Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm so pleased to be supporting the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. I was delighted when the previous government introduced legislation to at least get offshore wind starting, although there were many gaps in that legislation that this bill seeks to correct to ensure that the essential things are in place for offshore wind projects to be able to start.

I think it's really important to understand why offshore wind is so important. It is part of a suite of renewable energy initiatives. The energy initiatives that we have are about cleaner, cheaper and more secure energy. Our budget last night outlined our spending on so many of those, which will really give people a sense of hope that we are moving into this renewable energy growth that we know has just been waiting for a decade to be unleashed.

For my own electorate, it means really practical things, like community batteries for East Blaxland and Hobartville, which will help them significantly reduce their power costs. There are also energy efficiency grants for small and medium businesses. They're some of the really practical things we are doing.

This legislation is about something that people say they want governments to do, and that is to think longer term and put things in place that will see us into the future. That's exactly what this legislation does.

I sometimes say to people, 'Why am I so excited about offshore wind?' I want to explain that. There is enough wind potential just off Australia's coasts to power our electricity grid several times over. If all the current proposed wind farms were built, their combined energy capacity would be greater than all of Australia's coal-fired power stations combined. One of the key comparisons we find is with the United Kingdom. The UK are an absolute world leader in offshore wind. They got onto it long before the previous government even realised it existed, I think. They have more installed capacity than any other country. Already offshore wind there powers the equivalent of 4.5 million homes annually, generating for them about 10 per cent of their electricity. But, at that scale, it would be much more impactful for us. The cost of new offshore wind has fallen there by 50 per cent since 2015. It is now one of the lowest-cost options for new power in the UK. It's cheaper than new gas and cheaper than nuclear power. This is the opportunity we have and that we are finally seizing in having proper legislation that allows for these offshore wind projects to progress.

Interestingly, only last year we didn't even have a process to allow for these projects to be built. I know that, for years, investors, energy experts—people I worked with in my life prior to politics—have been desperate to see a regulatory framework for the offshore wind industry. That's why the progress we've made in the last 12 months, after much urging for many years by those on our side, has been really heartening.

We do have catching up to do, and that's what this legislation will help put in place. Since coming to government we've taken a few steps in this offshore wind area, and one of those is to outline proposals for the first six offshore wind projects. They include a 200-turbine wind farm off the Gippsland coast, which will generate jobs as well as electricity—that's the bonus that we have. It really will help shore-up our national energy security grid. Here's what I want you to think about, Madam Deputy Speaker: just one rotation of one offshore wind turbine provides as much energy as an average rooftop solar installation generates in a day. Think about that: one rotation does what an entire rooftop solar installation does in a day; that's the scale of it. That's why we have the capacity to be an energy superpower, exporting the excess energy that we create.

Anyone who has heard the Minister for Climate Change and Energy speak about this will know his passion. I know that my community in the Blue Mountains, who got to meet with him in person in the lead-up to the election, saw his absolute commitment to this. I think what we're demonstrating in these first few months is the pace at which it needs to happen, because, sadly, nothing in this space has been happening with any sense of urgency or pace for a decade.

When we look at all the proposals—there's the Gippsland one, off the coast of Victoria, and there are the Hunter and Illawarra ones, off the coast of New South Wales, much closer to home for me—I think we all recognise that there's a need to develop these industries in renewables in places where there will be transitioning from the old, traditional sources to these newer ones, and I really welcome that. All of the sites, including the one in Western Australia, off Bunbury, and in Tasmania, have been chosen because of their good-to-excellent wind resources, their existing energy-generation facilities and their connections to the transmission network, as well as their location near ports or industrial hubs. It's really sensible thinking about the most practical places to put them. The legislation that we're talking about will allow those projects to take the next steps.

One thing that is really important in the work we're doing around offshore wind power is to think about the way communities get consulted. Wind farms will have impacts. Even though these start at about 5.5 kilometres offshore, we have to be very mindful of the environmental and human impacts they will have, including impacts on other people using those waters. Our approach will always be to have genuine, open consultation. Certainly, as someone who has been part of a so-called consultation over a new airport in Western Sydney, I have been highly critical of the processes the previous government allowed to happen there. The consultation was not genuine; it was tick-and-flick stuff. As a community member, I will be calling for, at every stage, open consultation, and I know that's what anybody connected to these projects has a right to expect as well.

The other part of all of this is how it fits into the big picture. These projects are really exciting, but I can imagine people saying: 'They're going to take a long time. What's in it for me? How does this actually affect my life, as someone who's looking at my power bill and thinking oh my goodness, the cost of power has gone up, how am I going to cope with that?' We are really aware of the increased costs of power. I think it's very disappointing that the previous government hid those likely cost rises from people, using regulation to hide and keep information from people in the lead-up to the election. The news might not be what people want to hear, but it's really important that we tell it like it is. Then we can work through the pathway to resolve problems and find some relief. We do this with a view not just to short-term sugar hits but to get the systems in place in the long-term, so that, ultimately, we end up with cleaner, cheaper and more secure energy for many, many years to come.

Offshore wind is really key in that whole process. We are doing it because it gets us fabulous, huge amounts of renewable energy. That's great for the environment, but it is absolutely vital in bringing additional supply into our electricity market. We all know that that is a key to getting lower prices.

We won't hide from the fact that energy hikes are hurting people, and we will be upfront about the reasons why. As the Business Council of Australia says, it's the impact of the Ukrainian war—global forces—but, also, as they describe, 15 years of domestic energy policy chaos. That chaos has ended. This government has already demonstrated that that chaos has ended, and that we are putting forward sensible, deliverable, and pragmatic energy plans and, really importantly, we are working with the states, because a lot of the rollout of this happens at a state level.

As the Prime Minister and Treasurer have both said in the last 24 hours, we will work through these latest forecasts and expectations of what the prices will be doing around the energy market. We will be looking at regulatory and other steps that we can take. I certainly know how much pain is likely to be felt in the homes of people in the Hawkesbury and the Blue Mountains in my electorate when they open those bills. I say to my community: I would really like to hear about the circumstances that you're facing, so that we are able to understand the different impacts this is having across a wide range of different families in different situations. That's the only way that we will be able to work through and come up with a pathway to provide support to families to get through this. In the medium and longer term, we know there are many steps being put in place, like the community batteries, like the solar banks, like offshore wind and other increases in renewable energy. But we know there is going to be pain felt between now and then, and I want to share your stories so that we can make sure we put everything possible in place to support people.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the seconder of the amendment, it won't surprise people to learn that I rise to speak in favour of the amendment to the second reading moved by my colleague in the chamber yesterday. That's not to say that we don't support this bill; the amendment doesn't seek to stand in the way of the second reading passing. It does raise a concern, which I'll touch on any minute.

Firstly, I do think this bill, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, will make it easier for more generation to come into the grid—and, God, we desperately need it. So I'm looking forward to seeing something—hopefully with sensible amendments from the coalition—passing, because we are in the middle of an energy and electricity crisis in this nation at the moment, and we desperately need more generation. We saw confirmation in the budget last night. Treasury, who are pretty conservative on most things, are suggesting that over the next two years electricity prices in this country are going to increase by more than 50 per cent, which is just a devastating revelation for families and small businesses in my electorate and across this country. I'm still coming to terms with how seriously that is going to impact people, what businesses will not be able to survive with a 50 per cent increase in their power bill. There will be tens of thousands of businesses that could not possibly survive. I worked in a business in the wool industry where power was our largest input. There's just no way a 50 per cent increase in their electricity prices is sustainable or competitive and that is a frightening outlook for this country.

To hand down a budget and say, 'That's going to happen and I'm not doing anything about it,' is a particular disgrace and something that will be heartbreaking to many people in this country. It is also something that, I think, is going to have spectacular political consequences for the government. If you say to people, 'Your bills are going to go up by 50 per cent, and at the same time as I am telling you that we are also doing nothing about it,' then, in a democracy, you will face a very serious price for that. I'm not happy about that. I don't delight in that. None of us in this place want to see that kind of pain metered out against the people of our country. Whether or not it's got political consequences is irrelevant to the people who have got to get that bill.

There will be families that cancel holidays when they get their next power bill. There will be some where one of the members of that family comes home and says, 'I've lost my job because the business I work at has to cut back because they can't meet that increase in their costs,' and that is a heartbreaking future that is upon them.

I really am very moved and upset about that news last night. Although, regrettably, it wasn't the greatest surprise, because I think everyone else except the government, until last night, has been making these points and giving these warnings. Whether it's the energy companies, the major manufacturers, people in industry, small business people, families and households they make the point that it's tough out there as it is, and that if the electricity prices are going up any further then it will be the question between viability and not in so many cases. But a more than 50 per cent increase is a real kick in the guts.

I'm all for more generation coming into the market. Any new supply could have a minor impact in addressing the challenges that we've got, so that's fine. As I indicated, the coalition, with some sensible amendments, are happy to see this proceed, because we started creating the framework to provide an ability for people to invest with certainty in offshore electricity generation and, of course, it's very important that we have a proper framework of regulation in place.

One of the core issues in our amendment that I want to touch on is one that is really important, which is the mechanism in which decisions are made around financial viability of proponents, and the fact that, quite surprisingly, there's this ministerial discretion being provided in this bill, rather than having a proper impartial agency approach to it. Acting Deputy Speaker, you will know better than me about an example in South Australia off the coast of Carrickalinga where there was a wave generating electricity plant that, unfortunately, came a cropper to some bad weather. At the moment, there is not a long-term resolution to this thing. It's just sitting off the coast of Carrickalinga. It's probably a good example of how important it is that any proponent, any business that is undertaking activities in this space, has a proper ability to take responsibility for the infrastructure that they're installing, and that if, for whatever reason—maybe it's just end of life and end of a successful investment; that's what we hope for with these projects. The Carrickalinga example is a good example of where it's vitally important that we, as a government, are giving permission to undertake these sorts of ventures, and that they are held to full responsibility for any potential adverse consequence—like what has happened there in Carrickalinga.

Our concern in the coalition is that, if the minister is making decisions about the financial viability of these proponents and is not comfortable giving that responsibility to an independent agency, political considerations will come into the mix. When a politician is making decisions, obviously they will. I don't suggest a minister wouldn't follow their legislated requirements and their responsibilities as a minister to make decisions in an appropriate way, but, if the decision rests with the minister, they are perfectly entitled to use objectives of government policy et cetera in their deliberations.

If you're frightened of an independent agency taking responsibility over making that decision, that's because you foresee a circumstance where that agency wouldn't consider the proponent to have appropriate financial security around what they intend to invest in and you'd rather a minister make the decision because you don't want a situation where an independent process chooses not to clear that proponent as being appropriate to bear the financial risk of the investment they're making. You therefore want the minister to make the decision, because that will result in a minister signing off on projects that an independent process wouldn't.

What is that going to lead to? If you're frightened of an independent process in overseeing that element of the approvals that need to be put in place for these sorts of investments, that raises massive concerns for us in the coalition. I don't want to see other situations like Carrickalinga. They could be at a much more significant scale where, for whatever reason, a lower standard is provided to certain proponents of this sort of infrastructure. If we end up in a situation where, because the standard was applied, they do find themselves in financial peril and they are not in a position to take responsibility for all the things they should if they're undertaking these investments, particularly around remediation and removing the footprint of their activities after those activities have ceased, we're going to have poor outcomes and, in particular, we're going to have a situation where the government will be taking that responsibility which rightly should be borne by the people undertaking the investment, who in undertaking that investment intend to be the ones that make money out of these projects.

We've got a situation where a centre-left government doesn't want the private sector to have full responsibility for the investments they're making and wants to set a lower standard when it comes to the responsibility that the private sector should bear for the environmental clean-up and outcome from their activities than what those of us on this side of the chamber are proposing. This is truly bizarre. It's an example of how weird the energy debate has become in this country. We should have fundamental principles around these sorts of things. If it were an oil rig, I would be very confident about what the Labor Party's position would be on holding those sorts of companies to the highest standards when it could comes to determining that they are financially capable of being responsible for all elements of the investment they're undertaking and, in particular, the full remediation of what they do out there in the pristine offshore waters of our nation when they've finished undertaking their economic activity. Why we think a lower standard should be put in place and why a minister should put a political lens over those decisions of financial viability of a proponent to properly and adequately be responsible for the activities they undertake offshore is really bizarre to me and, I think, to all members of my party room.

Our amendment addresses that point in particular. I urge the government to consider what the legacy of this decision could be—it may not be for five or 10 years time, but I really hope that some common sense will prevail over that point because we don't make it to score any political capital. We want to support what you're looking to do here, which is an extension of the things we were doing in government until six months ago. But it's really important that people who are given opportunities to achieve an economic outcome from whatever they might be doing offshore—in this case we're talking about electricity infrastructure—are held to the highest of standards of responsibility, particularly environmentally, for that activity. Having a low standard of financial oversight over their capacity to do that is, I think, a very poor way of approaching that.

More broadly, we support a proper regime for governing offshore electricity opportunities for the private sector to develop. In my opening remarks, I made it clear how frightening the outlook is for the energy and electricity situation in this country. So if anyone out there is looking for other ways to install more generation capacity that feeds into the grid their cost within the market structures that we have then I'm all for it, because I'm desperately frightened about the outlook for households and businesses in this nation based on the revelations in the budget last night. I don't think this will in any way have a significant impact on that frightening outlook, but if it can provide any help at all then that is all well and good.

We continue to make the important points around social licence and about communities that are affected by these projects being properly engaged, listened to and respected. As an extension of the remarks I've just made on the environment, the social licence is equally important. It's vital that we bring communities with us and we take the time to make very sensible, measured decisions about these sorts of activities because they do have acute impacts. Some are good, of course. There are good economic outcomes possible for projects that are happening off the coast of communities, but those communities have to be engaged and they have to be supportive of and want these projects because we shouldn't be riding roughshod over them and their interests either.

So, with those remarks, I commend the amendment to the chamber and also support the principle of the bill with those points we've made in the amendment, which I think will ensure the ability for this investment to proceed with certainty but also make sure that the activities of the companies that are undertaking this are at the highest standard and that companies are taking all the proper responsibility for those investments that they should. I commend the amendment to the House.

Alison Byrnes (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. This bill will help to create an offshore renewable energy sector, a sector that will power job creation in regional coastal communities like the Illawarra. It will contribute to the development of cleaner and cheaper renewable energy for Australian households and businesses. For the people of Cunningham, the creation of an offshore renewable energy sector represents a great opportunity to create clean energy jobs, grow our local economy and help reduce emissions.

The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the job. We embrace the vision of Australia as a renewable energy superpower, and we are moving closer to this vision every day. I am really excited about the role that my local area can play in being part of these exciting opportunities. But there is much work to be done before this vision can be realised. Over the past decade, there has been too much time wasted, with lost opportunities that must now be rediscovered. We have a lot of catching up to do.

This bill takes an important first step towards the creation of an offshore renewable energy sector. Firstly, the bill takes into account recent machinery-of-government changes and makes some small administrative amendments to the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021. The changes build on the amazing work already done by the Albanese Labor government and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, the Hon. Chris Bowen. The government recently announced six potential offshore wind zones, including the Illawarra. Public consultation for an area in the Bass Strait off Gippsland, Victoria, has already been announced. The other regions are the Pacific Ocean region off the Hunter, the Southern Ocean region off Portland in Victoria, the Bass Strait region off northern Tasmania and the Indian Ocean region off Perth and Bunbury in Western Australia.

Over the next 18 months, Minister Bowen will be seeking the views of the communities from these proposed regions, including the Illawarra. This government understands the importance of listening to local voices. We will listen to local industries, community groups, traditional owners, unions and government stakeholders. We will listen and ensure that locals are given time to consider the effects of offshore renewables on their communities. We will support and empower Australians to have their say.

The government is also working on regulations to implement the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021. Consultation on the first stage of regulations that would establish the licensing scheme has occurred, and comments have been positive so far. These regulations will help enable projects like the Star of the South, a proposed two-gigawatt offshore wind farm off the coast of Gippsland, Victoria, and the Marinus Link, transmission lines to share energy between Tasmania and mainland Australia. It was also only after Labor's pressure that the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act came into effect in June 2022, a framework that regulates offshore renewable energy infrastructure in Commonwealth waters.

Offshore renewable energy has enormous potential in Australia. We have some of the best wind resources in the world, and our government is now unlocking the potential of this valuable resource. We are sending a clear signal that, when it comes to new energy, Australia is open for business. The people of Cunningham care about reducing emissions and doing our part to tackle climate change. We also understand the realities involved in keeping the lights on and forging the steel required for infrastructure. An offshore renewable sector will require diverse skill sets in steel making, manufacturing, engineering, port and land logistics, and many others—skills that the Illawarra has.

Our community has a thriving port in Port Kembla, a world-class university hosting brilliant minds in the University of Wollongong and a manufacturing base with a long history. The ocean off the coast of Wollongong is also a source of strong and reliable wind. Blue Economy's 2021Offshore wind energy in Australia report shares our region's potential when it comes to renewable energy. The report notes that highly developed port facilities, steel mills and fabrication and manufacturing facilities, as well as a skilled workforce, make Port Kembla a good resource. Wollongong knows how to make things. We have strong and consistent ocean wind, and we are innovative and hardworking. The creation of an offshore renewable energy sector would be a perfect fit for the Illawarra.

Our government has also committed $10 million for an energy futures skill centre at the University of Wollongong and $2.5 million for a renewable energy training facility at Wollongong TAFE. These two investments will help train the workforce needed for the renewable energy jobs of today and tomorrow, jobs that this bill paves the way for. We are already home to groundbreaking organisations working on hydrogen electrolysers, sustainable buildings and renewable energy innovations, and we are ready to tap into the global offshore wind sector.

The Renewables 2022global status report highlights the growing uptake of offshore winds worldwide. In 2021, the total offshore wind generation capacity increased to 54.8 gigawatts. Offshore wind accounted for more than 18 per cent of newly installed wind-power capacity and represented nearly 6.5 per cent of total capacity at the end of the year. Countries like the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium are all harnessing the power of offshore wind. Offshore wind currently contributes around 13 per cent to the UK electricity mix. This is generated by 44 wind farms, totalling over 2,500 turbines. Last year, the UK installed over 2.3 gigawatts of new offshore wind installations, making up 70 per cent of total European installations for 2021.

The Global Wind Energy Council's Global wind report 2022 mentions Australia as a market to watch. The report identifies that, with an estimated offshore wind potential of nearly 5,000 gigawatts, our opportunity is huge. However, the report, which was published prior to the election, identified that this opportunity was held back by a lack of federal ambition and incumbent support for fossil fuels. Well, that is no longer the case. The Albanese Labor government is ambitious and getting on with the job. We have a vision of Australia as a renewable energy superpower and of growing a strong economy while reducing our emissions.

The Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 builds on our election commitments. Our Powering Australia plan will encourage growth and investment in regions that have been powering Australia for decades—regions like the Illawarra. Powering Australia will create 604,000 jobs, with five out of six being in the regions. It will encourage $76 billion of investment and finally bring governments and business together around renewable energy. The economic benefits are immense and so are the benefits to our planet. We have already legislated a 43 per cent minimum emissions reduction target by 2030 and a net zero target by 2050. Powering Australia will also increase the amount of renewables in the National Energy Market to 82 per cent by 2030. This bill helps us to achieve these goals.

We are also investing $20 billion to rewire the nation, modernising the grid to unlock the potential of offshore wind and other forms of renewable energy, because this government understands the massive opportunities renewable energy provides to Australia and to regions like the Illawarra. With this bill and our other policy initiatives we are paving the way for Australia to become a renewable energy superpower. It updates the existing Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 to reflect machinery-of-government changes, and it extends the jurisdiction of the Customs Act to lower the risk that offshore renewables infrastructure is used to smuggle goods into Australia.

These minor necessary changes will enable the creation of an offshore renewable energy sector—a sector that will create jobs for Australia, particularly in coastal areas, jobs that will enable these communities to continue to power our nation and jobs that will contribute to an increasingly decarbonised economy. That's a sector that would be right at home in Wollongong, with our strong manufacturing base, established port infrastructure and the University Of Wollongong. The offshore wind sector has already been embraced by countries around the world, and it is increasing year by year as technology improves. This government understands the potential of offshore wind as well. Australia has strong and consistent offshore wind resources.

This bill is great for Australia and it is great for coastal regional communities like the Illawarra. It sends a clear message that Australia is open for business when it comes to clean energy, and a message that will help create an offshore renewable energy sector creating regional jobs, generating cheaper and cleaner energy, and lowering our emissions. I commend the bill to the House.

Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill, and of course support the opposition's amendments. As a former resources minister, I've had some exposure to offshore structures. We continue to see from those opposite—I will give Minister Bowen, the member for McMahon, his due: he is 100 per cent committed to his ideals. He is an idealist, but he is absolutely not a realist and a realist is what we need in this space. The forecast we saw in the budget yesterday, as expected, and as we warned the Australian people, was a more than 50 per cent hike in the price of electricity. What has changed? There has been a change of government, there has been a change of policy, and we've seen brought forward changes in the closure of reliable and affordable base load coal-fired power stations in this country. That will be paid for by the Australian people. That will be paid for by Australian businesses. The member for McMahon, better known as 'Blackout' amongst my colleagues—he's very well known amongst my colleagues; he got a good run in question time yesterday. I'd say to the member for McMahon: we need to look at some of the history here, and in particular some of the subsidies that have already been provided to intermittent wind and solar.

I had some research done by the Parliamentary Library, both on this bill and some previous support that's been provided over a long period of time, and I want to provide some examples for you. To start with, simply under the RET scheme—I'm sure those listening would know what that is; it's the Renewable Energy Target scheme—the LRET alone, between the years 2011 and 2016, resulted in $5,166,000,000 in subsidies paid for by either the taxpayer or users. Five billion. The SRES, the small-scale scheme, between the same period—2011 to 2016—was $5,485,000,000 for a total of $10,000,000,671. We're without the last six years of data, we don't have that data anymore, but it would have gone up substantially.

The Library says that, in total, at least $30 billion in subsidies and support has been provided for intermittent wind, solar and renewable energy. That is an incredible amount of money. You could build significant amounts of actual generation that works for $30 billion, without that additional support. So what we see is long-term support for a technology which is now considered mature, but that is not enough for those opposite. They need more to meet their ideals, and we saw Minister Bowen announce the 82 per cent Labor Renewable Energy Target. He said at the AFR Energy & Climate Summit that it will require 40 seven-megawatt wind turbines every month until 2030 and more than 22,000 500-watt panels installed every day, with 60 million by 2030.

This is my background. I'm an electrical engineer; I'm an electrician by trade. I've got a reasonable understanding of what it takes to do this work. This is not going to happen. It just will not. It is an incredible thing to put to the Australian people, and the result will be an increase in electricity prices. We've seen the budget itself identify more than 50 per cent. The people I represent can't pay their bills now. Can you imagine how they will be situated when the power price goes up by more than 50 per cent? How will industry be competitive internationally when the power price goes up by more than 50 per cent? How will they be competitive when the lights continue to go out? The thing about intermittent wind and solar is that it provides intermittent lights and power.

These are real numbers. Rough and ready, wind turbines produce in the 30 per cent range for utilisation. On average, they produce 33 per cent of their installed capacity. For example, if they are three megawatts across a year, on average they provide one megawatt. At times they'll provide three megawatts and at other times they'll provide zero—none. At times when there are providing none the lights will go out. If you have 80 per cent reliability on an intermittent supply, then your supply will be intermittent. The lights will go out, industry will leave and we will lose jobs. We even saw forecast by federal Labor in last night's budget that there will be an increase in the unemployment rate and that we'll continue to see inflation going up. They said consistently through the election and up until recent weeks that they will drive up real wages, but the budget says that real wages are frozen for two years. You simply cannot trust them.

If we look at solar panels, utilisation of solar panels in Australia is around 22 per cent, so roughly a fifth. If you have five megawatts, then you will get on average one. At times you'll get five; at other times you'll get zero. This is incredibly bad for the network, because it means that not only does the load shift up and down—that's what the demand is—but you now have the supply moving up and down. That creates huge instability. In electricity networks that means blackouts, because things trip. You can't maintain consistency for frequency control, for voltage regulation and for a thing called system strength. You have to pay for all those. They are ancillary in existing equipment; they come for free. You get that because, quite simply, it's inherent in spinning capacity.

These are just some of the things that have already been happening right around the world. But in terms of offshore wind turbines, I had some data put together, as I've said, by the Library. They've said that the first wind farm decommissioned—it lasted just 10 years—due to malfunctioning turbines. Two others had lifespans of more than 20 years. These are very new installations in Australia, and I've worked on a number of them. What we know very clearly is that whatever you put into the ocean corrodes. It is very difficult to maintain things that are in the sea. Ask any fisherman; ask any trawler operator; ask anyone that is putting things out there.

As I said earlier, as a former resources minister, I've dealt with a lot of offshore infrastructure and assets, and I still recall court cases and others where the claim was that 'whales will run into them'. Now, won't someone think of the whales! We have potentially hundreds of offshore structures. Will the whales magically determine that, because of the low-frequency noise from the turbine, they'll avoid it? And yet, if it was oil or gas, they'd run into it! This is the type of nonsense that gets put forward by those opposite.

In terms of the construction, we find that they include steel, copper wire, electronics, metal gears and lots of oil—because you've got a turbine and spinning components—and the wind turbine blade is 93 per cent composite material: two per cent PVC, two per cent balsa and three per cent metal paint and putty, rough and ready. This is obviously from the Library. Each blade can be between 25 and 100 metres long. At the end of the life cycle of the asset, it has to be removed and you have to do something with it. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think this might even surprise you: the forecast is that, by 2050, a total of 43 million tonnes of wind turbine blades will have to be put into landfill. There are very few other options. That's 43 million tonnes. Those opposite filling the ocean with turbines and towers that may or may not last their designed life. They are also producing enormous amounts of waste which can't be recycled.

The member for McMahon's proposal has been to change the decision-making power to him as the minister. There are very good regulatory authorities for offshore structures, which have been in place for decades, in NOPTA and NOPSEMA. NOPTA is for permits and approvals and NOPSEMA is obviously for design. That is what they do. In this legislation proposed by those opposite, those decisions are being taken away and given to the minister. I like Minister Bowen! He's a very interesting individual, but I'm quietly confident that he has absolutely no idea about geotech, about engineering, about design for corrosion, about life cycle and about how to ensure things are actually looked after and not abandoned and left for the Australian taxpayer at the end of their life, which may be much, much shorter than expected.

This is fraught with danger, if we look at what is happening around the world and locally. As we've heard from other speakers, the proposal now is that we will see offshore wind farms in the Hunter, Portland, Bass Strait and Bunbury. I can tell you where the load is; it's not there. The load is in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. It's in the capital cities, where most people live. I say to those individuals—to the member for Warringah, in particular, who's very keen on this—there are some great spots for wind at Manly Beach. It's close to the load, you can move it in nice and tight, you don't have to transmit it, you don't have to build transmission lines all over the country. Get out there and support this. You should be moving these things to offshore Sydney, because that is where the load is. It makes sense from an engineering and an economic viewpoint; it absolutely does. Less transmission means less losses and that means less cost, particular for the taxpayer. It's an incredibly good spot to put them.

We see transmission plans—whether it's offshore or onshore—right around the country as part of the proposal from those opposite. We are now seeing reports of payments proposed of up to $200,000 a tower. For those who might be listening to this discussion, there is a regulated price for transmission costs in this country. It is fixed and it is paid for by consumers. Every single piece of transmission that is installed in this country is paid at a set rate of return, and it is paid for by electricity users. It puts up prices. The concept that you will build thousands—in fact, more than 10,000—kilometres of transmission in this country with no impact on cost is wrong. It is absolutely wrong, and it will be paid for by the Australian people, by Australian consumers. We will lose businesses, internationally, who are no longer competitive.

Our great advantage in this country has been the cost of resources: gas and electricity. We have the technology. We have very hardworking individuals. We have lots of people who are out there investing in Australia, but they are walking away in droves because they cannot be competitive internationally at these types of prices. And nor will they be in the future—particularly if their business is only able to run when it's windy or sunny. The utilisation rate that I've put forward in this presentation is accurate. That's what it is: it's in the 30s and 20s. We haven't seen the big elephant in the room yet. This has to be backed up. If you have an 82 per cent intermittent wind and solar delivery system, you must have that 100 per cent backed up or the lights go out. It's not that difficult a proposition; it is very, very straightforward.

It will cost a fortune. Even AEMO has said transmission alone is more than $300 billion. We've seen a commitment overnight from the Labor Party for transmission, for Rewiring the Nation, of $40 billion. You're 300-odd short. And that's just on what's in the AEMO ISP—let alone all of these other things being proposed. They do not have enough money. They have not told the Australian people what it will cost. And it would be incredibly damaging to our economy.

Those opposite need to get back into the world of realism. Idealism is fine, but the Australian people have seen overnight that the budget is all about the ideals of the Labor Party. I was quite shocked by a comment from the federal Treasurer, reported on the front page of theAustralian this morning, about trying to 'condition' the Australian people: the Australian people need 'conditioning' to get used to these types of budgets. They don't need conditioning; they need help. They need support at a time when cost of living is through the roof. They need support when they are losing their homes. They are sleeping in cars. And yet we see federal Labor's budget not help on cost of living. Proposals are pushed out into the future. They have cut more than $10 billion from regional projects. I'm sure, Madam Deputy Speaker Sharkie, there are some cuts in your area that will impact you. These projects drive jobs, they drive the economy, they provide opportunities for employment. That is what matters to individuals who are trying to pay their bills, but what we have seen are increases in cost of living. We saw promises of a reduction of electricity prices, and instead they are going up by more than 50 per cent. We saw promises on real wages; instead, we see freezes. We saw commitments on infrastructure; instead, it's all been cut.

The Australian people, very clearly, supported a Labor government—not in Queensland so much, but around the country—and I accept that. And they are getting a Labor government. It is a Labor government which will be managed by its ideals, not by outcomes. It will do things like conditioning the Australian people—'Socialism 101'. I just want you to help them. I represent some of the poorest people in the country. They cannot pay, and that has always been the case. We have enormous penetration of rooftop solar in my patch, and the reason for that is that people can't pay the bills. They are literally turning off their fridges overnight, trying to find ways to save. These are Australians, in this country—it is outrageous. And yet we see more propositions for more things that don't work and that will cost an absolute fortune for the Australian people. And the taxpayer will pay. That's assuming they're still employed. We see that there are going to be increases in unemployment over future forecasts, under a Labor government.

We haven't seen anything to do with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. That still has to be approved. And many of these proposals will trigger the EPBC Act. We saw in the budget last night that the Environmental Defenders Office has been funded—that great bastion that takes all of our resources companies to court and shuts down their projects, like the Barossa gas project. Will we see them come out and try to save the whales? Will they take the $2 million plus a year, in perpetuity, and use it to shut down offshore wind because they're concerned about birdlife? To be honest, they should be. I think that is at really high risk. These measures are environmentally poor. Since when were batteries environmentally friendly? It's just incredible.

Those opposite are all noise and no substance. They are all ideals and no reals. They are all cost, and they are certainly not helping the Australian people. This will continue into the future under the government, because it is what they truly believe. Get out and talk to some people who actually have to deliver this stuff. It is not possible, it will not work, and you have not funded it or costed it.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to contribute to debate regarding the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. I'm speaking for this bill because the issues of climate change and renewable energy were the top issues that locals in Bennelong raised with me and, ultimately, issues they voted for. They voted for a strong voice on climate change to be their voice here in our nation's parliament. They voted for someone to support legislation just like this: legislation that will unlock our nation's renewable energy potential; legislation that will produce emissions-free electricity as we drive down our emissions to our legislated targets, and hopefully well above them. Offshore wind is just one way that this government is getting on with the job. After a lost decade of denial and delay, we're getting on with the job of tackling climate change and investing in renewable energy and the economic prosperity that renewable energy delivers. We know that offshore wind is poised for explosive growth globally.

As an island nation, Australia has a coastline more than 60,000 kilometres long, with very high wind resources. With that comes so much potential for offshore electricity. Right now there are more than 10 offshore wind proposals in Australia just waiting to be given the green light by this parliament. We know that offshore wind power is abundant. It's homegrown, it provides jobs and it is affordable. These projects promise enormous generation capacity, with tens of thousands of jobs in the construction phase, thousands of good, ongoing jobs as they become operational, and billions of dollars in investment. Importantly, most of these proposals are sitting alongside our traditional energy regions. We heard from the member for Cunningham, who's proud to have had her electorate identified as an area where offshore wind can prosper. We already have very strong infrastructure in place in those regions because of the electricity grids that transmit traditional power. Our regions have the most to gain from a thriving offshore wind industry.

We heard earlier, but I'll repeat it: 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 is already in operation, with expected increases of up to 80 gigawatts by 2030 and 2,000 gigawatts by 2050. Just to put all of that in perspective, currently Australia's entire national energy market is around 55 gigawatts. With these proposed projects alone generating over 25 gigawatts, we will have more offshore wind resources than we could ever possibly use ourselves. That means there are lots of opportunities for us to export this clean renewable energy globally.

It's deeply regrettable that all the benefits of offshore wind have been delayed for so long because of the inaction of the former government. Credible offshore wind projects have been waiting for more than five years for this legislation. We heard that it was only after Labor's pressure—the offshore electricity act came into effect in June 2022—we finally have a framework for regulating offshore renewable energy infrastructure in Commonwealth waters. The previous government dragged their heels on getting this industry up and running, and there is no doubt we have a lot of catching up to do.

This legislation makes some small administrative amendments to the existing Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act of 2021 to reflect recent machinery-of-government changes. It also makes some technical amendments and closes a regulatory gap in the Customs Act to ensure full coverage of customs obligations for new renewable energy infrastructure projects offshore. This regulatory framework for offshore renewables will contribute to delivering cleaner, cheaper renewable energy for Australian households and businesses. This underpins the acceleration of energy transition and decarbonisation in Australia—exactly what locals in my electorate of Bennelong voted for.

Not only are we doing this but we're sending a clear signal to the world and to investors that we're open for business when it comes to new energy investment, giving the certainty to the market that our country has been crying out for for over a decade. As I mentioned, there are so many great opportunities for jobs and industry in our lifetime—opportunities for new traineeships and apprenticeships, for our local manufacturing and supply chains, for our seafarers and blue economy workers and for those currently working in traditional resource industries.

Not only do we have the capacity to manufacture the parts needed for these wind turbines but we also have the deepwater ports to export wind turbines. There aren't many places in the world where you have the rail infrastructure, the manufacturing capacity, the skills and the deepwater ports to produce and export offshore electricity. Australia's share of manufacturing and supply chain activity in most renewable energy sectors is low, but it really doesn't have to be that way. After years of manufacturing decline, imagine all the jobs we can create locally by creating new energy sources, like offshore wind, and adding those to our current mix.

Offshore wind also offers immense opportunities to produce green hydrogen for export. In my electorate we have Hyundai, one of the pioneers and leaders in hydrogen technology for transport. Hydrogen, produced by offshore wind directly or through the supply of electrolysis located in port facilities, is a real game changer. If we can produce hydrogen from renewable energy, we can forge a multibillion-dollar green industry with tens of thousands of new well-paid jobs for our regions.

Now that this legislation has been introduced, it is time for us to move and to move fast. We don't have a moment to waste. We cannot waste another 10 years, like our predecessors. We're taking steps towards our vision of a decarbonised economy, we're considering where offshore renewable energy infrastructure may be suitable and we're consulting industry and regional coastal communities about them.

The people of Bennelong supported me because they want to see real action on climate change, and that's exactly what this bill does. For too long the conversation in Australia has been skewed towards the costs of climate change action instead of the opportunities of climate change action. We have a huge amount of work to do to seize these opportunities. We have only 86 months until 2030, and that's not long for the massive transformation that our environment needs. It would be a much easier path if we weren't grappling with a lost decade on this policy. It means that we have no time to waste. It also means we need to be all in. Government can't do it all and nor should we try to. This must be a whole-of-economy effort and a whole-of-society effort. I'm pleased with the progress our government has made so far, but there is so much more to do.

You'll recall in the first 26 days of coming to office, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy formalised Australia's updated nationally determined contributions under the Paris agreement, our 2030 target. In 109 days we passed the Climate Change Act, enshrining this target into legislation. As I said earlier, I'm pleased with and proud of this, but I'm not satisfied. I'm not satisfied because we have so much more to do and only 86 months to achieve that 43 per cent reduction. This bill will help us get there.

Our climate change target will require an energy revolution, and that's why we're targeting 82 per cent renewables in our electricity grid by 2030. A big part of that was a huge announcement that the minister for climate change made last week, the first and biggest investment from our Rewiring the Nation plan that takes us one step closer to achieving our emissions reduction target. It is the biggest energy investment by an Australian government since the Snowy Mountains Scheme in the 1940s. It's called the Marinus Link, with two undersea transmission cables to connect mainland Australia to the abundant renewable energy available in Tasmania. This agreement will support Tasmania's plan to increase renewable generation by 200 per cent. It will improve our energy reliability, cut emissions and create thousands upon thousands of new clean energy jobs all at the same time, unlocking the potential that our land has to create more renewable energy.

Just in conclusion, if you take anything from the first few months of this government it should be not just be that it doesn't want to waste a day but that consultation and collaboration is a key part of this government's reform process. We took an agenda to the last election which was endorsed by the Australian people. But in implementing it we know we need to work with every sector of our economy and every part of our community to make sure we strike the right balance.

To achieve Australia's emissions reduction target of 43 per cent by 2030, it's estimated that we'll need to install 40 seven-megawatt turbines every month until 2030. This is a lot. Is it achievable? We will try our very best, working with industry, the regions and energy producers in our economy to do so. We'll act rapidly. After the last decade of inaction on climate and cuts to renewable energy, we're turning things around.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. As we know, the coalition in government passed legislation to enable the development of offshore electricity infrastructure through the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill 2021. It provided a robust framework, particularly in Commonwealth waters, for this path of development. The majority of this bill has our support. However, to improve the bill even further, I support the amendment moved by the shadow minister, the member for Fairfax, in this space.

There is a proposal for a particular offshore wind farm in my electorate, off Bunbury and throughout the south-west along Binningup. In looking at this at a presentation recently, it was apparently around 5.5 kilometres. It's currently looking at starting in state waters. It's a near-shore construction. It will expand into Commonwealth waters over time. The proposal is for 111 turbines, 15 in state waters and 96 in Commonwealth waters, producing 1.8 gigawatts of power. Construction is expected to take place between 2028 and 2030 and it's expected this wind farm will be operational from 2031. I'm not sure of the exact height of the turbines, but we know that, according to NOPSEMA information, they started off at a particular height and now can be built to up to 250 metres. I understand the company stated that it has 10 offshore wind projects fully approved and ready to go. As I know, from talking to my colleagues, it's really important that we have the right location for offshore and onshore wind turbines and wind farms. We've seen some very successful ones in the member for Grey's electorate and also in Tasmania.

One of the important parts of this is to really consider the whole-of-life management of the infrastructure: the logistics, the construction and the maintenance; issues around corrosion and potential collision with vessels; the particular impact on bird life; the issue of fires; mechanical and electrical equipment failure; and potential wind damage. The life span of wind turbines ranges from 10 to 15 to around 20 years, so the removal, the recycling and the decommissioning of these is also an issue to be considered at this point, which is what we really want to see throughout this legislation. In particular, the financial arrangements for licence holders should also be considered to guarantee the dollars are there for not just the maintenance but the removal and the recycling.

I am also particularly focused on local procurement that might go with this in my electorate. I'm aware that, in certain areas, the same crew is used to simply service various wind farms on rotation, and it may not involve locals. The presentation that I saw recently, in spite of what has been said, showed that once these wind turbines are in place, whether onshore or offshore—and it's the same with solar panel farms—there are actually very few jobs locally available once they're operational.

We see in this legislation that there is a change that gives the minister discretion in the decisions around the financial side of this for the proponents. Certainly, robust guarantees need to be put in place, whether it's by way of a banknote or a letter of credit, and there needs to be an enduring arrangement so that, at the end of life of the piece of infrastructure, the actual dollars are there and financed by those who actually built and benefited from this particular infrastructure.

I'm also concerned about the national security and sovereignty issues. The fact is that, at this time, at least 80 per cent of solar panels are produced in China, and that's moving towards 95 per cent. In the turbine space, China is also a major supplier. I've received some information around the recycling capability, and certainly the turbines that came out of Germany had a higher recycling capability than others. So, when you consider the 10-, 15- or 20-year time frames, these are all practical matters that need to be dealt with when these sorts of projects are on the table.

Recently, at the Energy and Climate Summit, I saw the need, as we've heard repeatedly, for 47-megawatt wind turbines to be built every month until 2030. It will be a significant task to manage these and to recycle them over time, and, as we know, they could be up to 250 metres high. At the same time, we will need to see 22,500-watt solar panels installed every day—that's 60 million by the end of the decade. NOPSEMA talks about the location of the turbine—whether it's solar or wind or onshore or offshore—and the importance of its closeness and proximity to the markets where the demand is. We know that to be often either industrial or city based, because that's where the demand is.

In rural and regional areas, we're now seeing the impacts of this. The most important thing will be the social licence, the community consultation process and the real concerns around the changes in this bill that give the minister the financial security of the licence holders, which will sit with him and not with the regulator. There is concern that rural, regional and, sometimes, more remote communities could be steamrolled in this process.

We also know of the 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines that will be required onshore. This will have a significant impact on rural, regional and, potentially, more remote communities. I'm unashamedly a farmer, and the other issue around the new solar farms is that there are some significant areas that are the right place for onshore wind farms and solar panels, but there are also some places that are the wrong place for onshore wind farms and solar panels. We know that the sheer size of the area that will be required for both will be significant, which is why I also very strongly support the amendments proposed by the member for Fairfax, the shadow minister for climate change and energy.

Given the ministerial control over the financial arrangements, it's really important that the regional communities are not steamrolled and that they are well consulted on the installation required and are a part of the discussion from day one. That is a particular part of the amendment that I am very supportive of. That social licence is so critical, and in rural, regional, and remote areas it is very, very important. It's not okay to say in that space, 'You will just take this whether you like it or not.' There is a real need to engage with the community along the way.

The issue of product stewardship is important; the whole of life of these particular pieces of infrastructure is really important. But I am very committed to maximising local procurement, which is, again, covered in the amendments. It's important that wherever the infrastructure is located, whether it's onshore or offshore, the local communities are actually benefiting and the local businesses—the small businesses engaged in this—are actually beneficiaries of this space. There is a real need for real transparency around each financial security deal approved by the minister—no question. The community needs to have confidence in that process and to know that, at the end of life for that infrastructure, there are arrangements in place not only for the ongoing servicing and maintenance but for the removal and the recycling. The community needs to know that that is in place from day one so that they have confidence that they won't be left with assets that are no longer working and with no funding to support that work.

In the budget last night, we saw a potential increase of 50 per cent in energy bills and 40 per cent in gas bills to 2023. What we need is a managed transition as we move through. It's the government's job to manage the transition because there is a need for affordable, reliable and dispatchable power. Under the coalition we saw electricity prices fall by 10 per cent for households and small businesses and by 12 per cent for industry. In spite of what's being said, we also saw $40 billion invested in renewables from 2017.

I support the legislation and I support the further amendments to improve this bill and to improve the outcome. As I said, it's really important to rural and regional communities that they are part of this process and that they can have confidence not only in their dealings with the actual companies but in the whole-of-life management of these particular assets and this infrastructure. One clear way of doing that is to ensure the financial security side of it and to have clarity over that, but the social licence to operate in those communities is also particularly critical. There is a real need for our communities to be engaged early on and to not be steamrolled in this process. It is equally important that there is a benefit for those small communities not only with the production of this electricity but in the management of the process throughout its life span, whether that's 10, 15 or 20 years, and that appropriate management and recycling are part of that.

Josh Wilson (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm glad to speak in support of the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. The Albanese Labor government is getting on with the task of modernising Australia's energy system. That's the long and short of it. This bill is an instalment in that process; it makes an important contribution to that process. It's a task that has been utterly neglected for the past 10 years. It's a task that's been utterly neglected over the course of a decade when the world has been making a profound shift with respect to the generation, distribution and use of energy. It's a shift that will define the 21st-century, and for the last 10 years Australia, thanks to the previous government, has essentially been asleep at the wheel. We're not going to allow that to continue. We are taking on the long-neglected task of modernising Australia's energy system.

We are blessed in this country with incredible natural resources. That's been part of our history. We are also blessed with fantastic human capital, with incredibly talented scientists and engineers, and we're blessed with a community that's always been an early adopter of new technology. I don't think there's any question that the Australian community over time has actually embraced positive change and embraced a range of technological developments that have been necessary and beneficial. This is the latest one, and it's the most critical for our economy and for our social and environmental wellbeing.

For all of those reasons, we absolutely should be a renewable energy superpower. If we achieve that potential, which, frankly, is what the Australian community has every right to expect, then we will have secured a whole range of benefits: cheaper energy, less pollution, lower and lower carbon emissions and greater energy security and resilience at a time when we can see other countries suffering from a lack of that kind of independence and resilience. We see that currently in Europe as a result of Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine and the associated consequences of that action and its response. We will see a new range of renewable energy exports, which will be of enormous benefit to Australia, and a new range of business activity in manufacturing, technology, development, offshore installation and maintenance and all the jobs that are involved in those activities.

This Labor government is squarely focused on doing all the things that are necessary to modernise our energy system. We need to significantly increase the proportion of renewable energy in the mix and we need to do that through a diversity of generation. That's what this bill goes to, because it's frankly quite bizarre that we do not presently generate one watt of offshore wind power. I'll come back to how bizarre that is on a comparable basis shortly. We need a diversity of generation as well as an increase of generation. We obviously need investment in associated distribution and storage. I know, Deputy Speaker, that those are things that you've been engaged with. I remember the work of the energy and environment committee in the last parliament looked at some of your contributions to the question of how Australia pursues a low-carbon future, particularly in its approach to energy generation, other kinds of industrial developments and the way that we measure the emissions associated with that.

All of those things have been neglected. All of those things are now being taken on. They can't be changed with a snap of the fingers, but they can't be left just to gather dust in the corner, either, which has been the case. We saw the Prime Minister just the other day down in Tasmania talking about the Marinus Link. That's a distribution project that will allow what Tasmania has to offer as a storage state. It will really be one of the batteries of the nation—probably the most significant battery of the nation in the short term—in addition to projects like Snowy Hydro. We need to have the benefit of that. We need to make sure that the whole nation is connected so that renewable energy generation created in one part of Australia can supplement the needs in the other parts of Australia, and it is the same with storage.

As I suggested before, Australians could be forgiven for wondering why there hasn't been a single offshore wind project located at the hem of our island continent. There are probably people who assume that perhaps the reason for that is that our wind resources aren't up to scratch, that the reason we've done well in solar and had projects in onshore wind but not offshore wind is perhaps because our offshore conditions just aren't suited to that, but nothing could be further from the truth. We have wind resources that are comparable to the wind resources in the North Sea off the United Kingdom. Of course, the United Kingdom has the greatest amount of installed offshore wind capacity of any nation. I think the UK gets 21 per cent of all its power from wind power, and 10 per cent of that is from offshore wind. That's the kind of potential that Australia could look at. I think the report by the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre identified Australia's wind potential as being in excess of 2,000 gigawatts. We haven't yet tapped a single watt of that, which is strange.

If you look at what we could achieve and take where we're currently at, you see that about 29 per cent of our generation currently is renewable. I think nine per cent of that is wind presently. That's all onshore wind, not offshore wind. As I said, look at Denmark, where 50 per cent of their renewable energy is from wind. In the UK, it's 21 per cent, with 10 per cent being offshore. South Australia has shown the value of wind in that, at various times, 40 per cent of its energy generation comes from wind but, as yet, none is from offshore wind. That's something that we can really benefit from and increase in future.

Last year, wind generation grew 14 per cent globally. In total, the additional wind generation was the largest amount of new wind power that had ever been added. To give a sense of how other countries are approaching the offshore wind opportunities: the United States has a target of achieving 30 gigawatts of installed offshore wind by 2030, and the UK, which currently is the world leader in installed offshore wind capacity, has a target of achieving 40 gigawatts by 2040. If we achieve that, we will diversify our renewable energy mix. We will bring some of the cheapest energy generation into the mix, which will lower household prices.

We'll also create new industries and related jobs. Again, that report I mentioned, which I think was produced in the middle of last year by the Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre, suggested that, at the low end, by the of this decade we'd expect to see about 4,000 additional permanent jobs in offshore wind and potentially as high as 8,000 jobs. That fits in with Labor's overall ambition when it comes to our Powering Australia policy, which estimates that, by achieving 82 per cent renewable energy by 2030, we will create 600,000 new jobs and five out of six of those will be in rural and regional Australia. My colleague from Western Australia, the member for Forrest, will be very aware that one of the identified zones is off Bunbury in Western Australia, on the south-west coast, adjacent to her seat.

Like everyone who happens to live in an urban area, I'm very mindful of the fact that our economic development should be focused on the needs of rural and regional Australia. That's a part of our national community that almost always gets left behind or comes to the party late. We have an opportunity, as we make this transition, to correct some of those disparities and imbalances. I think it's remarkable, when we look at the potential in this industry, to think that five out of six new jobs potentially will be in rural and regional Australia.

On the jobs task: I could talk about the neglect of the previous government under five or six different subheadings. One of them would be about the lack of preparation for the transition we're making with regard to Australian workers. Despite the fact that the former government made commitments through the Paris Agreement to prepare for transition, nothing was ever done. We saw a massive dropping away in training numbers generally. And we saw nothing that was aimed at preparing young Australians, and Australians in a range of industries undergoing change, for that change through training and job transition. That's in stark contrast to what our partners have done elsewhere—other comparable countries.

The American Jobs Plan that the Biden administration issued had six separate initiatives directed at clean energy, electrification, zero carbon manufacturing and those kinds of things. The UK Green Jobs Taskforce was squarely focused at that piece. I'll quote from that because I think it's really well put in the Green Jobs Taskforce report from the UK. It said:

As we look ahead to publishing our comprehensive Net Zero Strategy and hosting COP26 in the autumn, we must focus on how we invest in the UK's most important asset—our workforce—so that people have the right skills to deliver the net zero transition and thrive in the jobs it will create. We must ensure that green jobs are good quality, that they can be accessed by people of all backgrounds and in all parts of the country, and that workers in sectors and industries undergoing change can reapply their skills and expertise towards this new challenge.

That's exactly what we should be doing in this country.

I note that the World Economic Forum has looked at that transition question and identified the top 10 skill sets required in the net zero carbon economy. Of those top 10 only three are industry specific. So there's a lot of potential to allow people in existing industries to transfer into these new jobs. But government has to actually take on the challenge and be an active part in working with communities, working with unions and ensuring that the educational and training infrastructure or architecture is there to enable that transition to occur.

The reality is there's going to be work in areas like asset and project management, engineering and technical skills, mechanical and electrical engineering, control instrumentation, blade and turbine technologies, marine biology, geophysics, hydrology, oceanography—all of these different areas are going to be involved in the offshore wind industry and other related parts of the new energy transition. We should be preparing young Australians and workers in affected industries to take the benefit of it. Labor is doing that. That's why we went to the election with the new energy apprenticeship program, and that was delivered on in last night's budget. The new energy apprenticeship program itself—$95.6 million over nine years from 2022-23 to support 10,000 people to complete new energy apprenticeships—is exactly what we need to enable people to be part of this exciting change, with all the benefits it will bring.

Separate to that, there's a new energy skills program, $10 million over five years from this financial year, to support Australia's workforce to transition to a clean energy economy. That is just one of the many things that we have been, sadly, lacking over the last 10 years.

This bill is an instalment in that great neglected project of modernising Australia's energy system. It is bizarre and inexplicable that a country like Australia, with the best wind resources going around, including offshore wind resources, has not yet tapped a single watt of that potential. We've shown what our community, what our tech sector and what our energy businesses can achieve in areas like household solar, large-scale onshore solar and all of these other things. Yet, offshore wind somehow remained a strange and inexplicable blank within the palette of energy options. This bill is an important step towards correcting that.

We know we have some 12 projects that are under consideration that will begin to address what has been an aching gap in our portfolio of energy generation options. We're doing all the things that are related to the transition, particularly in relation to the workforce aspects of it, because it's not only about more energy and diverse energy generation, more energy resilience and security, lower air pollution as well as lower carbon emissions, it's also about new jobs, new exports, new opportunities for young people and people in industries that are going through change, particularly in rural and regional Australia.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Fremantle for that contribution. I'll take it, by the fact that he didn't declare Fremantle waters open for business, that maybe he doesn't support wind farms in his electorate, but we'll have to see how that unfolds in the future. That does come to one of the points I want to make in this speech, which is about the denial of the reality and actuality of our move to renewable energy in Australia.

I also want to take issue with the member for Fremantle's comment—and unfortunately he has now left the chamber—that somehow the coalition was not doing its job in the effort to transition Australia to renewable energy. In fact, as we well know, our emissions in Australia have fallen by 23 per cent since 2005 levels, on a trajectory that was to continue under the previous government's policies. Under the coalition government, for instance, $40 billion had been spent on renewable energy in Australia since 2017—6.1 gigawatts of capacity in the last five years. These are the kinds of figures that put Australia among the top 15 per cent of performances in the world when it comes to the transition to renewable energy. That is no mean feat, and it should not be belittled by those on the other side of this chamber. They should speak with clarity, transparency and truth on this subject. They should use that last word—truth—and actually stick to the facts and steer away from the rhetoric.

The member for Fremantle mentioned South Australia. In South Australia there is 2,300 megawatts of installed capacity of wind, 400 megawatts of installed capacity of large-scale solar and 1,800 megawatts of rooftop solar. I have great interest in this, as the member for Grey. Of those wind farms, just a tick under 2,000 megawatts sits within the electorate of Grey. Close to 75 per cent of the large-scale solar capacity sits within Grey as well. And there is a lot of interest, particularly in the upper Spencer Gulf area, in generating more renewable electricity, perhaps converting it into hydrogen, and tapping into the wind resources of the far west coast of South Australia, with new transmission lines under construction at the moment. That will be good for my electorate.

I'll give the wind farm operators a bit of a tick here. They've learned a lot in the years since they first started. They've learned to give the landholder a bigger slice of the action. I've had very few complaints from landholders who have wind farms on their property and are in receipt of proper financial recompense—very few complaints about problems with having wind farms. The wind farm operators have come to realise they need community consent. They've become more generous with neighbours who might be inconvenienced by the wind farms, and with communities generally.

I have no problem with the idea of wind farms generally, and I have no problem with offshore wind farms. I think it's right and proper that we have in place legislation that will enable people to build offshore wind farms if that is what they wish to do. But I am mystified, I have to say. Australia is the sixth-biggest country in the world. It covers 7.7 million square kilometres and has, interestingly, 34,000 kilometres of coastline. Most of that coastline is a good prospect for wind farming. Certainly, the southern coast of Australia is fantastic for wind farms. You would well appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie. One of the things we do know about offshore wind farms is that they are more expensive, and somebody has to pay the bill at the end of the day. So I'm fairly mystified that, in a country this size, somehow we have to build these wind farms offshore. But we do know why that is, and I touched on it at the beginning of this speech: it's the denial of reality and fact. Most people are in favour of renewable energy, but a whole lot of them don't want to see it. They don't want to know about it. They don't want to have to look at it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I know you come from an Australian rules football state. I was very keen—I think I'm maybe past my prime now—on playing half-forward for Adelaide, but probably the reality is I could not, I'd have to say. We all want renewable energy, but we somehow don't want to see these monstrosities, as some people call them, next to us. We all want better mobile phone service. You'd be surprised, Mr Deputy Speaker, at the number of people who come to me and say, 'I don't want a mobile phone tower anywhere near me, but I do want service.' We have this problem in Australia that people are saying, on the one hand, 'I want renewable energy,' but, on the other hand, 'I don't want it near me; somebody else has to have it.' Otherwise, we would have seen the member for Fremantle standing up to say, 'I want it off Fremantle port.' But he doesn't want it there. He wants it off my coastline, where my people will have to look at it. People should be honest with themselves about this situation, and politicians should be honest with the public that there is a cost as a result. That cost will be financial, but that cost may also be to your amenity.

I'm indebted to Minister Bowen for pointing out that we are going to need 18,000 kilometres of transmission towers. I hope the people building those transmission towers will take a leaf out of the book of those people who built the wind towers and start cutting the landholders in the local communities a decent slice of the action. But, if they do that, it will come at an extra cost. It will go on the power bill for the box that's outside your house and everybody else's house in Australia, unless they're not connected to the grid, of course. But for most people it will come in the price of the product coming down from the power line to them. That is where the honesty is lacking in this campaign. This will all come at added cost.

The Labor Party came into government on the commitment to the Australian people that power prices would come down $275 a year under their watch. I read the budget last night. I'm sure you did, Mr Deputy Speaker. It actually tells us it's going up by 50 per cent in the next two years. It is Russia's fault, apparently. That is what the Treasurer said. There are a whole lot of other things at play here. It is not as simple as the invasion of Ukraine. There are a whole lot of other drivers for the electricity price. So let's be honest about it.

Let's be honest about the fact that the move from fossil fuels to renewable energy is not a cost saving; it's going to come at a cost. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it; I'm saying we should be realistic and truthful about where this is heading for Australia. We should also be truthful about what a 50 per cent increase in our power prices is likely to mean for industry in Australia. We have heard the government wax lyrical about the idea of growing manufacturing jobs in Australia. Good luck with that! With a 50 per cent increase in power prices, good luck with growing new manufacturing jobs in Australia. We will be fighting tooth and nail to keep the ones we have already. I will be fighting for them. I have 40 per cent of Australia's steel industry in my electorate. They don't need higher electricity prices. I have a significant multimetal smelter in my electorate in Port Pirie. We do not need higher electricity prices. They are all looking at investment in renewables to power these operations, and I'm pleased with that. But they know it doesn't come free. It comes at a cost. So let's be truthful with the Australian public about those matters.

Mr Bowen tells us that, along with the 18,000 kilometres of new transmission lines, we are going to have 22,000 new 500-watt solar panels installed each day for the next eight years. I actually haven't done the calculation on how many that is in total. It is certainly in the millions at 22,000 a day. Gee whiz! There will be a lot of jobs in that! But I think you should tell us where those panels are coming from—this is an important part of Australia's security. At this stage, 95 per cent of solar panels are coming out of China. I don't know if anyone has looked at the tensions in the Asia-Pacific lately, and at Australia's economic security and our supply lines, but how strong a position will Australia be in if our electricity system relies entirely on a nation that may have hostile intent for us?

I haven't heard anything from the government about where we are going to get these solar panels from. There's been absolutely nothing. We're also informed that there are going to be 40 wind towers built a month. Considering that I already have about 2,000 megawatts of nameplate capacity wind towers in my electorate, and I've watched them go up and seen how fast they can build, I suggest that this would take just about Australia's whole construction industry. Did you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there are 1,600 tonnes of concrete in one wind farm? That's a lot of concrete. It emits a lot of carbon. I don't buy into that argument that somehow wind towers aren't efficient when it comes to reducing carbon, but I do think it needs to be realised this is a resource that will need to be removed one day. Forty a month is an astonishing number, and I just don't know where they're all going to go. Obviously, they are all going in the sea. They will require more concrete there, I would say, than they are likely to require on land.

I would be very grateful if the government would actually explain not only where the solar panels are going to come from but where the solar panels are going to go to when we've finished with them. At this stage, the waste stream coming out of renewable energies is a completely unconcluded area that everybody just ignores, because we don't have to deal with it in any great scale now. I am hopeful that it will be possible to recycle solar panels, but to what level I don't really know. And certainly with the windfarms, my understanding at the moment is that wind farm blades, which are made of fibreglass, are not recyclable. I don't know whether they could be made into something useful, but my understanding is that at the moment they get torn to shreds and buried. And the life of those wind blades is certainly not the life of the tower. They are replaced quite often. So there is a significant stream there that is going to require fossil fuels—I presume fossil fuels are required to produce fibreglass.

But, once again, all I'm asking for is honesty in this debate, and it is just so lacking on a general basis. As we saw from the government, they presented a platitude before the election: 'We're going to your power by $275.' Afterwards, a little bit of honesty crept through with the budget, because they had to deal the Treasury estimates, and then it was, 'Oops! It's going up by 50 per cent.' We need honesty and transparency. Let the sunshine in, fellas. That would be a really good thing, because at this stage I'm not seeing too much of it.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn't it timely that we are discussing this bill today, the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022, the day after the budget, because what we saw in the budget last night was something quite extraordinary. We saw the government come out and admit that over the next two years your electricity bill is going to go up by 50 per cent—50 per cent! Yet, we heard nothing—and we haven't heard it mentioned since the election—about the government's commitment to deliver a drop in your electricity bill by $275. It was mentioned 97 times in the lead-up to the election. You would have thought that the Treasurer last night would have been up-front with the Australian people and said, 'Sorry, we can't deliver that $275 reduction in your power bill.' But there was no mention of it—none whatsoever.

We've got the minister here in the chamber! He won't mention the words $275. I will say them while he's here: $275.

Stand up, Minister, because we'd love to hear it: $275. I'm happy to cede the floor to you. Come on, mention $275!

Honourable members interjecting—

Oh! Just so everyone's aware, and we've got two members here who heard it, he was mumbling under his breath '$275'—

yet he will not stand up and say $275! Say it in the parliament. Get on your feet and say it so that everyone can hear it. You said it 97 times during the election, but you will not mention it now. Not once. You were at the dispatch box six or seven times yesterday. You did not mention $275. And this is the sad reality: it shows you how duplicitous this government is. That's the sad reality that Australians have woken up to today. They've seen the budget papers and they've seen duplicity—outright duplicity. It's a shame, because it's going to be households that feel the pain of that 50 per cent increase.

And not only that, businesses are also going to feel the pain of that 50 per cent increase. The sad reality is, as we also saw last night, the budget papers show that the unemployment rate in this nation is going to go up. One of the reasons the unemployment rate will go up is because these energy bills continue to go up. The sad reality that the budget also showed is that real wages aren't going to go up like the government promised before the election. Real wages were meant to go up, but they will go down. What we saw in the budget last night was a government with no plan, no economic plan whatsoever, to address the challenges that this nation faces.

Now, what about this Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill? What about this bill? Well, this bill builds on some very good work that we did when we were in government. But it also shows, and demonstrates once again, that the government has no plan. Let's think about how offshore wind is going to be developed in this nation. Right now all the contents for offshore wind will be imported—all the blades will be imported, all the towers will be imported—because this government has no plan, no plan whatsoever, to see how we can have local components in these offshore wind farms. None whatsoever. And I would say to the minister, while he's here, he needs to think long and hard as to how he is going to ensure this is going to happen. I'm told that when he was approached about this he was completely dismissive about it. He wouldn't even give the time of day to those who raised it with him. I'm hoping that arrogant, out-of-touch, duplicitous approach that we're already seeing from this government will begin to change, and we will start to see them looking very seriously at these issues.

We also know, because the minister—I'm so glad he's here—has told us, there is going to be 28,000 kilometres of new poles and wires right across the landscape of this nation. Now I, sadly, have already seen what those kilometres of poles and wires look like if they're not done properly, if there's not community consultation, and if those poles and wires shouldn't be above ground—especially in bush prone areas and in areas where there is good productive agricultural land. Those wires should go underground because, at the moment, those poles and wires are coming in and, more often than not, they're using cheap steel that's been imported from China and they are a blot on the landscape. And not only that, they are being put on roadways, next to roads, so they're actually dangerous. They are actually dangerous. They're not being properly regulated, they are not being properly put in place and they are dangerous. They're already eroding, and our road network is already dangerous enough. So, Minister, 28,000 kilometres of new poles and wires is not going to be accepted by the people of rural and regional Australia, and you're going to have to think very, very carefully about how you are going to do this. We're already seeing it as a blot on the landscape, and it will only make a bad situation worse if you do not get this right.

We also need to think about how you are going to be able to deliver a proper transition when it comes to energy for this nation, because, right now, you are rushing in a way which is going to turn the lights out in this nation. Any transition has to be done properly, and any transition has to be done with a careful plan. We are seeing nothing from this government about how its rush to renewables is, in any way, going to generate jobs in this nation and put downward pressure on energy prices. As a matter of fact, we're seeing the complete opposite. We are seeing a plan which is going to lead to job losses and which is going to see energy prices go up. This will have a detrimental impact on the Australian people, and, worse than that, it will have a detrimental impact on the communities that rely on cheap energy to make sure that they can sustain their livelihoods.

Minister, you absolutely need to go back to the drawing board to look at what you are doing to this nation. We know that, last time you were in government as a minister, there was complete chaos within the portfolios that you administered. The sad reality is that we're starting to see the exact same thing again, and that is because you don't have a plan. We had a plan, and the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Bill was part of our plan. It was part of an orderly transition which would see this nation being able to continue to generate jobs, while also dealing with downward pressure on emissions and downward pressure on electricity prices. Now we are seeing the complete opposite.

One of the things that really concerns me more than anything else is what impact this will have on communities in my electorate, in particular the town of Portland, where we have one of the few aluminium smelters in this nation. We have to make sure that there is an orderly transition which will see them continuing to access affordable energy that will enable them to continue to provide aluminium, which earns us export income and provides jobs to our local community. If we do not get this transition right, those jobs will go and all the benefits that accrue to the local community from that smelter will disappear.

We have not only that but also Keppel Prince, which makes wind towers, and, if we don't get this transition right and if the minister can't deliver on his wild claims of how many jobs are going to be delivered by renewable energy, then we're going to see those jobs at Keppel Prince go as well. I am yet to see any plan from this minister—none whatsoever—as to how any content in offshore wind will come from Australia. I would say this to you, Minister: you need to lose a little bit of the arrogance and go and talk to these people. Sit down with them and work out how you're going to deliver on the jobs that you have promised. They are not seeing anything, and they are hearing nothing from you as to how that is going to take place.

In summary, it's timely that we're debating this bill today, because last night we saw the most extraordinary budget delivered. It was much ado about nothing apart from one fact: the commitment from this government to take $275 off your electricity bill was jettisoned and what we got instead was a 50 per cent increase in your energy bill over the next two years. The $275 is out the door and a 50 per cent increase is coming to your energy bill over the next two years. What a budget! That was the key takeaway from the budget.

We also know that we are going to see 28,000 kilometres of new poles and wire infrastructure across the Australian rural landscape, with no plan on community engagement; no plan on making sure that those wires will go underground where there's productive agricultural land and where we need to protect our local communities from fire hazard; and no plan on upgrading the two-phase power that still exists in a lot of rural and regional Australia. We're going to have lots of new poles and wires and nothing to address the two-phase power that we have across many parts of rural and regional Australia. There is no plan whatsoever.

The one good thing about this discussion is that we now know that the minister mumbled '$275' under his breath—and we heard it! So now we will wait for the minister to get up and actually say: 'We will not be proceeding with the $275 cut to your electricity bill that we promised 97 times before the election. We will not be proceeding with that.' Minister, that's what we want to hear. You mentioned $275; you mumbled it under your breath. Let's hear you get on your feet and just admit it to the Australian people. There's nothing wrong with admitting you promised something and you can't deliver it. Just get up and admit it—you've admitted there's going to be a 50 per cent increase in people's energy bills. Although I note the Treasurer didn't say that last night. It was just in the budget papers; he didn't say it in his address last night. So hopefully what we're going to get now from the minister is a bit of honesty and a bit of frankness. He's going to come clean with the Australian people. He's going to say: 'Your electricity bill isn't going to go down by $275. Instead, it's going to go up by 50 per cent over the next two years.'

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

I'd like to thank all honourable members who have contributed to this debate on the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Legislation Amendment Bill 2022. I particularly thank honourable members from the government. I also do want to thank honourable members from the opposition. I particularly like it when the member for Hinkler contributes, because he reminds all Australians of just how backward-looking the opposition is. He reminds all Australians of why the coalition lost the election when he gives a rant against renewable energy and talks about how renewable energy can't be recycled and about how bad wind turbines are. I always welcome a contribution by the member for Hinkler, in particular, and I'm sure it will be broadcast in electorates throughout the country. Those electorates voted for a climate government—a government that takes action on climate change—whether they voted Labor or Independent. The member for Hinkler is one of our greatest assets, and I always like it when he contributes to the debate.

An honourable member interjecting —

Thanks for your contribution. The establishment of the offshore renewable energy sector will promote regional development, enabling investment in Australia's coastal areas and creating thousands of jobs. One of the great things about offshore wind is it creates a lot of energy and it creates a lot of jobs. The offshore wind turbines need strong maintenance because they work very hard; it's very windy. That means there are ships going out to the wind turbines and that means that ports are re-enlivened.

I was interested to hear the honourable member opposite, the member for Wannon, just say that we need local content. I welcome his contribution after nine years of doing absolutely nothing about local content. Local content is certainly something that I've discussed with state and territory ministers, and we'll be working on that together when we come to detailed licensing arrangements, for his information. If he wants to have a serious conversation about local content, he can have one. But I won't be taking lectures from someone who sat there for nine years and watched manufacturing decline in this country. He was a member of a government which asked the car industry to leave. I was there in the parliament for that. I'm old enough to remember when Joe Hockey was Treasurer—that's how long I've been here—and he got up and he shamed Holden into leaving Australia.

This bill does make some small administrative amendments to the existing Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 to reflect recent machinery-of-government changes, which is very sensible and necessary. It also makes some technical amendments and closes a regulatory gap in the Customs Act 1901 to ensure full coverage of the customs obligations for new renewable energy infrastructure projects offshore. This is all very sensible.

I do note that the opposition has expressed concern about a change which alters the role of NOPSEMA and the role of the minister. I do not accept the points made by the opposition. It is right and proper that the minister of the day, whoever that minister is, be empowered to reflect and represent the interests of the Commonwealth. NOPSEMA is a good regulator, but that is not its job. While it is a Commonwealth entity, it is actually not formally, constitutionally and legally part of the Commonwealth. And the Commonwealth's best interests should be protected by the Commonwealth. Certainly my approach as minister, if such a decision were to be taken by me, would be to consult and seek advice from NOPSEMA and my department in reaching those conclusions. But it is appropriate that the minister of the day, whoever that is, have that power. So I will be opposing the detailed amendment moved by the opposition, and, of course, I'll be opposing the second reading amendment on the basis that it's ridiculous.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

SPEAKER ( Mr Stevens ) (): The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this, the honourable member for Fairfax has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.