a clean energy future and as the world transitions to a clean energy future. Not only does offshore wind provide huge potential for creating domestic electricity, but it provides a huge amount of potential for us to export that electricity into the future. That is incredibly exciting.

The world is transitioning. It's not just Australia that is transitioning. Of course, Australia is significantly behind the pack in our transition, but as we move forward, there is going to be demand in our region for electricity that is generated in a clean way. So offshore wind has huge potential, and this framework will play an important role in establishing that.

As I said, the government was slow to act, just as they've been slow to act and adopt net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and as they've been slow to enact a whole range of other policies. It was this Prime Minister who said that a battery in South Australia was as useful as the Big Banana. What we've seen since that battery was installed is that private investment has come along and doubled the size of that battery because it's playing such an important role in making sure that peak demand in electricity provision is met. It's also stabilising the grid; it's playing a critically important role. It's disappointing that the now Prime Minister spent so much time deriding this type of new innovation, because it's going to be this type of new innovation which will fuel the jobs of the future.

This is what it's all about. This is why other countries are trying to move quickly on these types of technologies—to develop and harness these types of technologies. We should look at how we can export these types of technologies and this type of energy, because it is a race. I know that the Prime Minister doesn't love races—that most things aren't a race—but it is a race when it comes to developing these technologies. It's a global race, because it's a global race for jobs. So while it has taken them a while to get here, I'm very pleased that finally the government have got to this position and are introducing this framework.

There are some concerns, of course, about this bill—issues that were highlighted in the Senate committee. The Senate committee examining this bill, including government senators, made some suggestions that should be included in this legislation. It was highlighted that it was important that the objectives clause should be amended to better incorporate electricity transmission and export. This is to recognise Australia's potential when it comes to offshore wind and the storage and transmission of electricity it generates, that it could power South-East Asia—especially after we harness the opportunities of offshore wind. We need to have a mind not just to employ this power in Australia but to look forward at export to other nations.

Also highlighted was that an amendment to consultation requirements for declared areas is important. We agree with the committee in expanding the consultation requirements specifically to include the minister for the environment, affected state and territory governments and energy-planning authorities and developers, and that there should be greater transparency and time frames incorporated into this declaration process. The committee supported further consideration being given to these matters as the bill progresses through the parliament. We need to bring communities, and the states and territories, along, and we need to ensure that these types of development—while recognising their huge potential—are done in a methodical way, in a way that is inclusive and consults with the relevant people. The committee also suggested that the government should consider amendments to the changes in control provisions. These are important recommendations made by the bipartisan committee to ensure that this bill is really fit for purpose, not just for today—not just in the infancy of this—but in really looking forward into the future.

As I said, these are the jobs of the future and this is a component of jobs for the future. Offshore wind electricity generation is very important when it comes to jobs. There are a lot of jobs in the construction and maintenance of these turbines. That is why we've seen already in these early discussions some communities really embracing the opportunities that come with this. As the Leader of the Opposition said, this will not be an option for every part of the coastline but there is some urgency in those parts of the coastline where there is community agreement, where there is huge opportunity, where it really makes sense to unlock this.

The Senate inquiry also heard two additional concerns that were not reflected in the final report. In particular, Labor has concerns over the bills' work health and safety framework. The committee heard substantial evidence that the government has not adopted the harmonisation of national work health and safety law in these bills; the committee heard that, instead, the government has amended those laws into an unrecognisable state. Without the harmonisation of these work health and safety 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. While I wasn't on the Senate committee, to me that seems very confusing—not just confusing in making workers vulnerable but confusing for those companies working in this space, those businesses working in this space and indeed the jurisdictions that monitor such frameworks. I think it needs further consideration. It is something that is crucial, that we need to do, and I think there is very much unfinished business.

The second of Labor's concerns is that the bills do not require local benefit to be included 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 of local workers, businesses, communities and First Nations people. The community heard it was important for these requirements to be reflected broadly in legislation in order to ensure that they are reflected in detail in regulations. We hope that the government will consider not only the committee's bipartisan recommendations but the recommendations made by the Labor Party, in its additional comments.

Finally: these bills are a very important piece of the puzzle, but we need a whole-of-government focus on renewable energies and clean energy technologies, and we need to be at the front of the pack in developing these. We cannot, as we have under the eight years of this government, languish at the bottom as business moves past government, as unions move past government, as communities move past government, as technology goes out on its own and as innovation goes out on its own and doesn't have a government really backing it, and doesn't have a government that has a laser-like focus on how it puts the legislative arrangements in to smooth a transition towards a cleaner energy future. Importantly, we need to grab those jobs that come with a clean energy future and will develop not only as a result of an Australian market, demanding that type of energy, but as a result of a world market demanding that type of energy. There is so much opportunity here, but we need a government that will back that innovation and those opportunities, and only a Labor government will do that. A Labor government has already announced a policy to rewire the nation, allowing renewable energy to connect to the grid. It's coming up with innovation like community solar batteries in places where communities themselves can harness the energy from the sun and trade that energy at low cost; this is a really exciting opportunity.

Of course, if we're going to harness those jobs then we need to train up our workers of the future. That's why Labor's clean energy apprentice program has the real opportunity to skill up those apprentices of the future. This is the type of thinking that we need and this is the type of thinking which will transition our economy and really grab those jobs of the future. Without that, the election of a coalition government instead will mean more of the same: lack of attention to this important issue. People's jobs will be at risk as a result. We will support this bill, but more action needs to be taken if we are going to grab those jobs of the future.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise at this hour to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and related bills.

I have sat here and listened to the debate on this bill for many hours and I've heard nothing other than complete nonsense from both sides of politics during this debate. Not once have we talked anything about costs and benefits. This debate has been wide-ranging and many speakers have come to the dispatch box and talked about how this bill relates to this net zero approach by 2050. It may be the old-fashioned way of doing things, but I believe that when we have these proposals and when people come in here then rather than simply talking about virtue signalling we should set out clearly what the costs are and what the benefits are, and then argue them—argue them out. Is this best for our nation? And yet amongst all the speakers and in all the hours on this debate, not once has there been any discussion of the cost benefit of net zero by 2050. I'm going to do something a little unusual here in this parliament today and discuss a proper cost-benefit analysis.

So what is the cost? What's the damage for this net zero by 2050? An article published on 14 October in the Wall Street Journal talked about the cost, and it did an estimate for the USA: 'A new study in Nature finds that a 95 per cent reduction in Americans' carbon emissions by 2050 will cost annually 11.9 per cent of US gross domestic product. To put that in perspective: the total expenditure on social security, Medicare and Medicaid'—that's in the US—'came to 11.6 per cent of GDP. The annual cost will rise to US$4.4 trillion by 2050.' They broke that down in America to US$11,300 per person per year in today's dollars. That's around $15,000 in Australia; for a family of three it costs $45,000 per year and for a family of four it's $60,000 per year in today's dollars. I think that if a true cost-benefit analysis were done in Australia it would likely be higher than what it was in the USA.

So I have the costs at $60,000 per family per year. What are the benefits? Everyone likes to stand up here and say: 'The government should do something to stop the bad weather! The government should take action on climate change!' They always fail to quantify it, but we actually can quantify it. There's a UN climate model called MAGICC.org where we can put the calculations in. That has actually been done by Bjorn Lomborg, who has looked at what the reduction in global temperatures would be, assuming this model is correct—and a lot of evidence shows that it's running too hot, but let's just assume the model is correct. If the entirety of what he calls the rich world—the USA, the European Union, the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan, Turkey et cetera—went to net zero not in 2050 but today and stayed there for the rest of the century, what would the effect on temperature be? Surely this should be the very first thing that we should be asking: what are the benefits of that? The UN's own climate models show that if all those rich nations, including the US, the European Union, the UK, Australia, Canada and Japan—the whole lot of us—decided to go to net zero today and held that to 2050 then by 2100, the end of this century, that may reduce the global temperature by 0.5 degrees Celsius, and this benefit—0.5 degrees Celsius—is going to cost each family of four the equivalent of $60,000 per year. To me that sounds like a bad idea. If someone want to argue those figures and put up alternative numbers, let's go ahead and have the debate, but let's not just come into this chamber and debate on virtue-signalling and people trying to feel good

It appears that I am the only member of this House who is going to call out the nonsense of net zero by 2050, but thankfully there are still some sensible commentators in the media who are also calling this out. I'd like to quote from an article in the Australian just a few days ago by one of our most senior economists, Mr Terry McCrann:

IT really is quite extraordinary, the way almost the entire political class has declared economic war on their own country and not just the current 26 million Australians but all future generations as well … They are all united in seeking to attack the Australian economy, plain and simple; to permanently and significantly reduce the standard of living of present and future Australians … the entire political class has signed up to the national suicide note that I wrote about first with Kevin Rudd's carbon tax, by abandoning the use of fossil fuels which have provided the plentiful, cheap and reliable power on which not only all economic progress but indeed our very civilisation has been built.

Hear, hear! It is good to see that we have some journalists actually telling the truth.

The United Australia Party will call this nonsense out. We are not going to sell out our nation's sovereignty to overseas globalist interests just so we can feel good and go around virtue-signalling. We are not going to sell out our nation's competitive advantage to the communist Chinese. How is it possible that we are saying this to China, whose President is not attending these talks in Glasgow, along with India and also Russia? China say, 'We'll get to net zero by 2060, but we expect Australia to do it by 2050.' To agree to that is to give the Communist Party of China an economic, political and military advantage over this nation. That is what everyone in this parliament is doing when they stand up and engage in groupthink and herd mentality and mindlessly chant, 'Net zero by 2050.' They are putting this nation at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis the communist Chinese, economically, politically and militarily. I for one am prepared to stand out and say this is a nonsense that damages the interests of the Australian nation.

Some of the other nonsense we've heard during this debate is about the wonderful job creation all this extra investment in renewables will do. We need to ensure the way to create jobs. First, we have to understand that the government does not create job; it is entrepreneurs in the private sector. The secret is that we have to get our electricity costs down and to generate that electricity using the least number of resources possible to give us a lower-cost possibility, so that we can give the entrepreneurs of this nation access to low-cost electricity so they can go out and make things and produce things with new ideas. That's how we create jobs. That's how we encourage wealth creation.

The debates that we've heard in this place remind me of a story that Milton Friedman once told. He was travelling to an Asian country and he visited a worksite where a new canal was being built and he said that he was shocked to see that, instead of modern equipment, such as tractors and earthmovers, he saw thousand of workers with shovels, and he asked the government bureaucrat: 'Why are there so few machines? Why do all these workers have shovels?' The government bureaucrat explained, 'You don't understand; this is a job creation program,' to which Milton Friedman replied: 'I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it's jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.' That is the ideology we see when people come into this chamber and say, 'We're going to create all these wonderful jobs in the electricity generation sector.' For every job we create there we destroy jobs in the real sector that produces real wealth for this nation.

During these debates we've also heard about how wonderful all this offshore wind is in Europe at the moment and how wonderful everything is going in Europe. Do those members actually turn the news on or read the papers to see the current disaster that is occurring in Europe? In Europe they put all their eggs in these offshore wind turbines—and what's happened? The price of energy has gone through the roof there. They are suffering an energy catastrophe this winter in Europe. In Europe this winter, because of the ideology that we've heard in this chamber—which comes from Europe to start with—there will be many elderly and the low-income earners in Europe who will die because they'll be unable to afford to heat their homes. That is where this ideology leads us. The poorest and the oldest in society will not have access to cheap, reliable energy and will not be able to afford to heat their homes, and this winter we will see thousands and thousands of deaths in Europe because of this mad ideology that has taken over.

There are a few amendments that I would like to move in the consideration in detail and third reading stage of this bill. But, if we are going to have these policies, whatever these policies are, we have an obligation to the Australian public to spell out what the costs are and what the benefits are. When you do that with clear, calm and rational thinking, instead of using emotive language and thinking, you understand that these policies are contrary to our nation's interest. They are going to put us at a competitive disadvantage against the Communist Chinese. Money will flow out of this country. We know that China has something like 63 per cent of the market of offshore wind turbines globally. The money will flow out of this country to the Chinese. And then there's that beautiful black coal that runs down our eastern seaboard, Australians will not be able to use that. We will put policies in there that will prohibit Australians from using that, but we will be happy to ship if off to China, where they will use it to create low-cost energy and create goods and services,

Our nation is at a crossroads today. We have to decide whether we are going to put Australia's interests first or we are going to put the interests of the UN globalists—those that we see over in Zurich and Glasgow, who will stand up and want to criticise our nation—first. We have to decide who we put first. For as long as I continue to be a member of this House, I'll continue to fight for the interests of our nation ahead of the interests of UN globalists.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Minister for Industry, Energy and Emissions Reduction) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I would like to thank those who have contributed to this important debate on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021 and related bills. Australia has an abundance of offshore electricity generation potential, which can provide considerable benefits that are in Australia's national interest. This bill delivers on the Morrison government's commitment to capitalise on this potential. The establishment of the offshore electricity sector will deliver significant benefits to all Australians. Importantly, it will promote regional development by enabling substantial investment in Australia's coastal regions, creating jobs and growing local economies. Investment in transmission infrastructure will support a more secure and reliable electricity system. Market competition from new electricity generation capacity will help put further downward pressure on wholesale electricity prices. We can take advantage of evolving and emerging technologies to secure effective electricity solutions for Australia. Thousands of skilled regional jobs can be created, providing both benefits and indirect opportunities for regional businesses.

These bills will help the implementation of critical underwater transmission projects such as Marinus Link, the proposed 1,500 megawatt transmission line between Tasmania and Victoria. Marinus Link will unlock new investment in generation projects, including pumped hydro energy storage and will help deliver a more reliable, affordable energy system, helping keep the lights on and prices low. It will also support development of generation projects, including Star of the South, a proposed offshore wind project already under initial development off the coast of Gippsland in Victoria. There are at least 10 other offshore generation projects that have been proposed around Australia.

This package of bills establishes a regulatory framework to enable offshore electricity infrastructure projects, including transmission and generation projects, in Commonwealth waters. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021, known as the main bill, provides a robust mechanism for granting licenses to allow the development of offshore electricity projects in Commonwealth waters, while providing projections for safety of workers and strong protections of other maritime stakeholders. The main bill also establishes statutory authorities to govern the administration, compliance and enforcement of the regulatory framework.

The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Regulatory Levies) Bill 2021 ensures the offshore infrastructure registrar and offshore infrastructure regulator, established under the main bill, are fully cost recovered to undertake the functions required to facilitate the life cycle of offshore electricity infrastructure projects. The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure (Consequence Amendments) Bill 2021 makes a number of technical amendments to existing acts to ensure the effective implementation of the regulatory framework. Together, these bills will provide a framework to progress projects and keep opportunities for regional communities in our energy sector. This will help create thousands of jobs, strengthen our economy and support a more affordable and secure energy system. I commend these bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.